Why do we have so many general discussion threads in this forum?
Some years ago, there were a lot of new topic threads and you can follow the main news by reading the title of these new topics.
Today, if a new topic is created, often it's blocked and a moderator is requesting to write in a general discussion thread.
Probably it"s only my opinion, but I prefer when I was able to find new info thanks to new topics pop up in this forum.
For example, I didn't see any info regarding new aircraft orders at farnborough this year since these info have been added in the dedicated general discussion threads. But you have to read all posts and sometime there are a lot!

Could you please explain me why general discussion threads are prefered?

Thanks

I agree. I guess having threads makes for easier 'housekeeping', but for me, my enjoyment of Airliners's is a lot less than it used to be (I have been a lurker for, literally, decades). I used to enjoy discovering interesting facts and news about airlines from the various topics that I wouldn't necessarily go and search out. These days I scan the topic titles, but rarely dive into the generalised thread topics.

Yah it’s not much of a forum if you can’t make any topics.

anair79 wrote:

Why do we have so many general discussion threads in this forum?
Some years ago, there were a lot of new topic threads and you can follow the main news by reading the title of these new topics.
Today, if a new topic is created, often it's blocked and a moderator is requesting to write in a general discussion thread.
Probably it"s only my opinion, but I prefer when I was able to find new info thanks to new topics pop up in this forum.
For example, I didn't see any info regarding new aircraft orders at farnborough this year since these info have been added in the dedicated general discussion threads. But you have to read all posts and sometime there are a lot!

Could you please explain me why general discussion threads are prefered?

Thanks

Your thread has been moved to Site Related — that's the only forum where these types of discussions are permitted.

The general discussion threads were mostly created by groups of users wanting to discuss topics more broadly. They only look like they were started by us because we refresh them every year. Noteworthy topics can and should have their own dedicated threads, and if it's being merged into a general discussion thread, then please report it for another moderator to review, or please email us at moderators@airliners.net. Those merges sometimes happen because they're mundane questions that are best answered in a general discussion thread, but if it's something noteworthy, then we want it to have its own discussion. If your thread is being merged and you think it shouldn't have been, please notify us so we can review and potentially rectify the issue.

I think the concept of generalised threads is good, not bad.
It is possible to create new threads (and I've created many), but the subject needs to be substantially different from any other thread. The alternative, is that you get a very large number of threads, each with just 1 or 2 replies, and possibly even multiple threads discussing what is largely the same topic.

Most people do not have time to read about every single topic - people typically have an interest in a few specific areas - maybe airports in their local region, or about a few specific airlines, or maybe they are interested in a particular type of aircraft - but importantly they are not interested in some things, not everything
By creating generalised threads, it allows for deeper discussion on a subject - it means that people interested in the same subject need look in just one place, and because they know there is a central location for discussion of a particular topic, they are more willing to contribute posts. If it takes too long to find the threads of interest, people just don't bother searching at all.

A similiar idea is with the development of markets and retail areas - if all buyers and sellers on a particular product meet in one place, you end up with much more efficient trade. If you are interested in buying some good quality fruit... you know to look for the fruit shop, and not the sell-a-little-bit-of-everything shop. Furthermore, having one large shop selling a wide choice of apples is more efficient than 10 tiny stalls each selling a small number of apples at different locations in a town. Yes, in trade there are considerations around monopoly suppliers, but a.net forums don't involve money so this doesn't apply here. Equally if all people interested in a subject meet in one place, you get a far more efficient exchange of ideas

Shuttle wrote:

I agree. I guess having threads makes for easier 'housekeeping', but for me, my enjoyment of Airliners's is a lot less than it used to be (I have been a lurker for, literally, decades). I used to enjoy discovering interesting facts and news about airlines from the various topics that I wouldn't necessarily go and search out. These days I scan the topic titles, but rarely dive into the generalised thread topics.

We don't want these threads to be merged for the purposes of housekeeping, and that was never the original intent for these general discussion threads. That isn't to say that it hasn't been happening, but I've been very vocal with the other moderators about limiting thread merges, because it's doing a disservice to users and to the forum.

atcsundevil wrote:

We don't want these threads to be merged for the purposes of housekeeping, and that was never the original intent for these general discussion threads. That isn't to say that it hasn't been happening, but I've been very vocal with the other moderators about limiting thread merges, because it's doing a disservice to users and to the forum.

Thanks for the feedback and it is good to hear that the mods are still trying to make sure news worthy of 'standalone' topics isn't merged.

