What's with the locked thread?

[cran]

ToSeek has locked a thread - a 'Discuss This Story' thread started by Fraser, (Comets seem to be icy dirtballs) ostensibly because another thread about the same object already exists... even though, this was a UT story with a different slant.
Is this now to become common practice?
Are moderators simply going to go around closing threads because there is something similar somewhere else?
If so, I expect to see a lot of threads being locked down...
I also expect a number of Fraser's 'Discuss this story' posts will be shut down simply because they are 'updates' or 'additional' to some previous thread...

[antoniseb]

The usual approach will be to merge them, not lock them.

[cran]

But is that to be the way of it?
The responses to Fraser's post (discuss this story- icy dirtballs) were more about the 'generalising' of the nature/structure of comets, based on the findings of Deep Impact; it was not about the findings of Deep Impact per se... ie, it was a side issue - this forum (and UT before it) were full of related or 'side' issues, and they never appeared to be in any danger of being locked, or merged, unless the discussion began to parallel another thread...
My concern is that I believe the action was presumptuous ... and may presage more similar actions, where different lines of discussion are strangled because a moderator has simply locked the thread or merged it based upon one similarity...
and it's not as if someone else had started a thread about Deep Impact - this was to discuss an article posted in UT!

[ToSeek]

This is what Fraser had to say (in the admin area):

Why don't we do this. Whoever posts the story first, that's the main place we talk about it. For example, let's say you ToSeek me on a story. Once I post the same article on Universe Today we make a post in my thread that the story is being discussed "Over here" and then close the thread. So anyone wanted to comment will be forwarded over to whereever you first posted the story. This will encourage UT readers to mix in with BABB folks as well.

And then, if I get to the story first, we do the opposite, and point any stories over at the UT thread.

I don't want you to feel like you can't post a story because you know I'm going to get around to it in about 3 hours, unless, that's actually a relief. :-)

I am following his direction. Of course, this is open for discussion. Since there's been a complaint, I've re-opened the thread, though I've left pointers in each thread to the other.

[cran]

Thanks, ToSeek... I wasn't aware of the quoted discussion, but I would still voice the same concerns - where the threads are following different lines (eg, one might be looking specifically at the results of Deep Impact; the other discussing the merits - or lack of - in applying generalisations based upon a single example) - once merged, both lines would become confused... resulting in one line of discussion being strangled and lost... and I think that would be a pity.

[ToSeek]

I should probably avoid closing threads that already have discussions underway and confine myself to "naked" news items that have been posted elsewhere.

[cran]

I understand it can be tricky trying to stay on top of everything and keep the whole ball rolling smoothly...
Perhaps it's just a matter of watching which way a discussion is moving...
I know there have been occasions where a thread has needed to be split, because more than one idea is being pursued...
I've also noticed that quite a few threads simply peter out, whether it's because no one can think of anything to add, or whether it's because something else more immediate has turned up elsewhere...
And, I just caught myself about to post in another 'new/old' thread on UT stories forum - I hope that sorts itself out soon, or we could find ourselves rehashing a lot of stuff...
And you need to relax more - you're looking a little green and grim - still recovering from that death and resurrection, I guess...

[ToSeek]

I'm a Vulcan - I'm supposed to be green and grim. *


*That's not a wink. Vulcans never wink. Or lie.

[Van Rijn]

I'm a Vulcan - I'm supposed to be green and grim. *

Half Vulcan

*That's not a wink. Vulcans never wink. Or lie.

Perhaps ... but they certainly do exaggerate!

[Fraser]

When ToSeek posts story links, he's often referencing the same original source, like a NASA press release that I'm using with UT. So the original discussions are actually identical and deserve to be merged together.

[cran]

-posted by Fraser- When ToSeek posts story links, he's often referencing the same original source, like a NASA press release that I'm using with UT. So the original discussions are actually identical and deserve to be merged together.

Hi Fraser; not in this case - the original sources are different... and certainly the flow of response was different; ToSeek's thread is a rather important one which has been following and compiling the results of Deep Impact, and the discussion has mainly been about Tempel 1 and those results - it certainly didn't need to be clogged up or sidetracked by marginally related issues (and I note one point where ToSeek politely suggests a potential 'sidetrack' take itself elsewhere)...

Van Rijn... "but they certainly do exaggerate!" - you surprise me, Sir! I thought the very opposite were true - a Vulcan is a master of understatement ... to the point where one might be described as a tad too 'economical with the truth' at times ... and whilst a true adult Vulcan might never smile, I have occasionally seen expressions on half-Vulcans that might be considered 'smirks'...

ToSeek... this is why I worry about you - you deny your half-human heritage...