Do you prefer small topics stand alone or be placed into a more general thread?

[Scott5114]

A couple people brought this up in the "Have some respect" thread so I thought maybe we should have a poll on it to gauge what users think about this.

[mightyace]

I definitely prefer small threads because its much easier to find stuff.

1) You can view thread titles.
2) The thread is easier to read as there aren't multiple topics cluttering things up.

[NE2]

I think for general news and simple questions, like in the Florida thread (or the PA Turnpike news thread, for example), it makes more sense to have one topic.

[Jim]

As someone who reads perhaps 25% of the posts here, I am much more likely to click on a thread with a specific subject.  It also means I can more easily ignore those threads that I have little interest in.  I don't think I've looked in on something like the "Florida" topic more than a handful of times, although I'm sure some fraction of what's there would interest me.

The exceptions are things like "Best of Road Signs", "Erroneous Road Signs" which I think are more appropriate than a brand new thread for each good sign or each error sign, etc.

[Alps]

The downside to small threads is that you have a higher chance of duplicating old threads because there are so many to search through.

[Scott5114]

One upside to small threads is that the less popular topics will sort down to the bottom and the more responded-to topics will rise to the top as people reply to them more.

Also, if small threads get duplicated, administration can merge them and it will result in one larger thread that will still all be about the same subject. I imagine that objection is nullified anyway by the likely scenario of someone duplicating an old topic of discussion not realizing it was covered in the general state thread because they didn't read all 50 pages of it.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

What's the difference in having one thread with 12 topics and 0 replies versus 12 threads with 0 topics and 0 replies.
More specific the thread title, the fewer people who'll have an interest in the topic.

[huskeroadgeek]

As someone who reads perhaps 25% of the posts here, I am much more likely to click on a thread with a specific subject.  It also means I can more easily ignore those threads that I have little interest in.  I don't think I've looked in on something like the "Florida" topic more than a handful of times, although I'm sure some fraction of what's there would interest me.

The exceptions are things like "Best of Road Signs", "Erroneous Road Signs" which I think are more appropriate than a brand new thread for each good sign or each error sign, etc.

I agree on both. Some very long threads don't lend themselves very well to multiple topics, but others, especially the state name threads do.

[vdeane]

It depends on the thread.  For random news we could have "PA News" or something like that, but I believe some of the conglomerate threads aren't all news.  Overall I prefer split topics.

[1995hoo]

Small topics are good if the originating poster uses a good subject line. The same sort of problem arises with business e-mail where people use vague subject lines that later don't lend themselves to easy identification when someone is reviewing them or trying to find something. (Example: I once worked on a piece of litigation involving Corning, Inc. Some people would use subject lines that said simply "Corning." When upwards of 20 e-mails a day were flying around regarding that matter, a subject line reading "Corning" was worse than useless. If it had said "Corning's motion to dismiss–logistics for hearing" or something like that, it would be more useful.) The search function on a forum such as this tends to be more useful than in an e-mail application, but it still helps immensely if the subject line is clear–for example, froggie's thread regarding the 70-mph speed limit bill in Virginia last year has a very clear subject line reading "VA: Bill allowing 70 MPH passes GA, goes to Gov for signature." The original topic of the thread is eminently clear when you read that, and if you're later searching the forum the subject line helps clarify what's being discussed.

The concern Steve raises about duplicative threads is often, based on my experience from other fora, a side effect of unclear subject lines. I'm sure we've all seen situations elsewhere where somebody posts something with a "clever" or "funny" subject line. Someone else later posts the same subject matter under a more descriptive subject line and somebody takes offense at the "duplicate" threads. For example, if somebody posted a thread with the subject line "YAY MAINE!" talking about the 75-mph bill, and someone else later posted a thread with a subject line reading "Bill introduced to allow 75-mph limit on I-95 in Maine," I would not be the least bit critical of the person posting the second thread. To me, "YAY MAINE!" doesn't say anything and it's highly likely I wouldn't have looked at that thread.

With all this said, though, some topics just don't lend themselves to specific threads and it's useful to have a general-discussion topic to catch those sorts of things. I agree with the comments here about things like having a single thread for road-sign errors, or state-related news, or the like. It seems to me that as long as people don't feel that anything related to a specific state MUST be posted in the general thread for that state, then it's fine to have the general threads as a repository for minor matters. I posted a SunPass thread on the Southeast board because I had some specific questions relating to that particular ETC system, and I'm pretty sure that by posting it separately I got more answers more quickly than had I put it into the general "Florida" discussion that is currently a 24-page thread. I daresay if someone else wants SunPass info later it will be easier to find this way, too.

I also think there's something to be said for what I'd call hybrid threads, i.e., more general threads relating to the same overall theme. For example, a large construction project that takes several years, such as the Woodrow Wilson Bridge here in Northern Virginia, is better-covered by one thread including all updates than it would be by a series of threads each time a new ramp opens. Those threads might attract two or three responsive posts when the ramp opens and they'd then wither and die as it became old news. So the unified threads work better for those sorts of topics, but the topics themselves are significant enough to warrant being posted separately from a more general state-specific thread, especially when the project will go on for several years–if you instead put them into a more general thread, the discussion is harder to follow as other matters become interspersed. (OK, the Wilson Bridge isn't a good example of state-specific since it spans two states as well as a smidgen of one of the territories, but you get the idea. The nearby Springfield Interchange could be another example.) Having a "new ramp opening" post in a long project-related thread is a good thing; having a "new ramp opening" post as a stand-alone thread usually won't be unless it's a radical new change of great significance.