And as DavidJohnson's feedback shows, the threads are obviously popular with a lot of people

atcsundevil wrote:

anair79 wrote:

Why do we have so many general discussion threads in this forum?
Some years ago, there were a lot of new topic threads and you can follow the main news by reading the title of these new topics.
Today, if a new topic is created, often it's blocked and a moderator is requesting to write in a general discussion thread.
Probably it"s only my opinion, but I prefer when I was able to find new info thanks to new topics pop up in this forum.
For example, I didn't see any info regarding new aircraft orders at farnborough this year since these info have been added in the dedicated general discussion threads. But you have to read all posts and sometime there are a lot!

Could you please explain me why general discussion threads are prefered?

Thanks

Your thread has been moved to Site Related — that's the only forum where these types of discussions are permitted.

The general discussion threads were mostly created by groups of users wanting to discuss topics more broadly. They only look like they were started by us because we refresh them every year. Noteworthy topics can and should have their own dedicated threads, and if it's being merged into a general discussion thread, then please report it for another moderator to review, or please email us at moderators@airliners.net. Those merges sometimes happen because they're mundane questions that are best answered in a general discussion thread, but if it's something noteworthy, then we want it to have its own discussion. If your thread is being merged and you think it shouldn't have been, please notify us so we can review and potentially rectify the issue.

Thanks for the info

davidjohnson6 wrote:

I think the concept of generalised threads is good, not bad.
It is possible to create new threads (and I've created many), but the subject needs to be substantially different from any other thread. The alternative, is that you get a very large number of threads, each with just 1 or 2 replies, and possibly even multiple threads discussing what is largely the same topic.

Most people do not have time to read about every single topic - people typically have an interest in a few specific areas - maybe airports in their local region, or about a few specific airlines, or maybe they are interested in a particular type of aircraft - but importantly they are not interested in some things, not everything
By creating generalised threads, it allows for deeper discussion on a subject - it means that people interested in the same subject need look in just one place, and because they know there is a central location for discussion of a particular topic, they are more willing to contribute posts. If it takes too long to find the threads of interest, people just don't bother searching at all.

A similiar idea is with the development of markets and retail areas - if all buyers and sellers on a particular product meet in one place, you end up with much more efficient trade. If you are interested in buying some good quality fruit... you know to look for the fruit shop, and not the sell-a-little-bit-of-everything shop. Furthermore, having one large shop selling a wide choice of apples is more efficient than 10 tiny stalls each selling a small number of apples at different locations in a town. Yes, in trade there are considerations around monopoly suppliers, but a.net forums don't involve money so this doesn't apply here. Equally if all people interested in a subject meet in one place, you get a far more efficient exchange of ideas

Hello, thank for sharing your point of view. I think we should akways have the good balance: I agree with you that we should not have too many threads with few replies, but it"s also very difficult to navigate in a very big general discussion thread with a lot of replies to find a specific info.

Quite honestly, I post news much less these days as in the past as I find it frustrating that quite often new topics get deleted/merged because a moderator thinks that the news should be buried in one of the general discussion threads. And I am not talking about trivia, but newsworthy information that will make headlines in trade publications or even the general press.

Just one example from yesterday:

I opened a thread on Airbus planning to have a second engine option for the Airbus A220 and as a result, getting closer to expanding the A220-family. This news was labeled as sort of breaking news by the trade press yesterday. This new thread got deleted quickly (not merged). Someone else has now posted this information as post #422 in the "Airbus 220 Sales Campaign"-thread - where it quite obviously does not belong topic-wise and will most likely go pretty much unnoticed and not be discussed.

The move towards ever more general discussion threads has also reduced my overall use of a.net as it is usually impossible to be alerted about interesting developments by simply scrolling through the first page. I can see the point of general discussion threads when they are about niche subjects (e.g. about developments at a specific US airport or state), but not if it is about news that, as a rule of thumb, will make into the international trade press.

And I don't buy into that "easier to navigate" argument - quite to the contrary: If various newsworthy developments are covered in one thread and people start to engage, the thread quickly turns into a mess if folks reply to different news items.

vfw614 wrote:

Quite honestly, I post news much less these days as in the past as I find it frustrating that quite often new topics get deleted/merged because a moderator thinks that the news should be buried in one of the general discussion threads. And I am not talking about trivia, but newsworthy information that will make headlines in trade publications or even the general press.

Just one example from yesterday:

I opened a thread on Airbus planning to have a second engine option for the Airbus A220 and as a result, getting closer to expanding the A220-family. This news was labeled as sort of breaking news by the trade press yesterday. This new thread got deleted quickly (not merged). Someone else has now posted this information as post #422 in the "Airbus 220 Sales Campaign"-thread - where it quite obviously does not belong topic-wise and will most likely go pretty much unnoticed and not be discussed.

