BBC Television programmes  permalink

Duplicate threads

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 38 of 38
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by silvery (U8422462) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Oh how I agree with this poster. What IS the problem with several threads?


    Posted by Egg On A Stilt (U7111730) ** on Sunday, 30th December 2012

    In answer to the question on the closed thread.
    We were directed here I believe.

    This has been explained so many times Egg


    It hasn't has it , well I never

    would you rather 30 threads on one programme??


    That only happens when something has caused a big stir, the threads soon settle down, the unsubscribed to, or unpopular ones fall off the front pages very quickly.
    The fact that you get so many new threads should make people sit up anyway and take note of an event!

    This oversensitive tilt towards tidiness does not allow new posters or even old ones to start a thread on specifics of a topic, which in itself may be guided by the original poster.
    Throwing something into a thread with several hundred or thousand posts usually guarantees it gets lost, skipped or ignored.

    Jumping on new posters about thread discipline is to be frank, unwelcoming if not done in a nice way.

    i believe there is also some oneupmanship about who can start and therefore "own" threads too, I mean this one started in November and it wasn't really making any sort of comment on the series mentioned, so I'm not surprised if someone started a new one.

    So to answer you question, 30 threads.

    You never know we might get a bit of life back into the boards.

    I will be watching the first of this series btw, I'm hoping it will be offering something new to a tried and tested story.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    I see what you did there.

    You opened a new thread to agree with a poster on another thread!

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by dave (U2043922) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    "Throwing something into a thread with several hundred or thousand posts usually guarantees it gets lost, skipped or ignored."

    Completely agree, why not allow a few threads on different topics about shows ?

    What harm does it do ? smiley - erm

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by stirling (U13732738) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    What IS the problem with several threads? 

    The problem is is that they are not allowed. As it states at the top of the boards:

    "Please use the search box to find an existing BBC programme discussion before starting a new one! Duplicates will be closed."

    If anyone does not like that fact, then they should not post here - simples.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by silvery (U8422462) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    What IS the problem with several threads? 

    The problem is is that they are not allowed. As it states at the top of the boards:

    "Please use the search box to find an existing BBC programme discussion before starting a new one! Duplicates will be closed."

    If anyone does not like that fact, then they should not post here - simples.
     


    Oh give over .

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Fred (U15549179) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    What IS the problem with several threads? 

    The problem is is that they are not allowed. As it states at the top of the boards:

    "Please use the search box to find an existing BBC programme discussion before starting a new one! Duplicates will be closed."

    If anyone does not like that fact, then they should not post here - simples.
     
    We can see what it says, but is it ALWAYS the appropriate approach. I understand the potential for things getting completely and unnecessarily disjointed but "they will be closed" is not necessarily the right and only approach

    You could have fundamentally different discussions on different topics about the same programme/series. e.g. the stars, the storyline, the soundtrack,

    Keeping all of them in a single thread could potentially make it dificult to follow when unique threads are a more sensible way of discussing them

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Oh give over .  Well ... you asked. And got an explanation. Fair enough. smiley - smiley

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    As I have been quoted in the opening post-- could I suggest you ask the host-this is what was said the last time the subject-was brought up

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    and just to be pedantic-perhaps the question should be put here rather than opening a thread?.

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Bidie-In (U2747062) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    "Throwing something into a thread with several hundred or thousand posts usually guarantees it gets lost, skipped or ignored."

    Completely agree, why not allow a few threads on different topics about shows ?

    What harm does it do ? smiley - erm
     
    It can make the pages a bit cluttered, Dave - but also, some posts go unanswered because the main discussion is going on elsewhere. This could cause new contributers to think we are an unfriendly, unresponsive bunch.

    Having said that, my attempts to use the search function have often proved less than successful. smiley - doh

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) ** on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    The duplicate thread rule began because the situation did often get ridiculous.

    For instance, every time there is a new series of Doctor Who, we used to get a lot of threads opened. At one point a couple of years ago, almost every thread on the front page was about Doctor Who. It was a nightmare.

    And it was the regulars on the board that asked for the rule to be implemented. Just to make the board easier to use for regulars and newbies.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by EggOnAStilt (U7111730) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    And it was the regulars on the board that asked for the rule to be implemented. Just to make the board easier to use for regulars and newbies.  

    It was SOME of the regulars who got cranky about it. Others like myself didn't mind.

    smiley - friedegg

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by minibones (U14961554) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    What IS the problem with several threads? 

    The problem is is that they are not allowed. As it states at the top of the boards:

    "Please use the search box to find an existing BBC programme discussion before starting a new one! Duplicates will be closed."

    If anyone does not like that fact, then they should not post here - simples.
     
