Thread-splitting requests

[Andre Jute]

Unless Il Padrone objects, Dan, please do split the thread "Wow! Whoa!...woe. Severe Sherpa shimmy under load".

Posts #53, 60, 61, and 62 from your thread can all go into "Non-Thorn Related" under the heading "Through the Centre of Australia". They're definitely "anything cycling" and a discussion worth having.

When you've split the thread, I suggest you remove your diplomatic #63 post discussing staying on topic, as off-topic in your thread. This thread which I've just started ("Thread-splitting requests") may be a good place to put it as a general statement of intention.

As a researcher, I'm sympathetic to your desire to keep topics pure, but as a user who's been on the internet since before it was called the internet (it was called the Arpanet) I also know your quest is doomed, and, considering that we now routinely search every word on the net, not just titles, unnecessary. On my own ROBUST group for intellectuals at http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/46791 we don't even try to police the topics -- on the contrary, we explicitly have no rules, and manage extremely well by simple good manners.

I think, if you're going to take regulating topics seriously, that you want to see at least some off-topic wandering as permissible, the major chunk as an opportunity to enrich other subfora by moving them into other threads or as the seed corn of new threads, and only (on this forum anyway) a minority of off-topic wanderings as undesirable. The effect otherwise will be stultifying.

Thanks.

Andre Jute

[stutho]

Andre,

Dan and I discuses splitting this thread up last night - via email.  As a general rule I try to interfere with active threads as little as possible but as it looks like the  Wow! Whoa!...woe. Severe Sherpa shimmy under load" is coming to a successful end maybe now is the time.

As it is Dan's thread anyway I let him make the changes...


Stuart

   

[Andre Jute]

Thanks Stu. I'm with you on the matter of letting threads go where they will, within reason, but I also understand why Dan wants such an important resource as his thread to stay strictly on topic for future users. We'll just wait until Dan gets around to splitting the thread.

However, I've named this thread in the plural "Thread-splitting requests" because I think that the greater depth and weight and length that some technical and touring threads have taken on in the last year will lead inevitably to more requests for splitting threads more closely to reflect their intended subjects.

Andre Jute

[Danneaux]

Andre,

Thanks so much for bringing this up. Stuart and I are on the same page philosophically, though our styles will inevitably differ slightly, especially at the beginning as I gain practical experience in my new role.

Things look a bit different on this side of the fence wrt the software, so I'm on a learning curve for the mechanics of it.

That aside, I appreciate the little twists and turns our conversations take in the natural course of events and have no desire to stultify the creativity or input that make this Forum a special place. On the other hand, some threads naturally evolve into a second topic far different from the original. When that happens, it'll be worth a look to see if the new direction is truly worth a separate topic head and would serve the Forum better if split in two. Given the way conversations turn and grow, I can't think of a universal rule for this, and will do my best on a case-by-case basis. If a split is necessary, I will notify the parties involved and make as few changes as possible to make the posts understandable in the new topic. Stuart is my model on this, and I will do my best.

Thanks to you and the Forum for your patience as I get up to speed.

Best,

Dan.