Merging of threads

[Richard]

All right, when we say things like

New posters should have to have at least 100 non-reported posts before being able to start threads.

we're basically joking. But it is seriously annoying to get excessive numbers of unneccessary threads and it's been happening a lot of late. For example:
This thread means these are not required: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/45526-shah-rukh-khan-demands-respect-pak-players.html; http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/45531-royals-coach-lashes-out-ipl.html and of course all could quite easily go in the *Official* tournament thread, though in fairness major issues relating to grander scales do sometimes require separate threads. There has also been this: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/45519-pakistan-vs-west-indies-u19-semis.html which should be in here; this http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...ia-match-preview-3rd-odi-adelaide-2010-a.html which should be in here; this and this (both of which got 0 replies anyway) which are the same thing. These are just some examples from the past week.

We have a rule which states that pointless thread-digging should not be done and will result in the new posts being deleted - can't we also have a rather more stringent rule than the current

Read before posting - Odds are that most threads have already been covered before you thought of it. Thus just check back a day or two to see if the topic your so curious about has already been played out. It saves your time, and our time, it works out great like that!

on the matter of pointless thread-starting?

Shouldn't pointless threads be merged promptly to emphasise to the thread-starter that they've acted in a way we don't feel is desireable? And if they keep doing it shouldn't they be told there and then that they're acting outside the rules?

 

[GIMH]

Fair points on the most part but I've always found reporting them does the trick, or contacting a mod (cribbage) on messenger.

 

[Richard]

Oh yeah there's been times when I've done that - plenty of them - Cribbage especially, and Morris was very good in the days when he was modding and all. I was more meaning that, well, I presume mods at least read each thread title if obviously not every post within them.

And obviously you can almost always tell if a thread is a needless duplicate by the title so I was just saying surely there should be some sort of specific policy of "merge(\delete) all needless duplicate threads" as there is that all needless-dig posts get deleted.

 

[pasag]

Been ridiculous recently. The amount of bots and spammers is close to out of control.

Note to mods - if there's a two line generic post with a signature for nike shoes, it's a bot ffs. If a guy is starting a million pointless threads like sam456 then he's clearly doing it to advertise his site in his sig. It's not that hard to spot.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah that sam bot has created three or four accounts now; whenever we ban one he/she/it just starts another one.

 

[Smudge]

What I can't understand - and without wanting to have a crack at the mods here - I've often seen those nike shoes threads on Cricket Chat and report them as soon as I see them but the baffling thing is on some occasions those threads have been there for 7-8 hours. With all due respect, how could so many mods across so many time zones miss those threads, particularly when they're on the front page of the most popular section of the whole forum?

 

[James]

What I can't understand - and without wanting to have a crack at the mods here - I've often seen those nike shoes threads on Cricket Chat and report them as soon as I see them but the baffling thing is on some occasions those threads have been there for 7-8 hours. With all due respect, how could so many mods across so many time zones miss those threads, particularly when they're on the front page of the most popular section of the whole forum?

That's a fair enough point you make. All I could say is that perhaps people's circumstances have meant they haven't been picked as quickly as they might otherwise had been previously. All depends on the day and who's available really.

I'm on the internet most of the day, and always checked reported posts so once they're reported you'll find them disappear pretty quickly. If everyone could hit the report post button and submit, then that's a real help.

There's only so much you can do to stop spammers and if they're determined enough, they'll keep trying.

 

[Pratters]

Can we have a rule that a person with less than 10 or 20 posts can't start a new thread? That could solve part of the problem. Just a suggestion.

 

[Richard]

I'd certainly be in favour of that TBH, and in fact maybe 100-200 posts. I can see why it'd be seen to be self-importantly discriminative and even unwelcoming and thus I can understsand if it's something that would not want to be brought in, but I reckon if the reasons for it were clearly stated, and the "New Thread" button did not become visible until someone had posted 200 (or whatever) posts then it'd not be much of a problem. Not sure, of course, if such a thing is possible but if it is, great.

Removing the new-thread rights of posters until they demonstrate they're not spammers would save such an unbelieveable amount of time and wasted effort on the part of GMs, freeing them up to spend more time doing what GMs should be doing and searching for unacceptable posting (as well, of course, as reading\posting as posters themselves). It'd also remove to a fair extent the problem of new posters starting needless threads, because if they really wanted to discuss a topic they'd have to go back a few pages and find the relevant thread.

 

[Simon]

Can we have a rule that a person with less than 10 or 20 posts can't start a new thread? That could solve part of the problem. Just a suggestion.

Naa wouldn't work, a lot of time new posteres genuinely do need to start a new thread. Particuarly in a forum like the coaching in equipment one where there is a legit question, those sort of rules just drive people away. If the mod team are doing their job (which they do for the most part) then useless threads/posts dont hang around long anyway.

 

[Burgey]

Can we have a rule that a person with more than 70,000 posts can't start a new thread? That could solve part of the problem. Just a suggestion.

Fix'd.

Sorry Rich, this post was in jest, couldn't help myself

 

[Richard]

Naa wouldn't work, a lot of time new posteres genuinely do need to start a new thread. Particuarly in a forum like the coaching in equipment one where there is a legit question, those sort of rules just drive people away. If the mod team are doing their job (which they do for the most part) then useless threads/posts dont hang around long anyway.

Wonder if it'd be possible to prohibit it in certain forums. Am I wrong or is most bot spamming not done in CC?

 

[Richard]

Fix'd.

Sorry Rich, this post was in jest, couldn't help myself

I don't really tend to start many threads TBH. Aside from birthday and CW Award threads my post-to-thread-start ratio must be tiny.

 

[marc71178]

Naa wouldn't work, a lot of time new posteres genuinely do need to start a new thread. Particuarly in a forum like the coaching in equipment one where there is a legit question, those sort of rules just drive people away. If the mod team are doing their job (which they do for the most part) then useless threads/posts dont hang around long anyway.

Is there a way to put new members on some sort of moderation-type rule, so that if they start a thread it's queued until a moderator approves it?

 

[nightprowler10]

We have such a restriction at PC on newbies so they can't post/create threads until they have a certain number of posts or days after joining etc. All their posts/threads go to mod queue.

*commence anti-PC rant*

 

[GIMH]

It's very annoying that though, all jokes aside

I don't agree with restrictions on new members, it's not very welcoming. Most posters are genuine, after all.

 

[Richard]

Do you have numbers to hand? If one is not a mod and doesn't know how many spammers (whether bots or rather sad humans) per day\week\month cause a nuscience, I'm not sure how you can know that.

I think a line has to be drawn between being unwelcoming and taking neccessary precautions to stop the forum being abused. Inevitably any change when considered can appear at first glance to be making the forum less welcoming, but once it's in place it'll easily become part of the furniature before long.

Once upon a time CW allowed people to post as anonymous guests; that was abolished and I don't see any particular reason why instant access to thread-starting can't go the same way. As long as the reasons are made clear to those who such things apply to.

 

[nightprowler10]

It's very annoying that though, all jokes aside

I don't agree with restrictions on new members, it's not very welcoming. Most posters are genuine, after all.

I actually agree with you, but at the time it was absolutely necessary as we had a half dozen bots almost every day. As with you guys, as soon as any of the admins realize the new posters are not in fact bots, they move them to the registered users group so they can post freely.