Once upon a time, if a front page article was posted after a forum post, that article would get merged into the thread and appear chronologically in the middle of the thread.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Threads being closed due a new Front Page post
- Thread starter Brookzy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That may have been when MR was running vBulletin.
It seems Xenforo does things by post date, so if your post is dated earlier than the news article, yours shows first.
I have 15 years experience running message boards and let me tell you, what users think is the best way to run things rarely matters. Rules are put into place to keep things easy to run for the message board staff. Multiple threads get merged or duplicates shut down. Heck, that was my rule #2 from day one.
The staff here explained why they do what they do. Accept it and post on, or don't and move on.
The staff here explained why they do what they do. Accept it and post on, or don't and move on.
Precisely.I'm pretty sure this is exactly what the OP is asking for.
Were such attitudes to persist, before long the staff wouldn't have many members to moderate. Or at least, not many quality posters.
If you go back and have another read, then you'll see what is actually happening here is 1) threads aren't being merged, and 2) the staff are creating a duplicate and shutting down the original. So (as was mentioned by others above) the first part of your "rule #2" is actually what I'm asking for... and the second part of your rule isn't what the rule is here.
Not really. They pointed to the rule and said that's why they do it. They haven't explained or justified the rule, or entertained the suggested alternatives (except for merging threads, which they said they couldn't do), or acknowledged that the rules were made in a different era - indeed, an era in which, as @belvdr said, threads were merged.
I too find it really annoying that there can't be separate threads from the news article.
As has been pointed out to MR a millions times before, the news article threads are not "discussion" threads - they're "quip" threads. You want to get 50 "Likes" instantly? Just post "Apple is greedy!" or "Timmy should be fired!" in any news thread, and there you go! They're all about "likes". The ratio of "discussion" posts to "quips" is 1:10... you can't even have a discussion with anyone in those threads.
The solution is to just let those "redundant" discussion threads be (within reason).
MacRumors seems to have no issues having a dozen redundant threads on the MBP keyboard. Heck, Mayflynn himself started another one just this past week. He could have added that to any one the other dozens of threads on the topic, but he started another one. Was he creating "confusion" for forum members?
I get it - it's "their" site - they can do what they please and I can take it or leave it. But admins/mods here are just making the same silly excuses they always make.
As has been pointed out to MR a millions times before, the news article threads are not "discussion" threads - they're "quip" threads. You want to get 50 "Likes" instantly? Just post "Apple is greedy!" or "Timmy should be fired!" in any news thread, and there you go! They're all about "likes". The ratio of "discussion" posts to "quips" is 1:10... you can't even have a discussion with anyone in those threads.
The solution is to just let those "redundant" discussion threads be (within reason).
MacRumors seems to have no issues having a dozen redundant threads on the MBP keyboard. Heck, Mayflynn himself started another one just this past week. He could have added that to any one the other dozens of threads on the topic, but he started another one. Was he creating "confusion" for forum members?
I get it - it's "their" site - they can do what they please and I can take it or leave it. But admins/mods here are just making the same silly excuses they always make.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to MR going down the toilet. And I don't mean out of business (you can always get a bunch of nut jobs to show up on a forum). I mean, a wasteland of bad actors that devolves into youtube level of comments.
This is a good point and I think it's important to clarify that I am not arguing that the quips should be deleted or have no place on the forum... I've made many such quips myself - on the contrary they do have a place - in the quip threads. Serious discussion of the matter can and should continue in the forums.
MacRumors seems to have no issues having a dozen redundant threads on the MBP keyboard. Heck, Mayflynn himself started another one just this past week. He could have added that to any one the other dozens of threads on the topic, but he started another one. Was he creating "confusion" for forum members?
I thought the exact same thing after seeing that new thread by @maflynn - pot kettle black. No doubt an excuse will be that it was in relation to a specific news report, in which case I'll remember that trick for the future!In the meantime, thank goodness we're shafting good discussion in the name of centralisation and order while letting so many threads on the same topics persist elsewhere.
Are you discussing threads that discuss the threads in the news forum or a “duplicate” thread on the same subject that is non-news? The iPhone and alternatives forum are rife with “duplicate” threads.This is a good point and I think it's important to clarify that I am not arguing that the quips should be deleted or have no place on the forum... I've made many such quips myself - on the contrary they do have a place - in the quip threads. Serious discussion of the matter can and should continue in the forums.
In the meantime, thank goodness we're shafting good discussion in the name of centralisation and order while letting so many threads on the same topics persist elsewhere.
Everyone here is suggest the former. This is about allowing "news" threads and subforum discussion threads on the same topic to co-exist.
No one here is arguing that there should be a bunch of duplicate threads in a sub-forum or cross-posting or anything like that. That's annoying too.
I for one find it annoying when a news thread whose subject I’m interested in is duplicated in multiple sub-forums..but that’s me.
I can see why the administration staff wants to centralize the discussion.
