Printable View
How come, if the reasons for the merge were as stated, the title changed to such an obscure/useless one, i.e. "Did You know this 'Can' happen to a diesel (Death by oil)"?
How does that title help anyone?
I would have thought something like "Merged Threads about Diesel Runaway and Destruction" would have been more useful!
That reason was mentioned by Diana in post 454.Quote:
Originally Posted by lr110qld
The merging of this thread has been discussed by the mods, and there was almost unanimous agreement that the threads stay merged. We don't do these sort of things to **** people off, and if that is the case, that is unfortunate, but at the end of the day, they are staying merged as it was agreed that the 2 threads were mostly the same.
VNX205,
The point I was trying to make is that merging threads draws the crabs, upsets regular posters when their initiated thread is merged. Why do it when as you say it is pointless to expect every thread about a common topic to be merged. If you can't do them all then why do long standing threads from a regular posters. I can understand short threads posted in multiple places being merged.
It is not about justifying the merge here, it is obvious that the initiator of the thread thinks it unreasonable, it would be simpler to just reverse the action as soon as it is pointed out that there is a disagreement with the action.
Obsession was the wrong word to use on my behalf, my apology.
I hope this is not just a matter of principal.
If this is going to be an issue a way to overcome it is for the moderators to start threads that people should post to and where new posts are started by request.
I know we are drifting further and further from the original topic of the thread, but since we are having what I believe is a reasoned discussion in a genuine attempt to understand each other's point of view, I will continue.
I agree with you that the merging of threads sometimes seems to upset people. I was under the impression that frequently that anger was simply because the poster could not find their thread and for some inexplicable reason their first assumption is that it has been deleted. I know that is not the problem in this case, however.
Although I don't have any real, hard evidence to support the notion, I have the feeling that sometimes people are upset because people have some sense of ownership of threads they have started. I suspect it is a common human reaction to feel some sense that the mods have taken away that ownership if they move it to another forum or merge it with another thread.
I believe I have seen evidence of a similar reaction when people see their thread being hijacked. Some people react as if the thread has been stolen from them.
I'm not sure that you have refuted my point about why some threads can't be merged or don't need to be merged. Perhaps if I pluck some figures out of the air, it might illustrate the point I was trying to make.
If there are fifty threads each year about poly versus rubber bushes, I don't think there are enough hours in the day for the mods to merge them all. I also don't believe that it is very helpful since a lot of them will say the same thing anyway. If a member only discovers a dozen of those threads, then not much important information will be missed.
If there are just two threads in a year about experiences with 2.8 engines with slightly different information in each and a search finds only one of them then someone could be missing a significant amount of useful information.
Merging two threads is easier than trying to merge fifty. It is also more likely to be helpful to someone searching.
I guess I am trying to describe what I imagine are the reasons the mods merge threads. I may be wrong.
One big problem is that in the real world, things don't fit as neatly onto boxes as they do in the theoretical world I am describing. This thread is a good example of that.
In some cases, it is obvious that two or more threads are dealing with exactly the same issue
The way I see it is that the mods are trying to reduce the chaos and make it easier for people looking for information. Sometime what they do has advantages and disadvantages. Sometime what they do will upset some and please others.
I think I understand the points you are making. I suppose part of my position is that even when people are upset, they should stop to consider that while the merge not have suited them, it might be more beneficial for the wider community. Maybe the poster is upset, but the readers may be better off.
I also remember at least a couple of cases where someone knew they had answered a question on a topic and wondered why they couldn't find their answer. What had happened was that someone had asked the same question on two places and the answer was in the other thread. I don't think anyone would argue that those two threads should remain separate.
Once again, I realise that last example bears no relationship to the information in this thread. I just wanted to make the point that sometimes things are black and white, but in the real world things are more often various shades of grey.
We may just have to agree to disagree about whether the benefits in this particular case outweigh to harm. :)