Thread Hijacking Policy

Hi,

I would think before or after; 'Do not post if you do not have anything constructive to say in the post.' To me the hijack rule and this rule are related.

Originally Posted by jeremy ... c) No, that insinuates rules have priorities or a specific order, which they do not. --jeremy

I put "numbering" in quotes for exactly that reason, I was actually thinking of lower case lettering.

Besides the order they are written in implies priority, if only because people who don't bother to read the whole will read the 1st ones 1st.

Originally Posted by jeremy I would anticipate it being something very broad, along the lines of: When posting in an existing thread, ensure that what you're posting is on-topic and relevant to the thread. If the content of your post will interfere with the current discussion, you should start a new thread. --jeremy

Nice and clear me thinks.

Originally Posted by onebuck I would think before or after; 'Do not post if you do not have anything constructive to say in the post.' To me the hijack rule and this rule are related.

Agreed.

The rules have been updated.

--jeremy

Hi,

excerpt from LQ Rules; When posting in an existing thread, ensure that what you're posting is on-topic and relevant to the thread. If the content of your post will interfere with the current discussion, you should start a new thread.

Well versed and to the point. Thanks!

When posting in an existing thread, ensure that what you're posting is on-topic and relevant to the thread. If the content of your post will interfere with the current discussion, you should start a new thread.

No rule is perfect. Maybe that rule helps, as compared to just applying good judgment. But I'm uncomfortable about the way it applies in most of the situations in which I have accidentally hijacked threads (which is pretty often).

1) Someone asks a question.

2) Someone (sometimes me) posts an answer and includes some extra information that isn't really on-topic, but is likely to be relevant for the situation in which one would ask the original question. I think that is just a hint of a violation of the rule, not clearly a violation.

3) Someone else (often me) notices that the extra info is incorrect. So leaving it unanswered will likely confuse people reading the thread, maybe ruin all the benefits of the thread for the OP. So I/they post a correction. Now we're pretty clearly off topic, probably in violation of that rule.

4) Next someone disagrees with the correction and posts that. The thread has now been hijacked.

The topic drift in steps 2, 3 and even 4 were each well intentioned steps to help those reading the thread avoid getting confused. Excluding posts like that would do more harm than good. But the total result is often destruction of the original thread.

Even if the resulting topic drift is bad, anywhere you might think of drawing a hard line to cut off topic drift will likely do more harm than the topic drift itself. I try to apply some extra judgment in every topic drift situation: How bad is it to leave a confusing/incorrect statement as the apparent expert consensus on the side topic vs. how bad is it to further distract from the original question.

I try to say less or nothing at all on a side topic compared to what I would have said if it were the original topic. But "less" is still more often my choice, rather than "nothing". In theory, piling on to the side topic is bad. In so many individual cases, it appears to be better than not doing so.

If too many people were like me, a forum ought to have forking threads to allow replying on-topic to a post within a thread but off-topic to posts earlier than the one you are replying to.

Without that feature, topic drift should just be an unfortunate but acceptable path for some threads.

Originally Posted by johnsfine <snip> 1) Someone asks a question. 2) Someone (sometimes me) posts an answer and includes some extra information that isn't really on-topic, but is likely to be relevant for the situation in which one would ask the original question. I think that is just a hint of a violation of the rule, not clearly a violation. 3) Someone else (often me) notices that the extra info is incorrect. So leaving it unanswered will likely confuse people reading the thread, maybe ruin all the benefits of the thread for the OP. So I/they post a correction. Now we're pretty clearly off topic, probably in violation of that rule. <snip>

Dumb question (waiting to be whacked on head): Why can’t you just edit the post with the misinformation and leave it at that, why make a new post?

Obviously this will fail if people don’t read every post in a thread or if they have read every post and might therefore miss the edit.

Come to think of it, I never noticed, do edited posts stick out in some way, I mean a loud enough way that people who have read the whole thread might easily notice?

Now I did it, I am WAY the h$ll off topic!

PS: The forking thing is interesting but more work for mods.

johnsfine, I would not consider the situation you've outlined as something we're looking to crack down on or even attempt to stop. What the rule will apply to is very obvious extremely off topic posts that are completely disruptive and unrelated. Those posts should be split off into their own thread (and always have been in the past, this is just an explicit explanation of what has been a long time policy). I would expect no change in actual moderation practices here and if you see the rule being applied in a way that you think is counter productive or too strict, do let us know.

--jeremy

Hi,

Originally Posted by johnsfine No rule is perfect. Maybe that rule helps, as compared to just applying good judgment. But I'm uncomfortable about the way it applies in most of the situations in which I have accidentally hijacked threads (which is pretty often).