The move towards ever more general discussion threads has also reduced my overall use of a.net as it is usually impossible to be alerted about interesting developments by simply scrolling through the first page. I can see the point of general discussion threads when they are about niche subjects (e.g. about developments at a specific US airport or state), but not if it is about news that, as a rule of thumb, will make into the international trade press.

And I don't buy into that "easier to navigate" argument - quite to the contrary: If various newsworthy developments are covered in one thread and people start to engage, the thread quickly turns into a mess if folks reply to different news items.

Your thread was not deleted for that reason, but because your post was violating forum rules, as we do not discuss the reason for deletion in the open forum please contact us by mail to moderators@airliners.net and ask for the reason.

Even if it was deleted (-> moderation, quite honestly, is pretty inconsistent - I have long given up discussing it with moderators (just check the post I mentioned above)), as I made clear it was just intended an example. As others have complained, it happens frequently that newsworthy content in newly opened threads disappears into general threads never to be properly discussed or seen again. Apparently even the moderators have differing views on the wisdom of that approach, which is quite frustrating for the users of a forum. As you can see from my posting history as a member of 21 years, my activitiy has significantly decreased as the forum has become more and more user-unfriendly.

vfw614 wrote:

Even if it was deleted (-> moderation, quite honestly, is pretty inconsistent - I have long given up discussing it with moderators (just check the post I mentioned above)), as I made clear it was just intended an example. As others have complained, it happens frequently that newsworthy content in newly opened threads disappears into general threads never to be properly discussed or seen again. Apparently even the moderators have differing views on the wisdom of that approach, which is quite frustrating for the users of a forum. As you can see from my posting history as a member of 21 years, my activitiy has significantly decreased as the forum has become more and more user-unfriendly.

I would agree. The secrecy and bureaucracy at this place is amazing. What other website on the planet doesn't allow open discussions about deleted topics or moderation actions? I literally cannot think of one. Its bizarre and only creates hesitancy to actually become involved.

LabQuest wrote:

I would agree. The secrecy and bureaucracy at this place is amazing. What other website on the planet doesn't allow open discussions about deleted topics or moderation actions? I literally cannot think of one. Its bizarre and only creates hesitancy to actually become involved.

Nothing we do is a secret, we just aim to protect user privacy. Not everyone wants their mistakes or transgressions broadcast to the entire community. If you ask me a question, I will answer it, and believe me I'll be brutally honest about it, as I have done so both in public and in private in my 6+ years as a moderator here. If you've never reached out to talk with us (and I don't recall having interacted with you previously), then you can't out accuse us of acting in any specific manner. Obviously you haven't been on the forum for long enough to remember when there was no way of publicly broadcasting your concerns because it simply wasn't allowed. To say that we don't allow open discussions is disproven by the very existence of this thread — we have deleted nothing in this thread, and we rarely delete anything posted to this forum provided it's in at least a reasonably respectful tone.

vfw614 wrote:

Even if it was deleted (-> moderation, quite honestly, is pretty inconsistent - I have long given up discussing it with moderators (just check the post I mentioned above)), as I made clear it was just intended an example. As others have complained, it happens frequently that newsworthy content in newly opened threads disappears into general threads never to be properly discussed or seen again. Apparently even the moderators have differing views on the wisdom of that approach, which is quite frustrating for the users of a forum. As you can see from my posting history as a member of 21 years, my activitiy has significantly decreased as the forum has become more and more user-unfriendly.

You've had 21 years to apply to the moderating team to help improve things you see as being problematic. That's why I became a moderator — to try to fix persistent issues and improve communication where I could. If you've given up discussing it with us, then why even bother posting here? At the end of the day, nothing we do will ever satisfy your (or anyone's) desire for complete consistency. Consistency is based on perspective, and every single person here is biased. We will never satisfy you regardless of whatever changes are made, because you've already made up your mind about us. We do what we can, and we volunteer our time to try to keep this place alive. If you are no longer interested in helping or having discussions with us, then frankly you might as well just step aside.

I am a moderator on a large non-English language aviation forum myself. Therefore I understand the challenges of being a moderator and that the job can be frustrating. I have, however, never suggested to a user who has questioned forum policies or moderation to bugger off. I don't think it is a particularly helpful reaction to keep those members on board who are still interested enough in a.net to engage on site-related topics.

vfw614 wrote:

I am a moderator on a large non-English language aviation forum myself. Therefore I understand the challenges of being a moderator and that the job can be frustrating. I have, however, never suggested to a user who has questioned forum policies or moderation to bugger off...

