Organizing Threads

13 Jun 02 - 04:12 PM (#729441)
Subject: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

I suppose many of you know that I've been adding cross-links to the first messages of some threads, hoping to make it easier for people to find related threads. I've also corrected the titles of many threads, correcting spellings or adding to thread titles to make them more clear. I try to add "BS" to the titles of most non-music thread, and remove the "BS" from the few music threads that have incorrectly received the "BS" designation.

A few weeks ago, Pene Azul gave me a new tool that allows me to transfer a message from one thread to another. I've been using it to combine threads, and I hope that's helpful. I can move only one message at a time, so it's not a lightning-fast process. When words of a song title have various possible spellings, I try to make sure that at least one message in each thread has an example of the alternate spelling. That way, the information should turn up in the Forum Search, no matter how it's spelled. Pene has also designed a "printer-friendly format" that I can use to copy an entire thread and paste it into another. I use that occasionally, but it has the disadvantage of removing individual messages from the Forum Search.

If a message has been moved and a thread deleted, the thread location reported in SuperSearch results will be incorrect until the SuperSearch index is updated - but you are still able to get to the individual message, and from the message you can get to the thread it's in (for an example, use the Digitrad and Forum Search to go to "Donegal Danny," a number of threads I'm in the process of combining).

Generally, I believe it's best if we have one or just a few cross-indexed threads for each song or music topic we discuss. I also think it's sometimes helpful to group several related songs into a single thread, like when we are covering songs by a particular songwriter.
A week or two ago, somebody asked a specific question about the history of a song. Since there were already several existing threads on the song, I combined all of the threads. Somebody suggested that maybe that wasn't a good idea, since the new question got lost in the lengthy combined thread. I'll be more careful about that in the future, but I still think that it's generally a good idea to combine threads.

Somebody suggested that I should post an editing policy in the FAQ, so that people know what will be edited and what won't. I don't think I want to do that. Max said Jeff and I should use our judgment, and that's what we do. Generally, the policy is that Max and Joe and Jeff do what they think best, and that the JoeClones are limited to fixing technical errors and deleting duplicate messages. Max and Joe and Jeff are the ones who deal with offensive or problem messages and threads - if you see such a problem, contact Joe or Jeff (Pene Azul) by personal message. Generally, we don't allow personal attacks or threats on Mudcat, and we delete such messages and threads as soon as we see them. We would appreciate it if people would not publicly respond to such threads and messages in any way - tell us about them privately. We also delete Spam, although we do encourage people to advertise recordings and gigs (with moderation).

Generally, we ask that people NOT copy-paste large amounts of non-music information, and that they do NOT copy-paste lyrics from the Digital Tradition into threads. On the other hand, if you find another site has lyrics we don't have, please DO post the lyrics, AND a link to the site where you found the lyrics (this applies to lyrics that would be of interest to folk musicians, not to the top-40 stuff). Also, if you find music-related information that would be of interest, it's usually best to copy and post the information and a link to the source, instead of just posting a link. For music-related obituaries, I think it's a good idea for an obituary thread to have a copy of at least one newspaper obituary that gives the story of the deceased person.

---

OK, so anyhow, I wanted to ask for advice about combining threads. I often come across messages that request songs and provide no other information, or messages that point people to the Digital Tradition or to another thread that has the information. When I combine threads, these messages become extraneous. Generally, I'm reluctant to delete or alter messages unless they're troublesome, but do you see any reason why I shouldn't delete these messages? I also delete "refresh" messages - I can't imagine anybody objecting to that.

Any comments, suggestions, or ideas?

-Joe Offer-

---

13 Jun 02 - 04:19 PM (#729447)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: MMario

sounds sensible to me - which means about 20,001 people should be along to object any moment now.

---

13 Jun 02 - 05:34 PM (#729497)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: katlaughing


I don't see why we need to preserve those that have nothing but the request and a link to the DT or another thread, although what happens if the person who originally posted comes back looking for their thread?

