Combining Posts - A growing trend
- Thread starter slavlite
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Mainly because all of the work would need to be manually done and policed, which is nearly impossible.
IF you have an active thread in 5 different forums, thats fine, That isn't the point I am trying to get across.
Say you want to list something individually with baseball FT/FS forum. "2011 Topps Golds FT" and want a second thread open that says "Serial #'ed cards FT" Those are two threads that could be one with a title of "Serial #'ed cards FT/FS: lots of 2011 Golds available" as the title.
One of the main issues with "Clutter" is bumping, If you have 5 Threads going with really specific titles with the baseball FT/FS forum, and you check in once a day and Bump all 5 of them, you are eating up a lot of top thread spots and making it difficult for other traders to get their threads at the top of the forum.
It basically all breaks down to being creative with your thread titles and Making lists that are easy to read/use for other traders. A matter of courtesy for all traders
With all due respect, wouldn't the "manual policing" for open thread limits be exactly the same as policing thread bumps and combining threads? I mean, you have sort of an honor system going anyways, you're asking members to adhere to a rule (combining threads) which, IMO, is kind of vague, whereas a thread limit is exact and precise in its scope.
I'm not trying to argue or question the set up here, I 'm just not sure I see the actual issue. Doesn't the time any given post stays on 'top" (page 1) directly relate to posting traffic anyways? I can only control the threads I begin (new posts) or bump, but cannot control replies to my current threads (or even older ones), both of which jump that thread to the top and may drop one automatically to page 2. Anyone could have the top spots on page 1 if enough of their older threads got replies, therefore dumping possibly a thread from today to page 2. If I bump 5 of my threads all at once, it would have the same impact as 5 replies to 5 threads or posting 5 new threads.. I'm not sure how anyone can assume that any new post is going to be on the top for ANY amount of time, there are too many extrinsic factors effecting it. A new post at midnight will most likely stay on page 1 longer than any post in heavy traffic hours, like evenings, where a new post could rapidly drop down with enough other new threads. Only way to increase an average time on page 1 would be post limits per 24 hour period. Alternative would be to expand page 1 from it's ~40 slots to 100. If members are too lazy to actually go to page 2 to see if there are new threads there they didn't read, then that is their loss and maybe my collections gain. And everyone should have the right to bump that thread the next day back to the top, so more folks can ignore it, LOL. I just don't see how combining threads will have any major impact on volume, there only seems to be about >15 NEW threads in the baseball forum daily, out of 40+ slots. If you say we must combine threads, say that number drops to 12 a day, the impact is limited, IMO. It's the replies and bumps that move things, right?
So we don't want to limit threads daily, nor limit posts. So why not use a rule that says all trades should be worked out via PM. That would eliminate ALL replies to threads and the natural order would take over. No more posting "pm sent" either. No more "got any Mario Mendozas". Your new post would stay at the top longer, with no bumps or replies to drop it, (only other new threads would drop it) and since we average less than 40 a day in any one forum, that would keep you on page 1 at least 24 hours, again, depending on traffic.
I'm not trying to argue or question the set up here, I 'm just not sure I see the actual issue. Doesn't the time any given post stays on 'top" (page 1) directly relate to posting traffic anyways? I can only control the threads I begin (new posts) or bump, but cannot control replies to my current threads (or even older ones), both of which jump that thread to the top and may drop one automatically to page 2. Anyone could have the top spots on page 1 if enough of their older threads got replies, therefore dumping possibly a thread from today to page 2. If I bump 5 of my threads all at once, it would have the same impact as 5 replies to 5 threads or posting 5 new threads.. I'm not sure how anyone can assume that any new post is going to be on the top for ANY amount of time, there are too many extrinsic factors effecting it. A new post at midnight will most likely stay on page 1 longer than any post in heavy traffic hours, like evenings, where a new post could rapidly drop down with enough other new threads. Only way to increase an average time on page 1 would be post limits per 24 hour period. Alternative would be to expand page 1 from it's ~40 slots to 100. If members are too lazy to actually go to page 2 to see if there are new threads there they didn't read, then that is their loss and maybe my collections gain. And everyone should have the right to bump that thread the next day back to the top, so more folks can ignore it, LOL. I just don't see how combining threads will have any major impact on volume, there only seems to be about >15 NEW threads in the baseball forum daily, out of 40+ slots. If you say we must combine threads, say that number drops to 12 a day, the impact is limited, IMO. It's the replies and bumps that move things, right?