And I've never suggested that I've given up on trying to make this a better place. If you don't want to talk with us on ways to improve, as you quite plainly said, then I'm not sure what we're discussing. I didn't exactly tell you to bugger off, I questioned your reasons for being here, and there is a fundamental difference between the two. Perhaps you'd react differently to someone offering criticism but apparently refusing to engage in finding solutions, but I'm not you. Either way, as I said, you've already made your mind up about us, so there's probably nothing I can say that will appease you regardless.

Back to the topic at hand, I do not like the general threads either. Sometimes the whole first page of the civil aviation forum is nothing but general threads.

I wish there was a way to mark a topic as "not interesting for me" so that I can hide general threads about airlines and regions I don't care about. IMO, that would greatly improve the usability of this site.

Congrats to atcsundevil! I was glad to see your post in the ZW contract with AA to fly CRJ 200s thread. It is a perfect example of a topic that would be of interest to some members, but they may not find it in the other AA dedicated threads. Thank you. Keep it up!

I never read the site-related board but came here today specifically to seek out any threads lamenting the general discussion threads.

Agree 1,000% that the general discussion threads have killed what was a fun forum (civil aviation) to read.

I used to love A.net but these days I normally just leave disappointed with the interesting news being buried on page 8 of some general thread. I get that prominent news SHOULD have its own topic but this just doesn’t **seem** to be happening. Would be interesting to know if the visitor numbers (or visitor growth percentages, if more appropriate) have declined since the shift to general discussion threads.

wowlookplanes wrote:

I never read the site-related board but came here today specifically to seek out any threads lamenting the general discussion threads.

Agree 1,000% that the general discussion threads have killed what was a fun forum (civil aviation) to read.

I used to love A.net but these days I normally just leave disappointed with the interesting news being buried on page 8 of some general thread. I get that prominent news SHOULD have its own topic but this just doesn’t **seem** to be happening. Would be interesting to know if the visitor numbers (or visitor growth percentages, if more appropriate) have declined since the shift to general discussion threads.

Prominent news always gets its own topic when someone starts it. We aren't merging noteworthy topics into general discussion threads, and I would challenge anyone to find me an example of where that's happened recently. On the contrary, I often make it a point to make people aware that discussions are occurring in general topic threads, but reassuring people that the separate topic can stand on its own viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1475995&p=23432839#p23432839

Apart from a few thread merges some time ago that my opinion were mishandled (but later corrected), it's largely an issue that's been fixed through discussion on our end as moderators to get all of us on the same page, and it's never been some widespread issue. Anyone believing otherwise is frankly misinformed.

The biggest challenge, and thus potential improvement is trying to figure out when and where new-ish subjects come about in these mega threads.

The general topic threads are a net negative to the site. When something moderately newsworthy occurs, someone posts a topic and is frequently berated by users saying “it’s already being discussed in the general topic thread.” But typically, the general topics are so mundane that you cant find what you are looking for there, and so unstructured that you can’t maintain the conversation about the topic of interest.

This site should have switched to subforums where conversation structure could be maintained under a specific headline. General threads are like large rooms with everybody yelling.

atcsundevil wrote:

Prominent news always gets its own topic when someone starts it.

I respectfully disagree. For instance, the largest domestic US carrier completely melted down last week and nearly caused a ripple through the remaining three, but no specific topic on this was ever created. As a result, you had to find discussion on that intermingled with general discussions of Southwest’s labor situation.

The biggest travel story in America in 2022 was completely obscured by the general thread.

Just look at how many general “threads” there are now.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1480199

What about a generic North American aviation mega-topic?

Lots of specific topics:

The Rest of Michigan Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 9 hours ago
Orlando Aviation - 2023 Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
Oregon Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
New Orleans Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
St. Louis Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 9 hours ago
Detroit Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 11 hours ago
Fresno Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
Utah Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 9 hours ago
The Rest of Ohio Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 9 hours ago
Sacramento Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
Nashville Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
Idaho Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago

Can this flood of topics be wrapped up in the one general topic for a country as is the convention for other nations?

It will make the lists in this topic shorter as well: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1480199

D L X wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

Prominent news always gets its own topic when someone starts it.

I respectfully disagree. For instance, the largest domestic US carrier completely melted down last week and nearly caused a ripple through the remaining three, but no specific topic on this was ever created. As a result, you had to find discussion on that intermingled with general discussions of Southwest’s labor situation.

The biggest travel story in America in 2022 was completely obscured by the general thread.