I would also be reluctant to see large quantities of threads edited and combined, even though it may seem efficacious. So many times a thread will go off on its own to incredible realms of knowledge, sometimes related to the original posting, sometimes not...I'd hate to see any of those be combined and sort of lost in the shuffle.

Thanks,

kat

---

13 Jun 02 - 06:28 PM (#729527)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Jim Dixon

I'm in favor of deleting messages that were originally meant to serve some practical purpose and don't serve that purpose any more. For example, "refresh" messages don't serve any purpose once someone has posted a following message, or after 24 hours has passed. And when you combine threads, you can end up with links that link to their own thread! (The first time I saw this, it confused me. I also wondered why I was seeing the same question get asked a second time in the same thread, even though it had already been answered. Especially when the question was answered politely the second time around, with nary a sarcastic remark! That's just not NATURAL for Mudcat!)

Now, if you deleted somebody's OPINION about something, I can see why they might get mad. Facts are expendable, especially if they're redundant. Opinions are sacred!

I also think you should feel free to correct any spelling errors you find. Just be sure you don't "correct" British spellings to American spellings, or vice versa—if the original was correct according to the language of the person posting it. If someone fails to find something because he's looking for the wrong spelling, well, that's what the thread Frequently misspelled/confused names is for. If people are going to fail to find something, I think it's better if they fail because they looked for the WRONG spelling than because they looked for the RIGHT one.

Another thing I think should be allowed is to delete lyrics if they are substantially the same as something already in DigiTrad or in another thread. "Substantially the same" means the words are the same, but the spelling, punctuation, and line breaks may be different. You could replace them with a link to the other copy.

I'm not trying to create any more work for you, Joe. I'm just saying you should feel free to do these things if you feel like it. I don't think any reasonable person would object. But then I can't always predict how reasonable people will be...

I have a couple of questions:

When you combine 2 threads, do the messages stay in chronological order?

If you delete thread 2 after moving all its messages to thread 1, what happens to the links in other threads that formerly pointed to thread 2?

---

13 Jun 02 - 07:20 PM (#729562)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: McGrath of Harlow

Done properly, I can see this being an awful lot of work; taking shortcuts would speed things up, but could end up cutting out good stuff and making it more complicated tracing things later on. I imagine Joe will be making sure it's done right.

Here's what Albert Camus wrote about The Myth of Sisyphus, which somehow seems a relevant one...

---

13 Jun 02 - 09:36 PM (#729624)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Malcolm Douglas

When combining threads (particularly those which span several years), it's important to indicate where one ends and the next begins, and how they fit together chronologically; I've noticed quite a few where people (including me) now appear to be repeating information already given, whereas in fact we provided it first. The sequence of any discussion involved is as a result rather screwed up. I agree that it's a good idea to consolidate information available in threads here, but it does need to be done very carefully in order to be sure that it makes sense.

---

13 Jun 02 - 10:13 PM (#729647)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

When I've combined threads, I post this notice in the first message of the thread:

---

Messages from multiple threads combined.
-Joe Offer-

---

Sometimes, when I see a need, I do put markers like this:

---

Messages below are from a new thread.

---

Maybe "later thread" would be a better identifier. Note that the posting dates and the original message title remain as originally posted - so in some places, you can see whey I've combined lyr req, lyr add, tune req, etc...

If I've moved all the messages and closed a thread, all the links pointing to that thread end up dead. That's a disadvantage, but not a horrible one.

The Donegal Danny thread is a good example of what happens whn I combine. There were about eight threads on this song, and some of the threads contained only two or three messages. Combining them gives the thread a bit of a hackneyed appearance - but at least, all the information on the song can be found in the same place. If I contintinue to combine threads in the future, I think that a lot of the duplication within this thread will be eliminated.