So we don't want to limit threads daily, nor limit posts. So why not use a rule that says all trades should be worked out via PM. That would eliminate ALL replies to threads and the natural order would take over. No more posting "pm sent" either. No more "got any Mario Mendozas". Your new post would stay at the top longer, with no bumps or replies to drop it, (only other new threads would drop it) and since we average less than 40 a day in any one forum, that would keep you on page 1 at least 24 hours, again, depending on traffic.
No it wouldn't be the same, I would have to take to the time to manually close every thread that someone PM'ed me about before that person could then go and post a new thread.
I think combining posts is easily understandable and in no way vague at all. Im pretty sure I spelled it out well above:
If you as a collector aren't willing to look thru lists to find things you need/want, that is not my problem. The search function is something that I don't think people use as much as they should either. I do an every other day search for "Greg Maddux" (here and on other trading sites) narrows down specifically what I am looking for, some days there are a few new threads with maddux listings, some days there are none, so I don't "waste my time" looking thru lists I have already seen, or have nothing that I am specifically looking for. Also People don't always know this, But If you open a thread and the list isn't organized the way you like to read lists, Simply Hold "ctrl - F" This will bring up a search bar in your browser, then type in what you want to search the individual webpage for "Maddux" if there is a match on the entire webpage it will tel you how many matches and allow you to cycle through the matches by hitting the enter button.
The amount of Time something stays on top of a forum is directly related to posts/activity. However someone could post a nice thread, that has a detailed list of cards FT or wants. Then 5 People come on and post 5 new threads each all of which could have been done in a single thread, so we have 25 new threads, where 5 would have sufficed. By then the person who posted their thread correctly has been pushed off of the top page. All users seem to use the site in their own way, so those members who only check "new posts" or only check first pages, or do not use the Search function, may miss the well organized correctly posted thread completely, and that member has to wait 24 hours before bringing back up via "Bump" in which case we start the whole circus over again.
I am not trying to poo-poo your ideas above, I am merely explaining our stance on this to the best of my ability, I have been modding this site for close to 5 years now and am well versed on how our site, and other trading sites run. We have these rules for a reason, and "Combining Posts" has been a rule here since I believe 2002 if I am not mistaken. One of the many things people like about The Bench as opposed to other trading sites, is the no nonsense, non cluttered, specificly sportscards/sports talk that goes on here (you'll notice we don't allow GIFs, Images in signature, Religious or Political discussion, etc. here)
Lastly, it is much easier to "Police" the combining thread rule than anything you mentioned above because individual mods patrol specific forums we are assigned to, as well as the "New Post" section, so we can generally see these things immediately without having to be PM'ed about closing/opening new threads. All while none of us gets paid to do what we do here.
I just don't understand the need to continually discuss this when I believe it is a very easy rule to understand that has been part of this site since it's inception.
-Nick
I think combining posts is easily understandable and in no way vague at all. Im pretty sure I spelled it out well above:
slavlite said:
If you as a collector aren't willing to look thru lists to find things you need/want, that is not my problem. The search function is something that I don't think people use as much as they should either. I do an every other day search for "Greg Maddux" (here and on other trading sites) narrows down specifically what I am looking for, some days there are a few new threads with maddux listings, some days there are none, so I don't "waste my time" looking thru lists I have already seen, or have nothing that I am specifically looking for. Also People don't always know this, But If you open a thread and the list isn't organized the way you like to read lists, Simply Hold "ctrl - F" This will bring up a search bar in your browser, then type in what you want to search the individual webpage for "Maddux" if there is a match on the entire webpage it will tel you how many matches and allow you to cycle through the matches by hitting the enter button.
The amount of Time something stays on top of a forum is directly related to posts/activity. However someone could post a nice thread, that has a detailed list of cards FT or wants. Then 5 People come on and post 5 new threads each all of which could have been done in a single thread, so we have 25 new threads, where 5 would have sufficed. By then the person who posted their thread correctly has been pushed off of the top page. All users seem to use the site in their own way, so those members who only check "new posts" or only check first pages, or do not use the Search function, may miss the well organized correctly posted thread completely, and that member has to wait 24 hours before bringing back up via "Bump" in which case we start the whole circus over again.
