# merged thread(s)



## perpend

Oy---There may be merged threads on this very topic, but it's my pet peeve du jour.

Is the merging of threads helpful or more distracting, since it adds more confusion. 

Sometimes there's synergy, but more often I find the "merging" forced. 

What do members think?


----------



## bearded

perpend said:


> more often I find the "merging" forced


Hi
I agree. The only occasions on which I find the merging justified is when the previous thread (on the same subject) is very recent, and members still may have it on their minds.  I realise that my viewpoint is not in accordance with WR rules, and besides there would perhaps be too many threads.  Nevertheless, I usually find thread merging irritating.


----------



## perpend

That is a good point. I can see the reason when it's recent.

When it's not, I think most readers don't even read and/or understand that it's merged.

I know it's written from moderators that it is, but I think most people on WR gloss over those notes, and try to read from beginning of the "merged thread" to the end, and get bored, because the attention span wanes these days, in particular among the Millennials, which would be a target demographic.


----------



## elroy

Why exactly do you find it irritating, bearded man?  And what's "forced" about merging two threads on the same or a similar topic?

If you were active in the newer thread, you can just keep on participating as if it hadn't been merged.  Why does it have to bother you that it's been attached to a previous thread?

I think thread merging is a very beneficial feature.  The forums are ultimately meant to serve as a supplement to the dictionaries.  Sometimes I search for a word or phrase in the dictionaries and find 17 threads with the word/phrase in the title (some of which address the same things).  Having to click on several threads and read the same thing in all of them - _that's_ irritating.  Having everything together in one thread is much cleaner and more convenient.


----------



## perpend

Would you agree that "merging" isn't always "merging" in the benefit of a topic, elroy?

I think it boils down to topic, when it was introduced, what it's about---"blanket merging" because one topic appears similar to another isn't necessarily good.


----------



## elroy

Are you saying that sometimes you don't think that the topics of two (or more) merged threads are similar enough to warrant merging?  If so, you can report the merged thread to the moderators and try to make a case for splitting it again by explaining why you think the original topics are distinct enough to each deserve its own thread.


----------



## bearded

elroy said:


> Why exactly do you find it irritating, bearded man?


Mostly because the merging is effected on occasions even when the subject is not exactly the same, but just slightly similar... And besides, since previous threads are usually long, members are obliged to read a lot before they find your new post.  But I only wrote ''irritating'', not that merging is an insuperable obstacle.

Perpend, why do you write ''merged(s)''?  What's the function of that S?


----------



## perpend

Re: #6: Sort of ... sometimes the threads are forcefully merged. I think it's part of WR moderator protocol to consolidate threads.

Often, it's not really fruitful. It makes things more confusing for readers/learners, in my opinion.


----------



## velisarius

It's one of the rules perp (Rule #1 in fact) - before you open a new thread, check that there is no existing thread on the same topic. If there is, you are welcome to add any new question or ideas to it (when you've read that thread through). Often the thread will answer your question, so it would be pointless to start a new one.

If the old thread is very long, and there is a genuine need to start it up again, a new question might be  a good idea. Extremely long threads are a bit annoying sometimes.

If there are very many thread titles in the dictionary pages all dealing with the same hoary old question, members will not find them very useful. The main purpose of the forum is to supplement the dictionary definitions. The threads are there for posterity (in theory anyway).

So there is some method in the mods' madness.

As someone pointed out above, if a member participated in a thread about - let's say "goldfish" - if someone opens a new thread about goldfish, he might not see it.  If the threads are merged, he may still be subscribed to it and will be able to offer his goldfish expertise, for the edification of all. 

I know it's important to have good questions asked, as well as good answers to them, but it's important not to think of a thread as "belonging" to the person who opened it: threads will be hanging around for  along time and read by many - a thread "belongs" to those who contribute to it and to those who may read it later on, just as  much as it "belongs" to the OP. A proprietary attitude is not very helpful.


----------



## swift

I think Velisarius’ explanation is extremely clear and it goes to the point.





velisarius said:


> it's important not to think of a thread as "belonging" to the person who opened it


Very well put, Mr V. 


elroy said:


> The forums are ultimately meant to serve as a supplement to the dictionaries.





velisarius said:


> The main purpose of the forum is to supplement the dictionary definitions.