In situations where a person has a new question about a song or subject, I think the practice of combining threads may help encourage people to title and phrase they posts so that it's obvious that this is a new question. I helped somebody along with that in this thread (click), which had been titled "The Water is Wide - one more time." I combined it with the other "Water Is Wide" threads, but then somebody pointed out that this person was looking for the first American version. So, I moved the request back into its own thread, and titled it "Water Is Wide - First American Version." Maybe when the discussion has died out, I can combine or crosslink it with the other threads on the song.

I usually don't do anything with "BS" threads except make sure that they bear the title "BS." I will, however, combine threads if there is more than one running on any give subject.

When I do editing of music threads, I think you'll notice that I make it quite obvious - and I take special care not to delete any information that might be of use to somebody.

-Joe Offer-

---

13 Jun 02 - 10:17 PM (#729651)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: George Seto - [e-mail]

Joe, I'll have to watch for some of those combined threads, and note them for Katlaughing for the Origins of songs thread where we put many of those threads

---

13 Jun 02 - 10:27 PM (#729655)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

Oh, when I see "origins" information, I change the message title to "origins." Also, when I see "composed" songs posted without songwriter and copyright information, I try to add that as an addendum to the message where the lyrics are posted. I think we owe that to the songwriter, although I see nothing worng with posting any and all lyrics in a forum like this. How else can we discuss a song?
-Joe Offer-

---

13 Jun 02 - 10:34 PM (#729659)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Ebbie

Gracious! Joe, do you have time to have a life of your own?

---

13 Jun 02 - 10:43 PM (#729663)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

Hey, Ebbie, I worked for the U.S. Government for 25 years. Now I want to do something that's actually worthwhile. I consider this almost a fulltime job. I figure it's like getting a graduate education in folk music. Jeff puts in an awful lot of work, too - maybe more than I do. So do many of the clones. Max does a lot behind the scenes, but he doesn't have as much time as he used to.
-Joe-

---

13 Jun 02 - 11:04 PM (#729671)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: katlaughing

Thanks, George, I was a bit concerned about that, too. It's god to know you will watch for them and also, Joe, good to know how you designate them.

As far as the BS threads go, you said you'd combine if there were more than one on any given subject. I would take that to mean, though, that you would not combine ones which are in succession on the same subject, i.e. some of the political threads which have run up to Part Eight or Nine, with each one being relevant on its own? I know not all postings are of much value, but the discussions, in general, need to stay intact, in my opinion. I believe they serve as an elegant microcosm of the world at large, in some ways, and should be preserved, esp. ones about such global events as 9-11 and the Colorado school shootings.

I like that you've said you consider it a job, Joe. It's a nice validation for all of us who volunteer our time. Heck, it'd even look good on a resume!:-)

Thanks,

kat

---

14 Jun 02 - 12:23 AM (#729700)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

Well, last week there four threads at the same time about the Folk Festival in Beverley, UK - I combined them. Now, if they're long, multi-part threads, that's another matter. Besides, I'd never dream of transferring a hundred "BS" messages. It ain't worth the effort.
Sooner or later, we'll have something that will automatically break those long threads into separate pages of 50 or so messages each. That should solve that problem.
-Joe Offer-

---

14 Jun 02 - 05:00 AM (#729767)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: George Seto - [e-mail]

Well! Thanks Joe. I am constantly amazed at all the work that Joe, Pene, and all the clones do behind the scenes to make it easier for us all. Thanks to all.

---

14 Jun 02 - 05:24 AM (#729772)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Wolfgang

I'm for the reorganisation and for deleting messages which have no value anymore.

Sometimes I dream of a structure of Mudcat that allows to separate between a "write"-mode and a "talk"-mode with all the messages in the "talk"-mode being deleted automatically after about two weeks. The choice of the mode would have to be made by the poster, of course.

The "talk"-mode would be for my remarks: "You did beat me again, Sorcha" or "I have it at home, I think, look here next Monday" and the "write"-mode for when I think what I have to write could be still of value next month or so.