I am not trying to poo-poo your ideas above, I am merely explaining our stance on this to the best of my ability, I have been modding this site for close to 5 years now and am well versed on how our site, and other trading sites run. We have these rules for a reason, and "Combining Posts" has been a rule here since I believe 2002 if I am not mistaken. One of the many things people like about The Bench as opposed to other trading sites, is the no nonsense, non cluttered, specificly sportscards/sports talk that goes on here (you'll notice we don't allow GIFs, Images in signature, Religious or Political discussion, etc. here)
Lastly, it is much easier to "Police" the combining thread rule than anything you mentioned above because individual mods patrol specific forums we are assigned to, as well as the "New Post" section, so we can generally see these things immediately without having to be PM'ed about closing/opening new threads. All while none of us gets paid to do what we do here.
I just don't understand the need to continually discuss this when I believe it is a very easy rule to understand that has been part of this site since it's inception.
-Nick
Last edited:
Most of us that have been here for a few years knows who bumps their threads a lot,..
Is it annoying?,..Yeppers,but without limiting threads allowed the problem is inherit to the hobby ,.
As long as the search system runs well most peeps can take a little time and see whats out there,..
Clint
Is it annoying?,..Yeppers,but without limiting threads allowed the problem is inherit to the hobby ,.
As long as the search system runs well most peeps can take a little time and see whats out there,..
Clint
That's if the search system works. Any combination of search I try for when I look for 2002 Topps Traded (using quotes, pluses, etc.) and I get a ton of threads of people trying to move 2002 finest autos for a dollar or 1988 Topps or even tons of Traded cards. But rarely ever the 2002 Traded I'm looking for. Is the anyway to have a reliable search method?
Right now, I just CTRL+F and add the extra hours a week hunting through threads. I'll get annoyed after 3-4 pages of threads and if someone makes 15 threads when they could have 1-2, this hunting would be more efficient.
You are correct in that the search function is flawed when searching for multiple word searches i.e. "2002 Topps Traded" as a player collector it does not effect me personally. I will look into search add-ons for vbulletin and see if there isn't something that would allow for quotation marks to be used to search for a phrase as opposed to words.
I will say that I am no super vbulletin genius, however, so it may take me some time to find a patch for this if one does exist.
I wouldn't worry too much about, but I do appreciate the effort. I have adapted over the years here and search the way I described above. However, the multiple thread guys make this really hard for me.
It's vague, IMO, because EVERYTHING can be combined and if you're going to combine EVERYTHING, you might as well say 1 new thread a day. Every thread could be titled "Cards For Trade/Sale" and it would cover everything!! My point is that how do you combine threads in a way that still makes it easy for specific searches for an item? Again, I point out the "2011 Topps Gold FT" versus "Parallels For Trade" titles.
And again, with all due respect, the math in your scenario doesn't hold up. If, as you said, 1 person posted a nice thread with lots of stuff, then 5 others came along and posted 5 threads each, they would ALL be on page 1, because you have 40 slots. It's only 26 total new threads.What would get bumped would be the older threads under them.
And again, with all due respect, the math in your scenario doesn't hold up. If, as you said, 1 person posted a nice thread with lots of stuff, then 5 others came along and posted 5 threads each, they would ALL be on page 1, because you have 40 slots. It's only 26 total new threads.What would get bumped would be the older threads under them.
Last edited:
The Math in my scenario was strictly an example, Multiply it by however many times you want to make it work, in the long run it makes sense.
I am not saying "Everything" needs to be combined, you are taking the context of "Combining threads" to the extreme. Post a tradelist for baseball in the baseball FT/FS forum. I am not saying you can't have 2 seperate threads at one time in a single forum, But having 3, 4 , 5 and more in a single forum is mainly what this is directed at. If you do want to have everything seperated into individual tradelists, Then Post a couple up and let them run their course before posting a couple more.
