Maxwells and not merging

[jerkit]

This is not a criticism just a curiosity. For every other family, we merge threads about them into mega threads. Why do we usually have at least 3-4 different maxwell threads going on at one time? This occasionally happens with Zoo and Pee as well. Is there a reason for this? 

[blessalessi]

Some of us specifically requested a Seriously Dad's thread, so that we could keep a prominent running critique of Steve's theology separate from the general Maxsnark.

I don't know why there are multiple other threads but, to be fair, the Maxwell family does churn out regular material where other blogs are much more hit and miss.

[Charliemae]

They have always been too mind numbingly boring to merit a whole ongoing discussion.  There seems to be more than enough interest these days for an ongoing maxwell family thread. 

[Palimpsest]

I'd be happy to have a few Maxwell threads merged a la Duggar.  They so frequently overlap.

I think the "Seriously" thread was a move in the right direction.  Thoughts?

 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

Perhaps no one has pointed out to helpmeets that threads are similar and should be merged?  I assume they don't necessarily read the threads . . . . . 

[nelliebelle1197]

I am not really sure it is an issue. They post a lot on a lot of different topics. I think it would be much less interesting to have one Maxwell thread. I think that would hamper conversation and be a bad choice

[Maggie Mae]

I am the lone voice in that I hate merged threads and would prefer that people discuss different blog entries on different threads. Otherwise,I get confused because someone comes on and is like "did you read what they wrote today" and provides very little context or clues and then I have to to the Maxwell's/Zsu/LoriKen blog and give them clicks. BLGH

 

[twin2]

This subject has come up from time to time in helpmeetland.  I for one do not like mega threads, others do others don't.  Where we have landed is we just let them go where they seem to go naturally.  For some, like J-Rod and the Sparkling one, the mega threads just kind of evolved that way.  For others like the Maxwells and Zsu, it just seems to evolved to separate threads per topic, so that is pretty much where we land.  The one exception is in Duggarland where we do pretty much a general thread per person or they multiply like wet gremlins fed after midnight.

[kpmom]

I am the lone voice in that I hate merged threads and would prefer that people discuss different blog entries on different threads. Otherwise,I get confused because someone comes on and is like "did you read what they wrote today" and provides very little context or clues and then I have to to the Maxwell's/Zsu/LoriKen blog and give them clicks. BLGH

 

You're not alone Maggie Mae.  I don't like merged/mega threads at all, but especially about the Maxwells. 

[MissSeptember]

Lurker chiming in to join the mega thread hate club.

[catlady]

Chalk up another one against mega threads.   They make me feel lost.

and I agree with several others here about the Maxwells:  their topics are  usually quite diverse.   rather surprising for such a dull bunch.....

[Curious]

What twin2 said.  We try to merge topics that are exactly the same every time, but other threads it's basically whoever is on that day.  Some people lend themselves to mega threads for some reason.   If someone starts a new thread on a family (other than the Duggars) it probably won't get merged unless it's the exact same as another topic.

I am not a huge fan of the mega threads, but good threads were getting pushed off the first page really fast before we started doing it and some topics were getting lost as a result.

It's a fine balancing act.

[jerkit]

Thanks for answering! I don't think I have a strong preference either way. The only time I don't like the mega threads is when someone does something completely ridiculous and I just HAVE to draw attention to it and it gets lost in the mega thread. But that's pretty rare. (Like the time cabinetman only got his wife off 80% of the time LOL)

[blessalessi]

Is it ok to ask here what the rule is about the timeline for archiving threads, where there is not going to be a continuation of the previous one?  I don't mean historical threads, just ones within the last month or so.

Since the new board was opened and all previous threads were marked as read, I have occasionally looked for an old thread  but I haven't been sure whether it is likely to have been archived? 

[happy atheist]

Is it ok to ask here what the rule is about the timeline for archiving threads, where there is not going to be a continuation of the previous one?  I don't mean historical threads, just ones within the last month or so.

Since the new board was opened and all previous threads were marked as read, I have occasionally looked for an old thread  but I haven't been sure whether it is likely to have been archived? 

We try to keep Snark down to 4 or 5 pages, so the oldest threads get filed in the Archives. There's no rule against necroing them, though. If the thread has a Reply button, you are free to reply. If it's in the Archive it's likely to be seen by fewer people so you might want to start a new one in Snark.