  That is often said but not always understood by the forum members. I even think it’s harder than any forum rule. When I look up some very frequently used terms or phrases in some bilingual dictionaries (the English-Spanish one in particular) and see that there are dozens of threads with the same title and yet only two or three of them contain really helpful and instructive and straightforward information, I can't help feeling *hopeless*.


----------



## Ghabi

I've several things in mind when merging threads:

- So the same answers need not to be given all over again, although they can always be supplemented or elaborated;
- So a searcher of the forum can read all the relevant information about a certain topic in a single thread, instead of gleaning it piecemeal from many different threads;
- So the starter of the new thread can gain assess to the useful answers already given about a certain topic in older threads, which they may not be able to find otherwise. Although we're always asked to "search the forum first", searching can indeed prove very difficult, when the topic comes to orthography/grammar/phonology etc (instead of the usage of a particular word or expression), and a would-be searcher may return emptyhanded, especially when they are still new to the language. So merging their new thread to the older ones is a way to help them get the information they need.

To avoid any confusion after a merge, I would usually:

- Leave a redirect, which would remain visible a day or two in the forum;
- Add a moderator's note in the new post (originally the first post of the new thread), like "Merged with a previous thread of a similar topic".

As Elroy explains above, one can always "report the merged thread to the moderators and try to make a case for splitting it again by explaining why you think the original topics are distinct enough to each deserve its own thread". It happened before, and I don't think we mind eating humble pie (moderation is a humble thing in general): we're willing to undo things if we know we've made a bad decision.


----------



## ewie

What I find annoying is when members, on discovering that 'their' new thread has been merged with an old one, then proceed to delete all their contributions, _despite other members' having replied to them_, a process which results in baffling, meaningless threads.  Presumably they do this because they'd like 'their' threads to remain 'their' exclusive domain ...


----------



## Kelly B

It is rare that I start a thread. I'd much rather find an answer in existing threads, because I don't know who'll be available on line to answer.

I find it very useful to have all the responses about Expression X in one place: better to read many responses in one thread, rather than to open thirty different threads that say essentially the same thing, just to ensure that I find the response that fits my own context best.

Time permitting, I browse through all the threads that have been started or reawakened in my favorite forums since the last time I was here. It doesn't matter when the thread was created, or who started it, or how long it is. I navigate through them with the Next/Previous thread feature, so if your post is new, the whole thread will move into my unread list, and I'll see it regardless.

If I think your context is a new or significantly different way to use Expression X, I'll report it to suggest that it be separated back out, with a title that makes the difference clearer. You can do that, too. On the other hand, if it's not, I'd much rather say "I think post 10 would fit your context perfectly" rather than essentially rewriting post 10 from that thread in a new thread you opened. 

Ooooooh, I just now remembered the list of additional benefits I offered when this came up in 2013. Please see my post #19 linked below.  These are benefits *to the person asking the new question.*
Adding questions to existing threads: effective?


----------



## Language Hound

I'm all for adding questions to existing threads for the reasons the other proponents have stated above.
In the cases where the threads were old and quite long, I preceded my questions with bold, eye-catching alerts
so readers would know that I was looking for a response to _my_ question, not the one in the OP, e.g.,
****NEW (2015) POST****

I also find that it helps immensely to remember to check the date listed under the thread title before opening the thread.
Not that I always remember...


----------



## perpend

Thanks for the (in part, extremely) thoughtful input. I've learned quite a bit from the insight provided.


----------



## bearded

perpend said:


> I've learned quite a bit from the insight provided


And just out of curiosity:  have you changed your mind/attitude with respect to your initial position?


----------



## perpend

Wow. That's the money-question, bearded.

I really don't know. I found the responses interesting, and was thinking this thread would be merged with the one Kelly linked to in #13.

It hasn't yet (been merged).

I'm of the opinion that the less mergers the better. I would just delete certain things, period, on WR, to clear out the "in-box".

By that, I mean that yes, there are myriad threads just upon a certain word/phrase. Just electronically nix many of them. What's the big diff? Is there some legal issue?

I don't see why it's not in WR's jurisdiction to just expunge a lot of stuff, instead of trying to "merge" / "merge" / "merge".