It breaks down to common sense and courtesy. It works well, and the vast majority of our members prefer it this way.
also, going back to your original post in this thread:
1st point: "seeing a thread without looking, assume..." If you are looking for something and won't look at a thread where the title coincides with your wants, even vaguely, is your choice. any thread can easily be searched by clicking it and using the ctrl-F option to easily breakdown specific wants.
2nd point: setting thread limitations is not an answer to this, I dont care if someone has 10 threads going at once as long as the individual forums are combined. If you are a multi-sport collector, Having a thread or 2 in Baseball FT/FS, 1 or 2 in Baseball Wants, 1 in Footbal FT/FS, 2 in Basketball Wants and so on is fine and not realted to the subject of combining threads at all. This whole subject of Combining threads basically breaks down to Individual forums(while also following our rules on cross posting)
Again you have to break down to how individual users use the site, some people use "new posts" specifically to see whats going on, some people use Individual foruums to see whats going on. Some users exclude all forums from view other than the ones that most pertain to their collections.
I am not saying "Everything" needs to be combined, you are taking the context of "Combining threads" to the extreme. Post a tradelist for baseball in the baseball FT/FS forum. I am not saying you can't have 2 seperate threads at one time in a single forum, But having 3, 4 , 5 and more in a single forum is mainly what this is directed at. If you do want to have everything seperated into individual tradelists, Then Post a couple up and let them run their course before posting a couple more.
It breaks down to common sense and courtesy. It works well, and the vast majority of our members prefer it this way.
also, going back to your original post in this thread:
BoomerSooner said:
1st point: "seeing a thread without looking, assume..." If you are looking for something and won't look at a thread where the title coincides with your wants, even vaguely, is your choice. any thread can easily be searched by clicking it and using the ctrl-F option to easily breakdown specific wants.
2nd point: setting thread limitations is not an answer to this, I dont care if someone has 10 threads going at once as long as the individual forums are combined. If you are a multi-sport collector, Having a thread or 2 in Baseball FT/FS, 1 or 2 in Baseball Wants, 1 in Footbal FT/FS, 2 in Basketball Wants and so on is fine and not realted to the subject of combining threads at all. This whole subject of Combining threads basically breaks down to Individual forums(while also following our rules on cross posting)
Again you have to break down to how individual users use the site, some people use "new posts" specifically to see whats going on, some people use Individual foruums to see whats going on. Some users exclude all forums from view other than the ones that most pertain to their collections.
Last edited:
This isn't getting us anywhere, you can't seem to understand the point I'm making. I give up.
plain and simple : it's a matter of common sense and courtesy.....
i tend to use the "new posts" button rather than go directly to specific sub-forums , so i often see multiple threads from a single user , but USUALLY they are spread out over different sub-forums which is perfectly ok.....
i wont mention any names (tough i know of 4-5 frequent repeat offenders that come to mind right away) but just as a specific example , 2 weeks ago when i logged on and checked the forums , ONE member had 17 consecutive threads showing up...i believe 7 were his old bumped threads and 10 were new ones he started at that time....they were spread over only 2 sub-forums....the news ones ? well they included a thread for a 2011 regular issue set and 8 other totally separate threads that were each for a SINGLE INSERT from that main set (so he actually had NINE SEPARATE threads for ONE 2011 baseball product.....very inconsiderate to take up more than 60% of the front page of threads (yes , over 60% since the new post feature has a 25-post-per-page limit even if your options are set to 40 threads per page)....
i think boomer is missing slavlite's point when he says "5 others came along and posted 5 threads each, they would ALL be on page 1, because you have 40 slots. It's only 26 total new threads.What would get bumped would be the older threads under them."
yes boomer , 5 people posting 5 threads each would only fill 25 of the 40 page one slots leaving 15 others still visible on page one....BUT , that is the EXACT POINT slavlite is making ....you would have a mere FIVE PEOPLE taking up 62.5% (or 15.5% each) of the front page with 15 other sharing the remaining 37.5% (or a mere 2.5% each).....
personally (and somehow i feel im not alone in this sentiment) i choose to AVOID dealing with people who are that inconsiderate of their fellow members and that either a) are incapable of comprehending and obeying the posting guidelines or b) understand the guidelines yet make the deliberate choice to ignore them....