Wolfgang

---

14 Jun 02 - 06:20 AM (#729787)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: McGrath of Harlow

Ensuring that threads are marked properly as BS or whatever is an excellent idea (though of course there's the grey area where a BS thread moves into musical/song areas, and vice versa, or where a topic is maybe about both at the same time - eg some thread about US presidents getting shot.)

---

14 Jun 02 - 06:27 AM (#729794)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: GUEST,Philippa

I'll save this thread and read off line. So I apologise if I am repeating or rehashing what is above (which will be rather contradictoryin view of what I about to say).

I just want to say that it is presently to easy to start a new thread; you are invited at the main forum page and there is no request to try a forum search first. For many reasons, forum searches don't always reveal to the hunter what is already there. But often they do, and it is apparent that too many new threads are repeating older ones because the originators didn't know to try searching the archives first.

---

14 Jun 02 - 10:59 AM (#729926)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: katlaughing

Good points, Phillipa. That search the Forum first is one of the things Pene is working on for the upgrade, as I understand it.

---

21 Jun 02 - 02:51 PM (#734365)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: GUEST,Philippa

1)Joe, do you want to be specifically alerted (by personal message) to superfluous threads so you can nip them in the bud? Example. There is a thread Ard Tí Chuain / Quiet Land of Erin (by the way the Irish name should be corrected to Airdí Chuan or Aird a' Chuan). Someone else started a thread seeking for the Quiet Land of Erin. Although, you directed them to the older thread, a couple of other people jumped in to discuss the origins of the thread. So now there is some useful information in that thread ... it could be diverted to the earlier thread, but since some of the info was already there, it would make PJ look very foolish indeed in suggesting that the song originated as a butter advertisement.
In recent weeks, a third Quiet Land of Erin thread started. Someone replied with a link to earlier threads. But the thread originator thought she was being helpful when she subsequently pasted lyrics from the earlier thread in to the new thread! I scolded her, not for thread proliferation but because she quoted some comments I made and did not make it clear that the comments were not her own.
As there is no new information in that thread, I think it could be safely deleted before someone does add new info to it. But what about the problem with searches -- if you change a thread title or if you delete a thread without refreshing the old one (and even if you refresh, but the older thread has a different name), you frustrate anyone trying to reach the thread by the "refresh" box. If you delete a person's irrelevant entry -we discussed deleting 'refresh' messages - that person might unsuccessfully look for the thread by searching a list of their past messages. Have you worked out any solution to the search engine complications?

Another recent superfluous thread is "Ag Críost an Síol", which the originator uses to guide people to another thread titled "Ag Criost an Siol" ... maybe you should nip it in the bud before messages are added to it.

Although I suggested to that person that the thing to do is add a message in the earlier thread with "Ag Críost an Síol" as the subject heading for the message rather than the thread, I have found that putting "Making Babies By Steam" as subject message in the "Daniel O'Connell & His Steam Engine" thread hasn't made any difference in the non-linkage from the DT "Making Babies By Steam" to the thread that contains the most information about the song. So I did start a "DT Study Thread". My limited viewing of these study threads has not convinced me that they aren't more unnecessary work and thread proliferation(?).

---

21 Jun 02 - 03:38 PM (#734375)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

Hi, Philippa - take a look at what I did with Quiet Land of Erin. I admit that the combination of threads creats a little bit of confusion, but I think that it's better to have all the information on a song in one place - well, actually, TWO places. One is the ordinary thread with the raw information on the song, and the other a DTStudy thread. Once substantial information is collected in a DTSTudy thread, the idea is to edit it down to a permanent record, and transfer extraneous messages to another thread.
-Joe Offer-

---

21 Jun 02 - 07:45 PM (#734500)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: GUEST,Philippa

RE Quiet Land of Erin / Áirdí Chuain combined thread, I suppose it doesn't matter too much but when you wrote "Messages below are from a new thread" the message below was actually the most recent message from the thread which the earliest messages belong to (ie, because of dates of messages the pattern is Thread A/ Thread B/ Thread A). What did you do with the third thread which had a new participant but no new information? And I don't understand about the DT study thread; I don't think Quiet Land of Erin is in the DT. I thought the study threads were only for songs in the DT. (If it does make the DT, I think the original other-language versions of translated songs should be supplied too when available.)
Oh, I misunderstood that you were writing generally - it sounded like you were referring to the reorganisation of the Quiet Land of Erin thread.