Just look at how many general “threads” there are now.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1480199

Did someone create such a topic? If someone doesn't create the topic, then there isn't much we can do about it...as I said in the portion you've quoted me. I'm honestly not sure what there is for you to disagree with. These things always get their own topics if/when someone creates the topic.

cpd wrote:

What about a generic North American aviation mega-topic?

Lots of specific topics:

The Rest of Michigan Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 9 hours ago
Orlando Aviation - 2023 Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
Oregon Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
New Orleans Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
St. Louis Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 9 hours ago
Detroit Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 11 hours ago
Fresno Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
Utah Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 9 hours ago
The Rest of Ohio Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 9 hours ago
Sacramento Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
Nashville Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago
Idaho Aviation - 2023 - Posted by hOMSaR, 10 hours ago

Can this flood of topics be wrapped up in the one general topic for a country as is the convention for other nations?

It will make the lists in this topic shorter as well: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1480199

No. We don't create these topics. We recycle them each year for consistency, but they're created by subcommunities within the forum. If users want to create more specific threads within other country threads, they are free to do so. We didn't create this list of topics, and we don't dictate who or what gets its own thread. We simply manage what's already been created.

atcsundevil wrote:

Did someone create such a topic? If someone doesn't create the topic, then there isn't much we can do about it...as I said in the portion you've quoted me.

You are correct - I misread part of what you had said. It is true, nobody created that thread. Why not? My view is because people get immediately grilled for not searching to see if this issue had been discussed in a general thread.

I can assure you that none of us would have cdeleted, merged or closed such a thread and in case it would have been reported, report would have been closed without any action.

D L X wrote:

It is true, nobody created that thread. Why not? My view is because people get immediately grilled for not searching to see if this issue had been discussed in a general thread.

This is exactly what I see all the time as well. It seems that the people who like having the giant threads with 30 disjointed conversations going on at the same time also like to post in newsworthy threads to try to drag the discussion back into the mega-thread.

The site is so much more useful when newsworthy events are discussed separately so that those threads show up higher in the list, and you don’t have to sift through literally thousands of other (usually) unrelated posts to get to that discussion. But I think DLX is right that the “this is already being discussed” posts that people see when they try to start a new topic tends to discourage them.

atcsundevil wrote:

vfw614 wrote:

I am a moderator on a large non-English language aviation forum myself. Therefore I understand the challenges of being a moderator and that the job can be frustrating. I have, however, never suggested to a user who has questioned forum policies or moderation to bugger off...

And I've never suggested that I've given up on trying to make this a better place. If you don't want to talk with us on ways to improve, as you quite plainly said, then I'm not sure what we're discussing. I didn't exactly tell you to bugger off, I questioned your reasons for being here, and there is a fundamental difference between the two. Perhaps you'd react differently to someone offering criticism but apparently refusing to engage in finding solutions, but I'm not you. Either way, as I said, you've already made your mind up about us, so there's probably nothing I can say that will appease you regardless.

Happened upon this thread. So what do you do when someone offers an idea, suggestions and an offer to help make this a better place, yet the thread is "locked" with no communication. Would seem to many that you've got no desire to pursue what you've said, right atc?

CaptHadley wrote:

Happened upon this thread. So what do you do when someone offers an idea, suggestions and an offer to help make this a better place, yet the thread is "locked" with no communication. Would seem to many that you've got no desire to pursue what you've said, right atc?

I always include a reason when I lock a thread, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'll be honest though, your constant attempts to attack me with every opportunity is getting extremely old. Until you decide to actually have a conversation with me rather than regularly slinging baseless accusations at me, I won't be replying to you further. It's ridiculous and it needs to stop.

SQ22 wrote:

I can assure you that none of us would have cdeleted, merged or closed such a thread and in case it would have been reported, report would have been closed without any action.

Moderation can also be a proactive endeavor. The actions don’t have to be confined to removal, merging or closing. When something like what happened at WN comes about, moderation can include proactively culling out that discussion from the mega thread. I’ve seen that happen on other timely, big topics. I believe these mega threads instill a hesitation with the membership. Nobody wants to start a thread that they —think—might be attacked and removed to the mega thread anyway. The fact nobody started a separate thread about the biggest story of the year shows, to me, that reluctance.

TVNWZ wrote:

SQ22 wrote:

I can assure you that none of us would have cdeleted, merged or closed such a thread and in case it would have been reported, report would have been closed without any action.

Moderation can also be a proactive endeavor. The actions don’t have to be confined to removal, merging or closing. When something like what happened at WN comes about, moderation can include proactively culling out that discussion from the mega thread. I’ve seen that happen on other timely, big topics. I believe these mega threads instill a hesitation with the membership. Nobody wants to start a thread that they —think—might be attacked and removed to the mega thread anyway. The fact nobody started a separate thread about the biggest story of the year shows, to me, that reluctance.