    Glad to see you're upholding the spirit of reasoned debate.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Simon Barton (U14283743) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    I think that rather than a rigid insistence that only one thread for a programme can exist is a bit heavy handed. Often I have been put off from posting a comment about an aspect of a programme because, having searched for an existing thread the point I wished to comment on is totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed already.
    Therefore I think a bit of flexibility and common sense needs to prevail. A good example of this is the recent Strictly Come Dancing thread which seemed to primarily be for the purpose of moaning about the presenters and It Takes Two so thankfully another thread was allowed to exist for those of us who actually wanted to discuss the competition.
    Obviously before opening a new thread people should look at any existing threads but Part of the responsibility of the forum moderator should be to judge if any new threads on a programme are on different relevant aspects or if they should be part of existing discussions.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) ** on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    And it was the regulars on the board that asked for the rule to be implemented. Just to make the board easier to use for regulars and newbies.  

    It was SOME of the regulars who got cranky about it. Others like myself didn't mind.

    smiley - friedegg 
    Actually, it was a LOT of the regulars. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    It's a shame there aren't separate pro and anti threads for some programmes or personalities.
    Some people get upset if they see different views to their own in threads they're frequenting.
    Having two threads would give them the option of avoiding such distress.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by mirandashell (U1946590) ** on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    I think I was allowed to open a seperate thread for Strictly because I asked really nicely and it was a good idea. The original thread was only for moaning and it did become very difficult to discuss what was actually happening in the dances.

    But I did have to ask first.

    And as one of those who originally campaigned for the rule, I agree with that. The moderators are pretty reasonable and the old days of many multiple threads were bad.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Fred (U15549179) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    It's a shame there aren't separate pro and anti threads for some programmes or personalities.
    Some people get upset if they see different views to their own in threads they're frequenting.
    Having two threads would give them the option of avoiding such distress.
     
    I doubt seperate threads for that purpose would work. It'd probably end up with "He's great" and a succession of "Yeah" responses in one and "He's s**t" with a succession of "Yeah" responses in the other. I'm just not sure that would be particularly rivetting. However, like I said above, I can see an argument for separate dedicated threads to debate the pros and cons of different aspect of a programme or series. I do agree though that a free for all with multiple threads on the same specific topic* is NOT the answer. *Topic is not necessarily the same as programme though

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by silvery (U8422462) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    I think that rather than a rigid insistence that only one thread for a programme can exist is a bit heavy handed. Often I have been put off from posting a comment about an aspect of a programme because, having searched for an existing thread the point I wished to comment on is totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed already.
    Therefore I think a bit of flexibility and common sense needs to prevail. A good example of this is the recent Strictly Come Dancing thread which seemed to primarily be for the purpose of moaning about the presenters and It Takes Two so thankfully another thread was allowed to exist for those of us who actually wanted to discuss the competition.
    Obviously before opening a new thread people should look at any existing threads but Part of the responsibility of the forum moderator should be to judge if any new threads on a programme are on different relevant aspects or if they should be part of existing discussions. 

    Nice comment Simon.
    I aree totally with the last paragraph.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by silvery (U8422462) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013


    Someone's pressed the 'report message' button on message 1. mmmmh

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by EggOnAStilt (U7111730) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Otherwise it wouldn't have happened. 

    You are kidding. it was about needing less moderation rather than being user friendly.

    There was a deliberate tightening of the whole of the BBC boards, budgets and staff were cut and most, in fact nearly all were closed.
    Those that remained were reeled in except for the infamous "bull" board which has been thrown a lifeline.

    You can't say that it has done this board any real good, it used to be a lively place, plenty to discuss and a lot of latitude which encouraged people to post.

    The front page would take 10 to 15 minutes to turn over the threads now it can be 3 to 12 hours, sometimes longer, before they turn over.

    So carry on with the ABG catpeeing and strict one thread rules, it will see the end of this board, but then if the green room thread got closed it would probably have the same effect.
    The green room, I might also remind you, was created against the then current board rules. The idea was copied from another board (food boards?) so a little hypocrisy probably saved what's left of this one in the first place.

    smiley - friedegg

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Testcard (U1164920) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013


    Someone's pressed the 'report message' button on message 1. mmmmh

     
    Why am I not surprised?

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Ed of Global Integrated Vision (U8471561) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    When the current host arrived, she made it clear that she didn't mind so much having multiple threads about one subject/programme; comments at the time were: might put off new posters, will die naturally, etc.

    Since then, the instructions at the top of the first page have been changed quite a few times. The explicit request not to open duplicate threads is from later, but what constitutes a duplicate thread is a matter of interpretation, so it remains something for the host, I think.
    I also note that duplicate threads are not mentioned in the House Rules.

    Personally, I'm in favour of keeping discussions about a programme more or less bundled together, but that would require a tree structure of the board, which it hasn't and isn't going to get either. It would make it easier for the PoV people to get their entertaining quotes as well, as has been stated previously.