---

22 Jun 02 - 03:52 AM (#734649)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: GUEST,Philippa

Quiet Land of Erin was a fairly straight-foward amalgamation. Some multi-threads are much more tortuous. While I appreciate that the large archives make demands on Mudcat computer memory, I tbink the emphasis of your work should be on nipping the duplicate and superfluous threads in the bud.
The process for starting a new thread needs to be made slightly more difficult, as it was in past Mudcat incarnations, asking people to try a search first.
And, as I said before, if we alert you to superfluous threads when they are new, you can do your work before much is added to these threads. As you know, even though those of us who remember that there was an earlier thread do put links in older threads, but some people will add to the new thread anyway. (I don't think you need to keep your re-direction message in the new amalgamated Ard Ti [sic] Chuan / Quiet Land of Erin thread! But I am worried about Willa who started the third thread. That thread was completely superfluous, but now she can't even find her name and her interest registered.)

---

22 Jun 02 - 05:32 AM (#734662)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: GUEST,Philippa

a further warning of extra threads, this time concerning "An Spailpín Fánach":
http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=27443#336743 superfluous, Malcolm redirected the inquiry to:
http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=12243#95407?threadid=12243
AND
http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=2623#11896?threadid=2623 - best thread

Two threads have lyrics but could easily be combined.

---

22 Jun 02 - 08:07 AM (#734685)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: katlaughing

Well, I'd typed this and hit enter, when my internet crashed. Try again...

Am I understanding coorectly, Joe, that the raw threads will always be available? I hope so.

I have some concerns about this, exp. in relation to the Songs Origins Permathread. I think one of the neat things about it is to see all of the different threads which have evolved for each song, kind of like an historical record of the Mudcat.

This seems to me, almost like taking back issues of a favourite magazine and cutting them up to paste the best bits into one condensed issue for each song. I guess that's not a bad thing, but I'm not sure I see where the way they are now is such a bad thing, either. I know there is a lot of non-essential stuff, but it is the Mudcat and there's never been anything quite like it before. If anyone gets smart and finally wants to do a study of its evolution, etc. it will be a bit difficult if there are no representations left of how it came to be. I think Philippa has pointed out a legitimate conern, too, about how folks who've started a thread may not be able to find their posting, again.

katjustwondering

---

22 Jun 02 - 09:10 AM (#734695)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: greg stephens

there is a suggestion back there a bit about allowing people to edit their own previous messages.This could be incredibly dodgy. I wouldnt mind tiding up my spelling mistakes....but how about changing the content of an old message? I could be inserting clever facts I learnt from Malcolm Douglas into old messages of my own, to make it look as if I thought of them first. Or change my political position with benefit of hindight to make myselflook wiser. Or even post song lyrics back in time to before the author had written them! Th main criticism of the internet as a source of knowlege is the lack of quality control as compared to academic papers (subject to peer review)or book-publishing. Allowing people to edit their own old messages would make the knowledge contained in them essentially worthless.

---

22 Jun 02 - 11:14 AM (#734730)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: wysiwyg

Couple of thoughts--

1. If the old "raw" threads can be locked, with a link saying "stuff went to such and such URL so click here" that would be cool. That way they can be read or re-found if someone traced them, but new stuff won't get added in that ought to go to the new, improved thread.

2. When you combine multiple threads without ordering things in chrono order-- how about putting a pink note at the top alerting people to that fact, and then making each pasted batch a different color?