If we catch it early we can split it, but once a discussion within another thread gets longer (or worse, intertwined with other discussions), it's massively tedious for us to split into a new thread. If you want to blame us for not being proactive and starting it's own thread, then maybe that's fair, but blame is shared equally with every single user on this forum, because no one started it.

I think this probably happened because, like similar meltdowns in the past, the story didn't start as a headline. It began as a slow burn. They were wrapped up in the same weather related issues as everyone else, with ground handling and labor issues somewhat exacerbating the situation. It took a few days before it turned into a headline-grabbing story. By then, it would have been extremely difficult for us to split. Yes, a new thread could have and should have been started, but that responsibility doesn't necessarily fall on us. Aside from that, this happened over the holidays, and we're entitled to our free time with family (or in my case, working pretty much the entire time).

For me personally, I tend to avoid starting threads like that, because if it's something negative, there will be 20 comments chiding me for being anti Southwest. I've been through it before (as have other moderators), and it detracts from the discussion. You may not like my reasoning, and that's fine, but it's a bit presumptuous to blame us for every shortcoming here. I'm not saying we don't share some blame here, but if a failure occurred, then in my opinion, we all failed.

atcsundevil wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

Moderation can also be a proactive endeavor. The actions don’t have to be confined to removal, merging or closing. When something like what happened at WN comes about, moderation can include proactively culling out that discussion from the mega thread. I’ve seen that happen on other timely, big topics. I believe these mega threads instill a hesitation with the membership. Nobody wants to start a thread that they —think—might be attacked and removed to the mega thread anyway. The fact nobody started a separate thread about the biggest story of the year shows, to me, that reluctance.

If we catch it early we can split it, but once a discussion within another thread gets longer (or worse, intertwined with other discussions), it's massively tedious for us to split into a new thread. If you want to blame us for not being proactive and starting it's own thread, then maybe that's fair, but blame is shared equally with every single user on this forum, because no one started it.

Hey ATC,

first, I want to make sure that it comes across clear that no one is placing blame at the feet of the moderators here. If there was one moderation mistake, it was automatically re-upping the general threads, because that is an endorsement. But no big deal there because as you note, these were spawned by the community, not the moderators, and y'all are trying your best to assist.

But I do think you are highlighting the biggest problem with the general threads - they are intertwined, and information contained within them is inextricable. So, even if the community had created a specific thread, the conversation would have continued in two places, with the information from each getting lost. That is why I believe general threads are generally a problem and should be discouraged.

TVNWZ wrote:

Moderation can also be a proactive endeavor. The actions don’t have to be confined to removal, merging or closing. When something like what happened at WN comes about, moderation can include proactively culling out that discussion from the mega thread. I’ve seen that happen on other timely, big topics. I believe these mega threads instill a hesitation with the membership. Nobody wants to start a thread that they —think—might be attacked and removed to the mega thread anyway. The fact nobody started a separate thread about the biggest story of the year shows, to me, that reluctance.

I fully agree with you, as mentioned below its quite time consuming to move posts out of other threads in order to separate a thread, once I spent hours on getting more than hundred posts out of another thread.

D L X wrote:

Hey ATC,

first, I want to make sure that it comes across clear that no one is placing blame at the feet of the moderators here. If there was one moderation mistake, it was automatically re-upping the general threads, because that is an endorsement. But no big deal there because as you note, these were spawned by the community, not the moderators, and y'all are trying your best to assist.

But I do think you are highlighting the biggest problem with the general threads - they are intertwined, and information contained within them is inextricable. So, even if the community had created a specific thread, the conversation would have continued in two places, with the information from each getting lost. That is why I believe general threads are generally a problem and should be discouraged.

I think it's very much a competing argument with no great answer. The general threads were intended for mundane discussion, and when used with that in mind, I believe it's been a great addition to the overall forum experience. The original idea was to create subcommunities of users with shared interests in an airline/city/region/etc. to engage in generalized discussions. Somewhere along the line, some people got it in their heads that it meant everything needed to fit in those boxes, but that was never the intent and it should have never reached that point. Current events or focused discussions should always have their own threads. We as a moderating team have pushed back towards encouraging this (there was some confusion and inconsistency for a while, but that's long since been resolved), but it's taking some time for users to have a clear understanding of why the general discussion threads are meant to exist.