Since some of you have mentioned the keyboard thread issue, that is an example of a discussion we would not shut down if there was a news article about a perceived problem with MBP keyboards. Often in these stories you will see the editors even link to the original forum discussion as evidence of the issue.
For example, there were long iPhone battery threads, and when that was reported on as a news story, the iPhone battery threads were not closed (that I recall).
Now if there is a news story that Apple has launched a keyboard replacement program, we would shut down other threads started about that specifically and direct the discussion to the news thread. When the battery replacement program was announced we closed threads created to announce the program, but preexisting threads about the battery problem in general were not closed down.
For example, there were long iPhone battery threads, and when that was reported on as a news story, the iPhone battery threads were not closed (that I recall).
Now if there is a news story that Apple has launched a keyboard replacement program, we would shut down other threads started about that specifically and direct the discussion to the news thread. When the battery replacement program was announced we closed threads created to announce the program, but preexisting threads about the battery problem in general were not closed down.
Seriously, do you think these type of "explanations" are helpful? It's like MR staff willfully miss the point every freaking time.
I think it just comes down to unfortunately Mac Rumors is one of the few sites on the internet where you can still have a discussion on Apple products, and it is run by a bunch of people who seem hell-bent on it becoming just like all the other forums/comment sections that are going down the drain overrun by the fringes of our societies. I just can't figure out if it's just representational of the MR staff or chasing the $.
Having been a member of MacRumors for many years, here is my observation
Some members take Apple products, Apple news, and Apple itself far too seriously
For some, the Forums have become a place for them to wax eloquent about all things Apple and to pontificate and share their vast wisdom and knowledge
Their egos abound and their self importance is frightening
And as a result, their self worth is bound up in their standing on MR and their ability to troll, argue, debate, and above all to see their opinion reign supreme
A byproduct is they are territorial about getting credit for being the first to share something on MR from YouTube or another site
Bottom line, some folks around here just need to get over themselves
Some members take Apple products, Apple news, and Apple itself far too seriously
For some, the Forums have become a place for them to wax eloquent about all things Apple and to pontificate and share their vast wisdom and knowledge
Their egos abound and their self importance is frightening
And as a result, their self worth is bound up in their standing on MR and their ability to troll, argue, debate, and above all to see their opinion reign supreme
A byproduct is they are territorial about getting credit for being the first to share something on MR from YouTube or another site
Bottom line, some folks around here just need to get over themselves
Yes, I actually did think there was some misunderstanding on that particular point, so I thought my explanation might be helpful.
I completely understand the point you and others have made in the thread.
It's not about credit. It's simply about the ability for debates and discussions to continue, as I've explained many times.
I understand what you are saying but this does make the rule even more arbitrary...
(This case is also not strictly relevant to the specific example in question - which was a staff member created a thread about an issue that has been discussed in many, many other threads whilst preaching about the rules on duplicate threads - however I appreciate the clarification you are providing were a keyboard article to surface.)
Those discussions can continue too, in the newer thread that the editors create. There's no reason to think that they can't have decent discussions when you move to a new thread. All you have to do it click on a different link and say the same stuff you wanted to say in the closed thread.
The staff of this place have decided how they want it to run, they've no doubt heard these arguments numerous times, considered them, and made their decisions.
They've set the rules of the house so now we have a choice. Either play by those rules or go elsewhere to play the Apple game.
I don't want this thread to descend into futile tit-for-tat point scoring because we were having quite a fruitful discussion on the pros and cons of the current rule. But I did give reasons just a few posts ago about why you can't have decent discussions in a new thread:
I don't know where the self-righteousness comes from. Completely unwilling to engage, and instead just saying shut up and go away, is an attitude that, if pervasive, would completely negate the reason for the "Site and Forum Feedback" forum existing. It's here to discuss these issues. So I'm not going to shut up and go away, I'm going to set out my case for the rule to be changed, as I've done (and got a fair bit of support for).
Here's another mod that can't even be bothered to understand the point of the thread.
It's pretty obvious that the MO here is just to frustrate us with these "non" replies into going away.
I don't have any self-righteousness on this topic. In fact, I don't really give a rip which direction the policy goes.
My point is more of a question really. How long are some people going to beat the dead horse in some of these S&FF threads once the staff make a decision?
Here's another mod that can't even be bothered to understand the point of the thread.
It's pretty obvious that the MO here is just to frustrate us with these "non" replies into going away.
I am not a mod. That's great because I get to say whatever the hell I want.
I think that's all well and good and as it should be, as long as the moderators abide by those same rules and don't go rogue on some threads and commenters. Usually on forums, most commenters don't get to enjoy the same latitude that moderators do.
Last edited:
I'm fairly confident that the current staff here don't and would not "go rogue" on anyone. Some are accused of that from time to time but when the site administrators review those accusations a clear explanation of what happened is given to the concerned party and is resolved.
There was only one mod who went off the rails several years ago and that person was immediately removed from the staff and the damage that person did was reversed.
I believe this site is very fairly moderated to best it can be. That isn't to say that everyone will agree with the policies and enforcement of the rules, but on the whole, the place works quite well.