~S~

---

22 Jun 02 - 11:25 AM (#734731)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Malcolm Douglas

Susan's point about "locking" threads is a good one; I'm fairly sure I've seen it done here in the past. It would also be helpful, where a thread has become very long and a sequel started, to prevent people from posting any more to the old part; in spite of clear requests to the contrary, a good many folk (some mere idiots, but many who really should know better) regularly do this, often to repeat information already given earlier on in a discussion which -because it was already over-long- they have not bothered to read...

---

22 Jun 02 - 12:16 PM (#734742)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

The message-moving utility places messages in the chronological order in which they were posted. If I have a thread started in 2001 and transfer 1997 messages to it, the 1997 messages will go to the top of the thread. In the "Quiet Land of Erin" threads, somebody posted a recent message to an early thread, and it caused a slight confustion that Philippa noticed. I knew about it when I combined the threads, but decided it wasn't worth bothering about.

There was one song that had a number of threads. Some of the threads were all garbage, and some had lots of good stuff. I combined the garbage therads in one thread, and the good stuff into another, and posted cross-links in the first message of each. I combined entire threads and didn't think it right to cull out just the good messages, so I think it's still quite easy to see the progression of messages - the "good threads" have a few "garbage" messages.

I can close threads and prohibit new posts - but so far, it works only on the "test/beta" version of Mudcat. There is another way I can use currently to "lock" a thread, but it removes all the individual messages in the thread from the Forum Search - and I don't want to do that.

One problem I notice is that if I move messages out of a thread and delete the thread, it can affect the tracer. If you have a tracer on a thread I delete, you lose the ability to trace that thread. I think that's not a horribly serious problem.

Susan suggests that I paste an entire thread into another and make the added thread a different color. I can do that - but then the individual messages don't show up in the Forum Search. Generally, I think it's better to leave messages intact, and transfer them one-by-one to other threads. I'll consider that, though, for the little threads that just request information and don't add anything substantial.

I have done very little editing of individual messages, and I don't intent to edit messages. If somebody posts a link to another thread, I maight change the link to (above), or in some circumstances I may delete the entire message if all it consists of is a link to another thread. Kat asked if "raw threads" are available if I move messages to another thread - no, they aren't, but they appear in the new thread in the order that they appeared in the old one - they're just combined, so people can see everything on the subject at one time. As I said above, there was one mixup that Philippa noticed, but it was just one message that appeared to be out of sync - it doesn't usually happen.

I suppose that there is a trade-off, and that it is kind of fun to look at ten different threads as they originally appeared and see how information developed - but what I'm doing is combining those ten threads into one, and the evolution of the information can still be seen - it's just that it's all in one thread, instead of in ten.


Somebody asked about the "new" Mudcat and whether it allows Mudcatters to edit their own message. It allows you to preview your message and check it for correctness before posting, but it does not allow you to edit something once you've posted it - if you screw up on your final posting, you still have to ask a Clone to help you.

-Joe-

---

22 Jun 02 - 01:27 PM (#734761)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

Take a look at the threads on "For Ireland, I'd Not Tell Her Name." There are different ways that people understand the title (I'll not, I won't, I'd not), so I'm not sure it would be good to combine all the threads. I cross-linked by telling the filter to search for "tell her name," and it worked rather nicely. Give it a try:

Search for "tell her name" threads

---

22 Jun 02 - 01:39 PM (#734764)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: wysiwyg

Joe, I think everything you are doing is super.

One thing that might help with the eventual weirdness factor would be that when you insert the pink note about having combined threads, maybe dating that note would clarify (for you and for later thread readers) how the combined comments might relate to one another... if you do your insertion in someone else's post you're borrowing their time frame.

Finally, is there a value to making a NEW thread for ALL the combined stuff to go into, so that you can start it off with a standard-pasted comment about it having been combined, and maybe any details about how or what you did, and giving a heads-up that as newer threads occur and are spotted they will get tossed in as well?