I accept the fact that there will frequently be a duplication of discussion, and while that's something we discouraged for a while, I think we're all fine with it now. The subcommunity can have their discussion within their thread, while everyone else can engage in the specific topic for the event or discussion. It more or less allows everyone to have what they want — casual users don't need to dig through a general discussion thread, and focused users can have their own discussion within their more regular circle of users. The only time recently that issues arise from this is when someone seemingly forgets to create a focused topic outside of the general discussion thread. It doesn't happen often, but since the Southwest meltdown started slowly and gained steam over a period of days, it somehow slipped through the cracks. We can try to be more diligent as a moderating team, but ultimately it's the responsibility of the entire community to step up in situations like these. I hope that we can continue educating users on the intended purpose of the general threads, but unfortunately we don't really have an easy way to accomplish that.

I have a different question related to this topic....why are there chronological restraints to threads at all? I get the idea of the mods starting up all the airline/location threads to help condense the conversations properly, but why do these threads need to be locked and re-done for the new year?

I know in the past, if a thread got too long, it would be locked and a new thread created because it caused too slow of loading on the page and possibly too much for the server to handle. But that no longer appears to be the case. In Non-Av, the Ukraine invasion thread is almost up to 10,900 posts, 219 pages with seemingly no technology issues. The word games and 5 word story threads are limited to quarterly intervals because.......tradition? They never get beyond about 10 pages anymore, and they're short, low data posts. There's no reason for them to be locked and redone every quarter. Best as I can tell, there is no reason for any of these moderator created/updated threads to have any chronological time constraints - you're just creating more work for yourselves.

LittleFokker wrote:

I have a different question related to this topic....why are there chronological restraints to threads at all? I get the idea of the mods starting up all the airline/location threads to help condense the conversations properly, but why do these threads need to be locked and re-done for the new year?

I know in the past, if a thread got too long, it would be locked and a new thread created because it caused too slow of loading on the page and possibly too much for the server to handle. But that no longer appears to be the case. In Non-Av, the Ukraine invasion thread is almost up to 10,900 posts, 219 pages with seemingly no technology issues. The word games and 5 word story threads are limited to quarterly intervals because.......tradition? They never get beyond about 10 pages anymore, and they're short, low data posts. There's no reason for them to be locked and redone every quarter. Best as I can tell, there is no reason for any of these moderator created/updated threads to have any chronological time constraints - you're just creating more work for yourselves.

These are good points. I think a lot of these general threads had died out because of lack of interest, and gotten a bump because it's a new year.

LittleFokker wrote:

I have a different question related to this topic....why are there chronological restraints to threads at all? I get the idea of the mods starting up all the airline/location threads to help condense the conversations properly, but why do these threads need to be locked and re-done for the new year?

I know in the past, if a thread got too long, it would be locked and a new thread created because it caused too slow of loading on the page and possibly too much for the server to handle. But that no longer appears to be the case. In Non-Av, the Ukraine invasion thread is almost up to 10,900 posts, 219 pages with seemingly no technology issues. The word games and 5 word story threads are limited to quarterly intervals because.......tradition? They never get beyond about 10 pages anymore, and they're short, low data posts. There's no reason for them to be locked and redone every quarter. Best as I can tell, there is no reason for any of these moderator created/updated threads to have any chronological time constraints - you're just creating more work for yourselves.

It's a compromise. The old forum didn't roll to subsequent pages, it just extended a single page. As a practice, we locked the thread and started a new one after roughly 200 posts so the page didn't get too long. We migrated to the new site about six and a half years ago, but many users still complain about threads becoming too lengthy. As a result, we agreed that threads would be refreshed on a recurring basis. Most are annually, some are monthly, and a couple are quarterly. There's no technical reason for doing it this way, it's just a compromise to satisfy the majority of users.

Similarly, we don't allow thread bumps after a thread has been dormant for longer than six months, unless it's a continuous thread that's active for the entire year. The six months rule is arbitrary. The old site automatically locked threads after two weeks of dormancy, but this site locks nothing automatically. Many users get frustrated and complain to us when old threads are bumped, because they're used to the way the old site worked. So, we compromised and set the limit at six months. All of this is a way of using the flexibility of the new platform while trying to appease the large number of very particular users who are carryovers from the old platform.

So, long story short, the site is not going to change with respect to these omnibus threads that people are complaining about.

Am I understanding correctly?

D L X wrote:

So, long story short, the site is not going to change with respect to these omnibus threads that people are complaining about.

Am I understanding correctly?

Correct. We didn't create them, users did. We just maintain them. We're not going to change them, because that's not our job as moderators. The early general topic threads go back well over a decade, so this is hardly a new trend.

atcsundevil wrote:

D L X wrote:

So, long story short, the site is not going to change with respect to these omnibus threads that people are complaining about.