It sounds like a 70s song. I alluded to it above---the social media generation (Millennials) just click away, when it's too involved.

Clear as mud, bearded?


----------



## velisarius

In theory I'm in favour of doing away with a lot of old threads that are not particularly useful, though that would involve many hours of work for the mods. Even if unhelpful threads (very old threads that attracted no relevant answers) are reported by members, mods have to check them all before binning them.

In practice they would have to be very old threads anyway, as people (OP and contributing members) get upset when their threads just disappear, strangely enough. That's why only threads that don't meet WR guidelines and rules get removed. 

For tidying-up purposes, it's safer to merge - especially if there are several short threads with the same title/topic.


----------



## perpend

What's to be against just deleting them, to clear the air and cyberspace, so-to-speak, veli?

Why not just air the whole thing out?


----------



## Loob

Are you recommending deletion of new threads that duplicate old ones, perp?


----------



## perpend

No, Loob. 

What gave you that idea?


----------



## bearded

perpend said:


> Clear as mud, bearded?


No, your attitude is now quite clear (like water in the old ensemble Creedence Clear-Water Revival), and thanks for answering my question.
Just for the record: I'm inclined to share your point of view, perp.


----------



## Loob

perpend said:


> No, Loob.
> 
> What gave you that idea?


Wouldn't it be better to delete newly-started threads that duplicate old ones rather than allowing the new threads to continue and repeat the same material?


----------



## perpend

bearded man said:


> No, your attitude is now quite clear (like water in the old ensemble Creedence Clear-Water Revival), and thanks for answering my question.
> Just for the record: I'm inclined to share your point of view, perp.



I appreciate it, bearded. I don't think we're the only ones.  (Luv CCR.)


----------



## perpend

Loob said:


> Wouldn't it be better to delete newly-started threads that duplicate old ones rather than allowing the new threads to continue and repeat the same material?



I don't have one iota how that works or what it means.

EDIT: I understand now what you mean. I'd do the opposite. Keep the new ones, and delete the older one there are very similar to the new ones.


----------



## elroy

Currently, in the English Only forum, out of 346,341 threads, only about 5,700 (about 1.6%) have more than 20 replies - "despite" all the merging.  I'd say excessively long threads are probably not a major concern around here.


----------



## velisarius

There are relatively few long threads, but they may be among those most visited, especially by new members.

I don't think they are a major concern either but I like Language Hound's tactic of highlighting a new question in an existing thread. (Post #14). Discreet use of colour is another possibility: *New question*


----------



## Ghabi

perpend said:


> By that, I mean that yes, there are myriad threads just upon a certain word/phrase. Just electronically nix many of them. What's the big diff? Is there some legal issue?


If you mean deleting newly started threads that concern topics already discussed before, then yes, deletion is one of the options to deal with them. There are three options, according to my experience:

- Delete the thread with the reason "please search the forum first for previous discussions of the topic". I do this when I'm pretty sure OP can find the old threads with a simple search.
- Close the thread, and point out the previous discussions (with links) to OP in the thread. I do this when I think OP may not be able to find the old threads.
- Merge the thread with an older one of the same topic. I do this when the two threads are similar enough but the topic still has room for elaboration.

If you mean the older duplicated threads, then there's no reason to remove any of them as long as they contain useful information (individual posts can be removed of course if they're not useful), as the goal is to build up a useful database. To remove duplications, we merge them. There's no reason why we don't merge old threads when we happen to see them.


----------



## siares

I think merging is a good idea, if it can avoid the requirement for people to add to old threads. If the question were first allowed to be answered and then merged to existing thread. Premature merging I noticed sometimes leads to no answers.

Discussions on adding to old threads- I would like to see more contributions from people who start a lot of threads and are not ex-moderators. I often see what I perceive as shaming of people who don't think it is the best idea in the world to add to old threads.
Browsing old threads, I think the theory is far prettier than reality. A recent one I came across: a thread where 3 out of 3 appended questions were unanswered.
2 got no answer, and the third question was ignored, people discussed previous posts (not OP, just some middle ones).


velisarius said:


> Discreet use of colour is another possibility: *New question*


This is a source of frustration for me, when I base a question on all the above posts, and I get an answer repeating the above general advice rather than addressing specific tidbit I have problem with.
But if you think this would help old threads getting answered, then it should go to the rules, with a warning that people who answer the thread do not read all the posts. (I myself don't think it would help. If I am not mistaken old threads even get less views)


----------



## JamesM

perpend said:


> What's to be against just deleting them, to clear the air and cyberspace, so-to-speak, veli?
> 
> Why not just air the whole thing out?