Correct, no rule is perfect. But without some guideline there will be ambiguities. That is why we have LQ rules. Interpretation by the members and mods having the last word does seem to help keep things in line.

Originally Posted by johnsfine 1) Someone asks a question.

That question should be weighted with the original thread content.

Originally Posted by johnsfine 2) Someone (sometimes me) posts an answer and includes some extra information that isn't really on-topic, but is likely to be relevant for the situation in which one would ask the original question. I think that is just a hint of a violation of the rule, not clearly a violation.

Again, interpretation and weighted against the LQR. Hopefully the member and mod do agree with the hypothetical information.

Originally Posted by johnsfine 3) Someone else (often me) notices that the extra info is incorrect. So leaving it unanswered will likely confuse people reading the thread, maybe ruin all the benefits of the thread for the OP. So I/they post a correction. Now we're pretty clearly off topic, probably in violation of that rule.

That's why it's called a forum! If the posted information is not correct or slightly off topic to correct the posted information is relative even if some drift. Let's not get into micromanagement: hypothetically we could continue with so many what if's. Having a baseline rule does help.

Originally Posted by johnsfine 4) Next someone disagrees with the correction and posts that. The thread has now been hijacked.

Not really! Again, forums do have good intellectual debates. If a mod determines the off topic replies warrant a new thread then actions are taken to create one with notation for the reason.

Originally Posted by johnsfine The topic drift in steps 2, 3 and even 4 were each well intentioned steps to help those reading the thread avoid getting confused. Excluding posts like that would do more harm than good. But the total result is often destruction of the original thread.

Again, micromanagement and mod decisions would address those issues.

Originally Posted by johnsfine Even if the resulting topic drift is bad, anywhere you might think of drawing a hard line to cut off topic drift will likely do more harm than the topic drift itself. I try to apply some extra judgment in every topic drift situation: How bad is it to leave a confusing/incorrect statement as the apparent expert consensus on the side topic vs. how bad is it to further distract from the original question.

I can see your point but each action will require finite decisions on either the mod or interactive members. We could hypothesizes but again each post would need addressed as it's relative association to the thread by the mod. That's why LQ is a moderated forum to help keep things inline.

Originally Posted by johnsfine I try to say less or nothing at all on a side topic compared to what I would have said if it were the original topic. But "less" is still more often my choice, rather than "nothing". In theory, piling on to the side topic is bad. In so many individual cases, it appears to be better than not doing so.

Relative topics can be beneficial when diagnosing related issues. Side notes that you speak of can be used to rule out those interrelated topics. Again, your are speaking hypothetical. Each posts within the thread will be weighted before any action taken by most mods.

Originally Posted by johnsfine If too many people were like me, a forum ought to have forking threads to allow replying on-topic to a post within a thread but off-topic to posts earlier than the one you are replying to. Without that feature, topic drift should just be an unfortunate but acceptable path for some threads.

We as mods do break these type posts off into a new thread. Most mods will include links to the original threads thus a form of forking. Nested threads can become confusing thus no real clarity.

I for one appreciate your comments on this subject. Adds perspective from a members point thus adding to a mods abilities to help all here at LQ.

Thanks!

If at least a line gap is inserted between each rule, they can become easier to read.
I wanted to look at a particular known rule there, and for finding that rule I had to read from the very start, couldn't locate that at one go.

# Do not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. # Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. # Flame Wars will not be tolerated. # Do not post if you do not have anything constructive to say in the post. # When posting in an existing thread, ensure that what you're posting is on-topic and relevant to the thread. If the content of your post will interfere with the current discussion, you should start a new thread. # Your thread may be moved to a more appropriate forum at a moderator's discretion.

# Do not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. # Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. # Flame Wars will not be tolerated. # Do not post if you do not have anything constructive to say in the post. # When posting in an existing thread, ensure that what you're posting is on-topic and relevant to the thread. If the content of your post will interfere with the current discussion, you should start a new thread. # Your thread may be moved to a more appropriate forum at a moderator's discretion.

Hi,

I really do not see a problem with the present format. Each rule has a bullet.

I also recall (possibly from a thread, email or cheese induced dream) that they aren't numbered to prevent any one rule seeming more important than any other. I may just have made this up though.

Originally Posted by XavierP I also recall (possibly from a thread, email or cheese induced dream) that they aren't numbered to prevent any one rule seeming more important than any other. I may just have made this up though.

It wasn't a dream - see post #30 of this thread

If your thread is being taken off coarse and it is important to you, ask if they would please Private Message the other member and stop carrying a conversation using your thread. If it is not worth a private message you can always add an edit and just let it go. I find when my thread is wavering it really should be closed or was ambiguous to begin with.