    What I do dislike however, is posters going "Miss, Miss, I've found a duplicate thread for you to close, Miss!" If it were in the House Rules, it could be referred to the moderators, but it isn't - it can't be described as "spam", for instance.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by silvery (U8422462) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013


    And it was the regulars on the board that asked for the rule to be implemented. Just to make the board easier to use for regulars and newbies.  

    Very kind of you, I'm sure.

    The 'newbies' would take the board as they find it, and work their way round.

    So it's just the 'regulars' (whoever they may be) imposing their preferences on everyone else.



    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    I will repeat -if you don't like the board is operated then use the "ask Peta" thread-that is what it is there for.

    You must know this is going nowhere -is is not a about a BBC programme-so do not act all surprised if it is closed .

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by silvery (U8422462) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Which 'Ask Peta ' thread?

    And others wouldn't know that I have a point of view about the board, and the reason why, as it would be hidden under the 'Ask Peta' heading. There wouldn't be the response that there has been.

    There does seem to be some support for a change in the way the board is operating. It isn't part of 'the rules' that it should operate this way. Only that some 'regulars' agitated for it some years ago.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    I posted the link in message 8-but for you again

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    I expect she will answer when she returns-probably tomorrow

    That is the place for questions about how the board is run.

    But you need to post there.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by minibones (U14961554) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Currently 2623 messages on the "Ask Peta" thread, and no search facility! If you can't find it, how can you contribute to any debate? Personally I find long-standing threads often metamorphosise into nothing more than gossip fests. If a particular incident or episode is high-lighted, I see no reason why a specific thread shouldn't be generated. It would run it's course and die a natural death when the posters moved on.
    And I'm not impressed that the OP was put up for moderation. Smacks of self-righteous, self-elected board police (unless someone knows different?)

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Then you are obviously missing the point it a question and answer thread-ask a question you get an answer

    And the link is posted in the "Welcome-read this first thread "pinned to the top of the page

    It took 27 messages for the board police comment-should have put money on that appearing at some point

    Take it up with the host.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    And should have added -It was not me that reported the OP-but I can see why it has been.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Fred (U15549179) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Then you are obviously missing the point it a question and answer thread-ask a question you get an answer

    And the link is posted in the "Welcome-read this first thread "pinned to the top of the page

    It took 27 messages for the board police comment-should have put money on that appearing at some point

    Take it up with the host. 
    I have to admit to being a wee bit disappointed at discovering running to teacher-esque "OMG, I've found another one" It may very well be against the (current) rules but I'm not sure it warrants this kind of grassing......

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    I also see no problem in POV members debating it here rather than in a thread that potentially only the Host(s) and Mods will see. I concede I'm a relative newbie here but I'd like to think we can have a reasoned discussion about it. TBH, I find it disappointing that comments far too quickly get responses pointing out that "There's a place for this sort of thing and this ain't it".

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Dover Soul (U14934992) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    thedogcody, isn't it true that it is the researchers of the POV programme who also like one thread per topic/programme to make it easier to pick out what they can use on the programme, and, that they at least partly fund this board?

    I'm sure Peta has said that before and, that they get many many emails and letters etc so, in reality, they could pull the funding from this board, which could mean no board.

    To start this sort of discussion anywhere apart from the Ask Peta thread or in reply to Peta's post on the Welcome! Read this first! thread (message 22) is obviously off topic as it isn't about a programme, not even POV.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    DS -which is what I have been trying to point out-but some people don't see it that way

    I will refer Peta to this thread in the morning-with a bit of luck that will be the end of it

    Happy New Year btw smiley - smiley

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Dover Soul (U14934992) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Happy New Year to you too. As we have both seen the closure of the Gardening and then Food boards, maybe we understand each other more than some others here.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Fred (U15549179) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Happy New Year to you too. As we have both seen the closure of the Gardening and then Food boards, maybe we understand each other more than some others here.   Have you any idea how patronising that last exchange sounds? NB - There isn't anywhere else to make that point

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Dover Soul (U14934992) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    Of course there is. Why on earth do you say that?

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by silvery (U8422462) on Tuesday, 1st January 2013

    DS -which is what I have been trying to point out-but some people don't see it that way

    I will refer Peta to this thread in the morning-with a bit of luck that will be the end of it

    Happy New Year btw smiley - smiley 

    So you will refer this, and that will be the end of it?

    It more than likely will be.
    But don't you think others should have way to express an opinion? Is it only your opinion that matters?

    There is no other way to get other points of view across - about the way the board is run.



    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    Not at all-another- dare I say it- silly remark

    I have repeatedly told you the place where you post if you have a question about the way the boards is run

    What I don't understand is why you don' t post there.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013


    I've started a discussion about this topic.

    Please feel free to add your views here

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Closing this one - see above to add your views. smiley - ok

    Report message38

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.