But really, whatever you do is great. Just keep it simple enough not to make yourself nuts cuz I know you like to do other fun stuff around here too. *G*

If you want to practice on the spirituals threads, of course, there is a set of them already dug up for you and a chance to play with how you want to do it, within an existing project that has a certain scope to it, in case you want to redo any of the ones you did as you figure out simpler approaches. It's a bit early to see how some of the could be combined, but there are a few where it might make sense to start. Let me know if you want to operate on them, though, would you? There are various things going on with those that we would want to coordinate.

~Susan

---

23 Jun 02 - 08:28 PM (#735444)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Noreen

Sorry, Joe, but I don't like the combined Ard Tí Chuain/Quiet Land of Erin thread at all- it doesn't make sense and would be very confusing to a new reader, even with your notes about combined threads.

A thread is like a conversation, where posters interact and refer to what has gone before. When two or more (as in this case) are lumped together, it is hard to tell who is referring to what, and hyperlinks which have been inserted to direct people to other information either give a blank or take you back to the same thread.

I can see that deletion of simply answered requests or refreshes could be justified, and that combining might possibly work with simpler threads, but not in this case.

If information is to be combined, then it has to be processed and summarised, which is what I believe you intend to happen to the DTStudy threads. Otherwise, I think threads should be left as they are, with cross- referencing hyperlinks added as neccessary, so readers can understand the chronology and the relationship between threads.

I hope you will understand that I'm not criticising your hard work, but that I don't think this is the way to go about organising the large amounts of information available here.

Noreen

---

23 Jun 02 - 08:59 PM (#735452)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

Well, we're experimenting with a few things to see what works. When some songs have ten threads, it's hard to find the information that's already been posted - and then a lot of information gets duplicated.
One idea I had was to label threads (Request Only) if they had no substantial information.
I hate looking at threads time and time again, only to find that all they contain is links to other thread, or search information. I think the ideal is to have the information on a song contained in one or just a few threads, but I'm open to other ideas.
The "Land of Erin" combined thread didn't confuse me. Maybe it's easier for me to read long threads without getting confused, because I have a large monitor. Anyhow, let's keep thinking about this.
-Joe Offer-

---

23 Jun 02 - 10:32 PM (#735485)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: katlaughing

What about just making a cross-referenced index, with links, of all of the song threads, Joe? Like the Song Origins Permathread( what's the code number for the R in a circle sign?) Index? That way the original threads stay intact and people can follow the history of postings in situ so to speak? That would also seem a lot simpler, in the long run than all the cutting and pasting, as well as not muck up peoples' traced threads, something I am just as concerned about as dead links.

---

23 Jun 02 - 10:42 PM (#735488)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

Well, Kat, then you continue to have the problem of bifurcated discussions, and all the nastiness of people telling people to search, and all the repetition of people telling people how to search. And instead of ten discussions on "Quiet Land of Erin," you end up with 25 - and you have to check each one to get the information you want.
Maybe a better idea would be to transfer a request to the thread that provides at least a partial answer to the request.
As far as combining existing threads, you may be right - I'm not completely satisfied with my efforts at combining. I think it works better with short threads, than it does with long ones.
I'm all for preserving what's worthwhile in the Forum, in the form in which it was posted - but sometimes I wonder if it's worth it to keep all the requests that just get pointed to another thread.
-Joe Offer-

---

23 Jun 02 - 10:43 PM (#735489)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: catspaw49

Somewhere along the lines of both Noreen and kat is where I fall. Do the DT Studies and incorporate in them anything you wish included copied posts......But outside if interlinking the original threads as is often currently done now by you Joe and several others of us, I would prefer the threads be left intact.

I would be all for deleting threads that are without any value such as "Harry Legg-Please Call Me" where someone is trying to find Harry Legg. We have lots of the threads that have no purpose past that day and I think those might well be deleted.

