Merging threads. Can and should MNHQ do this?

[EdithWeston]

Sometimes more than one thread pops up, in the same forum, at the same time and on the same subject.

Today's example is made up of the two RIP threads for Bob Holness appearing in Chat within minutes of each other.

Would it be technically possible to merge the two, so that all the comments were together? It would make for a more comprehensive and inclusive thread, and it would be just nice to see all the comments together.

Would anyone else think this a good idea?

I think so. There were 3 or 4 Celeb BB ones last night too.

Yes, I think it would be a good idea.

Could we have a 'merge thread' button to alert MN?

Good idea - although given the way that threads on MN tend to go off on wild tangents, it would have to be done very early on in said threads' lives, otherwise the resulting thread would make no sense at all!

no i think it would make no sense at all because people on each thread are talking/replying to each other and if they suddenyl merged it would be like 2 conversations in the same thread.

would be weird IMO

Yes, MNHQ would need to check the contents do indeed fit together (not just threads having similar titles), and normally do it only within the same forum (or closely related ones eg sleb twaddle and telly addicts might overlap enough; chat always stands alone as it extinguishes, and AIBU probably shouldn't ever merge).

BTW: there are now three Bob Holness RIP threads - none of which have such involved conversations that they would become incomprehensible.

But I agree that if any potential threads did contain involved discussion, they wouldn't be suitable to merge. It'ud be something to do sparingly, but would be so useful sometimes.

Especially today.

Well said Edith. And for TV ones when everyone is obviously watching the same thing.

Sounds like extra work for Mumsnet, for not much purpose.

It would be simpler if hq simply picked the longer one and posted on the other(s) "there is another thread linky would you all like to use it".

But normally what happens is that a couple die and one takes over, all natural like .

The sort of threads it happens on tend to all start together when some news is heard or a programme starts. It's hard to check if one already exists.

Bob Holness is dead?!

How sad

I think that would be a fabulous idea, and even better if the threads bore no relation to each other at all.

I have no opinion on this.

HTH.

I have started a couple of other bob ones in case anyone missed the first few.

por bob

(who was he?)

Oh yes. What Hully said.

Thunders: I've no idea if it's technically possible at all, or if it is difficult, or I it is dead easy (is there a techie around to say?). So it might not be disproportionate at all.

MaryZed: SWYM, but unless all the posters on the shorter threads repeated their posts, then the positives of all discussion being in one place would be lost.

A mish-mash of threads heading off in different directions would be fun, wouldn't it.

Especially if all posts were put in date/time order, not in the order of the thread they had come from.

There might be some wonderful non-sequiturs

Sorry, cross-posted . I get your point.

Not sure that it is technically possible? I have asked Tech.

@MaryZed

It would be simpler if hq simply picked the longer one and posted on the other(s) "there is another thread linky would you all like to use it".

But normally what happens is that a couple die and one takes over, all natural like .

However, we do quite like the 'all natural like' version...

Or we could vote? Which one to save, which one to cull like X-factor Gladiators in ancient Rome.

Who knew ole Bob H was such a trouble-maker, eh? Tsk.

I now feel that I want one of my bob threads to triumph over the others.

Look what you've done.

maryZed: it could become a new Friday diversion - MNHQ gets an analogous Ernie to select and merge three threads at random from certain specified non-sensitive forums, and sends it forth as the weekly mash up. The juxtapositions could provide a whole new world....

Rebecca: thanks for having a techie look at it. I agree that the natural ebb and flow of threads is fine for most occasions. I meant this to be something used only sparingly. But today there are three threads in chat, created within minutes of each other (so it seems that neither search function nor even a quick check of active convos actually happens in a breaking news scenario). And it does seem a shame that some contributions are effectively lost just because of relative popularity of thread at time of day.

Ooh, excellent idea Edith.