again , i have no issues with people having more than one thread active in any given sub-forum as long as the threads involve significantly different content and the OP's are courteous and responsible in the frequency with which they bump the threads....
i tend to use the "new posts" button rather than go directly to specific sub-forums , so i often see multiple threads from a single user , but USUALLY they are spread out over different sub-forums which is perfectly ok.....
i wont mention any names (tough i know of 4-5 frequent repeat offenders that come to mind right away) but just as a specific example , 2 weeks ago when i logged on and checked the forums , ONE member had 17 consecutive threads showing up...i believe 7 were his old bumped threads and 10 were new ones he started at that time....they were spread over only 2 sub-forums....the news ones ? well they included a thread for a 2011 regular issue set and 8 other totally separate threads that were each for a SINGLE INSERT from that main set (so he actually had NINE SEPARATE threads for ONE 2011 baseball product.....very inconsiderate to take up more than 60% of the front page of threads (yes , over 60% since the new post feature has a 25-post-per-page limit even if your options are set to 40 threads per page)....
i think boomer is missing slavlite's point when he says "5 others came along and posted 5 threads each, they would ALL be on page 1, because you have 40 slots. It's only 26 total new threads.What would get bumped would be the older threads under them."
yes boomer , 5 people posting 5 threads each would only fill 25 of the 40 page one slots leaving 15 others still visible on page one....BUT , that is the EXACT POINT slavlite is making ....you would have a mere FIVE PEOPLE taking up 62.5% (or 15.5% each) of the front page with 15 other sharing the remaining 37.5% (or a mere 2.5% each).....
personally (and somehow i feel im not alone in this sentiment) i choose to AVOID dealing with people who are that inconsiderate of their fellow members and that either a) are incapable of comprehending and obeying the posting guidelines or b) understand the guidelines yet make the deliberate choice to ignore them....
again , i have no issues with people having more than one thread active in any given sub-forum as long as the threads involve significantly different content and the OP's are courteous and responsible in the frequency with which they bump the threads....
Quote:"it's a matter of common sense and courtesy"
Impossible to regulate courtesy, IMO. And some folks just don't have common sense, so that's impossible too.
Quote:"i tend to use the "new posts" button"
Again, everyone searches differently here so slavs "solution" does not work for all of them. A post limit per day works for EVERY search method.
Quote:"i think boomer is missing slavlite's point"
No, I get his point but again, statistically, it is invalid. Even your math is invalid in this discussion becasue the number of new posts daily as well as replies that bump old posts is a VARIABLE. Heavy traffic days will create the very problem you guys are complaining about, not so much the amount of threads that need to be combined. To be clear- I post 5 threads on a SLOW day, the fourm doesn't change much. I post them on a busy day where someone else does the same, it influences it much more. It's a traffic issue, not a volume issue.
Quote:"the threads involve significantly different"
Define this. How do we determine what is "significantly different"? Again, leaving this up to the individual to decide creates the same problem, IMO. While a generic "inserts" title may work for you, someone else may see Topps inserts different from UD inserts. It's a matter of perspective, and like the search process, everyone does/sees it differently.
Ok, now I give up, LOL.
Impossible to regulate courtesy, IMO. And some folks just don't have common sense, so that's impossible too.
Quote:"i tend to use the "new posts" button"
Again, everyone searches differently here so slavs "solution" does not work for all of them. A post limit per day works for EVERY search method.
Quote:"i think boomer is missing slavlite's point"
No, I get his point but again, statistically, it is invalid. Even your math is invalid in this discussion becasue the number of new posts daily as well as replies that bump old posts is a VARIABLE. Heavy traffic days will create the very problem you guys are complaining about, not so much the amount of threads that need to be combined. To be clear- I post 5 threads on a SLOW day, the fourm doesn't change much. I post them on a busy day where someone else does the same, it influences it much more. It's a traffic issue, not a volume issue.
Quote:"the threads involve significantly different"
Define this. How do we determine what is "significantly different"? Again, leaving this up to the individual to decide creates the same problem, IMO. While a generic "inserts" title may work for you, someone else may see Topps inserts different from UD inserts. It's a matter of perspective, and like the search process, everyone does/sees it differently.
Ok, now I give up, LOL.
Similar threads
Sponsors