Because this is an information database, not a chat room.  Why would we throw out hundreds of thousands of answers to people's questions?  I think this is where the difference between WordReference (emphasis on *reference*) forums and other online forums is often lost on people.


----------



## wildan1

Please realize that while all of us active participants enjoy seeing what each other offers as help to a current question, but once the original poster's needs are met, we as moderators need to judge whether the information provided is useful for future readers.

Ninety percent of WRF's readers are not members. Those readers (non-registered) are the only ones to see the advertising on the Forum, and that advertising pays for all of us to enjoy the Forums' richness, free and _sans_ advertising when we are logged in.
_
Merge and purge_ is what many of us do as moderators--mostly behind the scenes. The process is quite complex, and each forum has its own protocols on how to go about it.

After 11 years, there are just too many discussions across all the Forums for anyone to be able to capture all the duplication that exists. When you see duplicates, please help us by clicking on "Report" to let us know.

Thanks, 
wildan1
FR-EN Moderator


----------



## perpend

I appreciate more thoughts from the moderators to help me better understand WR philosophy, and why you do what you do. Thanks!

I am also very appreciative that siares, another normal member, has participated. There are some interesting points made by siares. It's interesting to hear normal members' views as well.  We're all in this together.  Feedback never hurts, especially when it results in a good discussion.

I did a random search of "climb up", imagining that I had a query, and the regular dictionary entries didn't help me, so I went to the "threads" on "climb up":
[Go/come] upstairs/[ascend/climb] the staircase/walk up the [stairs/steps]
a rope climb up a rift
climb (up) (something)
climb by or climb along/up
climb or climb up
climb up [more formal term?]
climb up a mountain by quad bike
climb up it
climb up it
climb up the (outside of the) house
climb up to the heaven/sky
prepositions "onto", "up", "on" with the verb climb?
scramble or climb up/down a rope
the temperature will climb up.
They couldn't climb up...
They couldn't climb up...

If a member has a query about "climb up" that isn't clear from normal WR dictionary entries, is it expected they go through that many threads before they post a query? It's been addressed above that all info is good info, for reference, but that many threads is intimidating for a normal member, not to mention, as stated above, intimidating for the 90% of users who are not members---plus, moderators have said it's hard to keep up with all the merging that would be conceivably be required to lessen the data footprint of WR.

Just thoughts. Again, thanks all for thinking about it.


----------



## Gemmenita

.
*Merging threads? Of course an EXCELLENT IDEA!*

Hi ,



elroy said:


> (...)Sometimes I search for a word or phrase in the dictionaries and find 17 threads with the word/phrase in the title (some of which address the same things).  Having to click on several threads and read the same thing in all of them - _that's_ irritating.  Having everything together in one thread is much cleaner and more convenient.





Exactly the same problem for me, *elroy* !!!

And furthermore, not only this backwards are irritating and _time-consuming_ but also this list of not-merged threads is sometimes so long that most of the time I give up half way and also the worst effect of this huge_ mass of threads_ _with exactly the same title_ is that sometimes the whole list of threads which has the capacity for only 1000 threads falls short of space and remains _incomplete_ at the end and then finally I can't find at all the thread that I was searching: I mean this message that appears  at the end of the incomplete list _occupied by_ _repeated titles_  :




Yes, elroy, if those 17 threads as well as other groups of identical threads in any other list had already been merged in 1 thread, maybe the thread that a member searches would go up and appear at the end of the list!


----------



## wildan1

The merging of threads is often held back by more pressing moderator responsibilities--helping newbies, improving unclear thread titles, clearing out off-topic or beyond-the-scope posts, mediating interpersonal clashes.

When established members do follow our rules and don't post new threads before checking the dictionary, don't proofread, don't ask more than one question in a single thread, etc., then we all have more time for clean-up and merging.

Just sayin' ...


----------

