Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
atcsundevil wrote:Prominent news always gets its own topic when someone starts it.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
atcsundevil wrote:Unfortunately for you in this instance, your opinion is seemingly in the minority.
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.
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....