Am I understanding correctly?

Correct. We didn't create them, users did. We just maintain them. We're not going to change them, because that's not our job as moderators. The early general topic threads go back well over a decade, so this is hardly a new trend.

Thanks. Respectfully, that's very frustrating.

I understand they are not new, but they are in my opinion and at least some others', a problem. That the trend is not new does not mean it cannot be addressed. But I understand the site's position.

D L X wrote:

Thanks. Respectfully, that's very frustrating.

I understand they are not new, but they are in my opinion and at least some others', a problem. That the trend is not new does not mean it cannot be addressed. But I understand the site's position.

Given the high level of participation in these threads, we would anger far more people by disrupting the current arrangement. While I understand your frustration, as there are certainly a number of things that I wish were in my capacity to change, we are a community which has been shaped by compromise for 25 years. Unfortunately for you in this instance, your opinion is seemingly in the minority. I am regularly pushing to ensure that noteworthy events always have their own threads, but I believe the general topic threads are a net positive for the site, as it allows users with similar interests to easily congregate. Until the developers give us some sort of option to create a better organization of the forums, this is how the forum will continue to function.

atcsundevil wrote:

Unfortunately for you in this instance, your opinion is seemingly in the minority.

Not to dwell on this, but I don’t think you can know that. Participation in the omnibus threads is kind foisted on people, lest they duplicate a topic and get yelled at, either by you or others in the community that don’t want to discuss the topic in two places. A poll might show these threads are not as popular as you think.

Anyway, I’ve said my piece.

There are many times in the past independant breakout threads have been combined into a general thread. But, there are very few times moderators have proactively started a breakout thread of a big story like WN’s meltdown. That, in itself, leads a lot of people to believe-me included-that these breakout threads are not desired and if done would be quickly combined in the general thread and locked. After awhile you just stop trying. Actions by the moderators will influence community involvement, whether you mean to or not.

If the moderators started a few breakout threads, I’d bet a first class ticket to PHX you would see more community initiative in creating those threads. At the very least, don’t be so quick to combine those threads already broken out by someone into the mega thread.

I’d also say that in the first two weeks of January, when ALMOST ALL the threads on the main page are omnibus threads, users coming to the site are misled to believe that they are supposed to participate in only omnibus threads. They have crowded individual threads out.

I guess I had more to say. (Clearly, I hate these threads, and think they’ve destroyed the site.)

Well, I find the combined threads beneficial and good to have.

If I want to learn or discuss something about airline X, or airport Z, I know where to go and don't need to wade through pages of A.net to see if the topic has been covered or not.

In my experience, these combined threads are the place where similarly interested folks congregate and an ideal location to share and discuss.

Sure some might be big as the year goes on, but I prefer to scan through a page of responses in a large thread from where I left off last than hunt all over the forum.

UPlog wrote:

Well, I find the combined threads beneficial and good to have.

If I want to learn or discuss something about airline X, or airport Z, I know where to go and don't need to wade through pages of A.net to see if the topic has been covered or not.

In my experience, these combined threads are the place where similarly interested folks congregate and an ideal location to share and discuss.

Sure some might be big as the year goes on, but I prefer to scan through a page of responses in a large thread from where I left off last than hunt all over the forum.

Nobody is saying do away with the big threads. And I agree they are a place where like minded fans can have interesting discussions. But, it’s a big community, and those not interested in general discussion, should not have to leaf through 15 pages to find out where the WN meltdown discussion starts, or have to scroll through several posts of a general nature to get back to meltdown discussion.. it, seems to me, there are times when specific topics should be broken out because their interest level is a lot higher to the overall community than just general discussion. And moderators can help that along by encouraging, or at least not discouraging, these stand alone specific topics.

I agree the general discussion threads have degraded this forum. I used to get all of my airline news by logging into this site every day and reading over the posted topics. Now that everything gets buried I usually learn airline news from CNN or MSNBC or Fox or even freaking Buzzfeed before I read about it here, and the only reason I find it on the forum half the time is by digging into the general discussion thread about that airline or airport. This used to be a great site for news.... Now? Not so much....

db373 wrote:

I agree the general discussion threads have degraded this forum. I used to get all of my airline news by logging into this site every day and reading over the posted topics. Now that everything gets buried I usually learn airline news from CNN or MSNBC or Fox or even freaking Buzzfeed before I read about it here, and the only reason I find it on the forum half the time is by digging into the general discussion thread about that airline or airport. This used to be a great site for news.... Now? Not so much....

If you're looking for news, then look in the News feed section.

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-news

The Forum is for discussion.