Spaw

---

23 Jun 02 - 11:02 PM (#735497)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: katlaughing

Why not just close those request threads when the new version comes online, Joe, with the link intact to the proper thread? That way, whooever psoted it will still be able to find it, but will have to go to the other thread in order to find the info and to post any more about that song.

Along with the threads Pat mentions are a bunch of Paltalk ones which could probably be deleted, too, except for the early ones where we were in the habit of posting the names of the songs we did. I would leave the HearMe ones intact. Juts a thought, but then maybe some wouldn't want the records of who showed up from which continents, etc. deleted. Just a thought.

kat

---

23 Jun 02 - 11:02 PM (#735498)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

OK, Spaw - but is there a value in preserving this thread (click) which is a combination of two request threads? If you searched for "row on" this morning, you would have found seven threads - and most had very little information in them. So people check the first three threads on the list and find nothing, so they start an eighth thread on the subject. There's gotta be a better way.
We had a search connected to thread creation, but the apparatus was cumbersome. The idea is to keep the Forum as free and uncontrolled as we can manage - but still guide people a bit so we don't lose good information in a sea of verbiage. How can we do that?
-Joe Offer-

---

23 Jun 02 - 11:22 PM (#735508)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: katlaughing

Back to the index idea, there's nothing to keep us from putting a star or something beside the best link for a song, i.e. if there are 25 threads on that one song, rate them, or just put a note beside each link which says something like "best one for lyrics" etc.

---

24 Jun 02 - 03:36 AM (#735569)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Nigel Parsons

My only concern is whether links from ones personal list of posts will still enable tracking of old messages. (I.e. will they be re-directed)
Wolfgang's comment about using two distinct modes ("talk" for temporary messages; and "write" for permanent) appeared good, but would cause confusion when someone responded in "write" to a "talk" comment which subsequently disappeared.

---

24 Jun 02 - 07:28 AM (#735631)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: katlaughing

It might be helpful to have a way for a poster to designate whether they minded a particular posting being deleted once it's served its purpose, at the time of writing it. With it clearly marked so that everyone knows it might disappear.

---

24 Jun 02 - 11:40 AM (#735764)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: Joe Offer

Well, after thinking things over, I'm convinced that it's not a good idea to combine the longer existing threads. It sometimes makes sense to combine one or two solitary messages, but not when threads are longer.

If messages are moved from a thread and the thread deleted, the thread no longer shows up on the tracer. However, the messages show up in Forum Search by user name and message title, wherever those messages may be.

OK, but back to those hundreds of requests threads that we get all the time. They serve a purpose - somebody asks, we respond, and then the requestor (sometimes) comes back and thanks, and then a troll comes in and tells the requestor how stupid they were to ask in the first place. Threads like the Row On requests (click) - What do we do with these threads once they've served their purpose? I think maybe we could mark them "request only" and close them so no additional posts are allowed past a certain point, redirecting people to a more productive thread. I think it might be better to close, mark, and redirect - rather than deleting.

Indexing is OK - but an index is out of date as soon as a new thread is created on the same subject. If we use a Filter-based link like I tried on the Search for "tell her name" threads, the link doesn't get outdated - but it might make sense in that case to label the "request only" threads.

-Joe-

---

24 Jun 02 - 11:46 AM (#735769)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: katlaughing

I agree wholeheartedly, Joe. Good solution.

---

25 Apr 05 - 05:21 AM (#1469935)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: The Shambles

Joe, I think everything you are doing is super.

Perhaps a review of this imposed 'censorship' is now in order?

---

25 Apr 05 - 05:24 AM (#1469937)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: The Shambles

Censorship on Mudcat

---

25 Apr 05 - 05:35 AM (#1469941)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: McGrath of Harlow

Joe, I think everything you are doing is super.

I'm glad you see it that way now, Shambles...

---

25 Apr 05 - 12:28 PM (#1470235)
Subject: RE: Organizing Threads
From: The Shambles

Me too.

---