Thread Hijacking Policy

I think it might be a good idea to have a policy that outlines "Thread Hijacking" somewhere in this forum. I've been around LQ a couple of years and I just got "hit up" on a thread about hijacking it.

I'm no spring chicken. I've been around a lot of forums for many years now. Most of them agree that Thread Hijacking is along the lines of this defition http://www.squidoo.com/threadjacking

I won't go into the other variances that I've come across over there years but I did a little searching on this forum for the phrase Thread Hijacking and I can see there are several feathers that have gotten ruffled (nothing serious mind you) regarding people like myself who add a question to a related thread and think that they are doing something beneficial for others that might stumble on the thread in the future.

I for one would much prefer that I can get as much related information in one thread (as long as it's depth is not more than a few dozen replies). This is a way of thought on the matter I was actually reminded of on another forum a couple of years ago. I had done the opposite (made a new post on a related topic) and I was warned by the moderators to do a search for related threads first and to post in one of the other threads that already had a topic on the subject.

Well, this is a long enough post but I thought it should be discussed and a policy posted somewhere to clarify the matter. And here (in case someone is curious) is the thread where I was accused of Hijacking :-)

TBH policies are not likely to read by most people who crash into threads that someone else is already following. In your situation you're thinking about it much more than someone usually would, so this is a fairly marginal case. There are some good times to add information to threads, but the majority of times it causes mess and confusion.

I think it might be a good idea to have a policy that outlines "Thread Hijacking" somewhere in this forum. I've been around LQ a couple of years and I just got "hit up" on a thread about hijacking it. I'm no spring chicken. I've been around a lot of forums for many years now. Most of them agree that Thread Hijacking is along the lines of this defition http://www.squidoo.com/threadjacking I won't go into the other variances that I've come across over there years but I did a little searching on this forum for the phrase Thread Hijacking and I can see there are several feathers that have gotten ruffled (nothing serious mind you) regarding people like myself who add a question to a related thread and think that they are doing something beneficial for others that might stumble on the thread in the future. I for one would much prefer that I can get as much related information in one thread (as long as it's depth is not more than a few dozen replies). This is a way of thought on the matter I was actually reminded of on another forum a couple of years ago. I had done the opposite (made a new post on a related topic) and I was warned by the moderators to do a search for related threads first and to post in one of the other threads that already had a topic on the subject.

I think that since Linuxquestions pops up on google ALOT upon the search of linux (inquiry ), the more threads on a subject the better. It helps people get exactly what they are looking for regarding their specific issue.
However, I also agree with you that if someone has pretty much the same problem, they should be able to mention it on an already active thread. I.E. I am having a problem creating a new partition in dreamlinux and you happen to be having the same problem in Mintdebian you should be able to mention because both being debian based chances are the solution is the same.

Let me quote the definition that you are referencing at that link:

To move a thread away from the original topic by bringing up another, which may or may not have any relation or bearing to the original.

See? even they can't decide on if the topic can or cannot be related.
it's hit and miss depending on circumstance I guess, Because there are so many variables to take in to consideration ... Distro,kernel,chipset,laptop or computer,ability to comprehend the information/solution given, experiance, etc.

Overall I am in favor of new threads. I can see your point of view and think your arguments of topic relation are valid, But in the long run believe that it is more convenient to just start a new.

Originally Posted by Hevithan I think that since Linuxquestions pops up on google ALOT upon the search of linux (inquiry ), the more threads on a subject the better. It helps people get exactly what they are looking for regarding their specific issue.

Ok ok, another good point. I'm getting outnumbered by logical reasoning <he he>

Originally Posted by Hevithan However, I also agree with you that if someone has pretty much the same problem, they should be able to mention it on an already active thread. I.E. I am having a problem creating a new partition in dreamlinux and you happen to be having the same problem in Mintdebian you should be able to mention because both being debian based chances are the solution is the same.

And I can see the benefits that you a couple of others have pointed out about starting it in a new thread. So perhaps it would be easier to have a policy on this that the moderators were familiar with. And let the moderators know that the use of phrases like "Hijack the thread" should be limited to times that it is a more clear cut issue.

Furthermore it would be useful in moderator comments (if the LQ policy leans toward creating a new thread) to have a moderator template where there is a link to the LQ policy area for the benefit of both new and long term members. [sorry the old Executive Director is coming out in me :-)]

Originally Posted by Hevithan Let me quote the definition that you are referencing at that link: To move a thread away from the original topic by bringing up another, which may or may not have any relation or bearing to the original. See? even they can't decide on if the topic can or cannot be related. it's hit and miss depending on circumstance I guess, Because there are so many variables to take in to consideration ... Distro,kernel,chipset,laptop or computer,ability to comprehend the information/solution given, experiance, etc.

Very Funny! and good point.

Originally Posted by Hevithan Overall I am in favor of new threads. I can see your point of view and think your arguments of topic relation are valid, But in the long run believe that it is more convenient to just start a new.

Thank you for your beautifully done reply.

I also think the term is a little vague and gets thrown around.

But most of the time that it is mentioned here (from what I have seen) is if it interrupts an on going dialog or if someone post a question before another can even begin to be answered. I have seen plenty of [solved] threads, where the conversation continues, and even abruptly changes, But since it is not causing an interference it is allowed to slide.

Maybe that should be the accepted definition: Replying with a post/response that interferes with the current discussion of a particular thread.

It's clear and concise, and there is very little room for mis-interpretation.


Thanks for your replys tg3793, and being willing to hold a discussion in a mature fashion instead of just flipping out and calling everyone a 'doody head' or whatever it is the kids are doin' now days.

Hopefully this thread will get some other moderator attention in the near future. I don't think Chris was too keen on this policy idea so I'd like another moderator or two to put a pair of eyes on this.

The communication that I've had here has helped me understand where LQ stands on this matter but I think having a policy (if it was included in a response template for the moderators) would actually save them some time and smooth down the occasional feather that might get ruffled in the forums.

But hey, if it's really not broken (which knowing humans as I do I doubt) then don't fix it :-)

It's not that I'm not keen, but what is your perspective on what it would achieve? It surely only serves to act as a fineprint that people might want to use to defend themselves if / when they are arguing a case, which is pretty marginal. A written policy doesn't affect what people actually do, especially when no one has read it.

Comeon guys, the mods have a lot to work on and I am sure we can spare them the pain of going through checking the hijacked threads. I think if someone thinks that his thread is hijacked then 1. probabally talk to the hijacker and ask him to start a new thread and if he does not co-operate then 2. report the thread to a mod.
My 2 �0„4.

I don't think having such a thing would be helpful, as people don't bother reading things they're supposed to. You see that whenever you see a thread with "help me" or "urgent" in the title and other things.

I usually report instances of hijacking when I see them.

Originally Posted by Nylex I don't think having such a thing would be helpful, as people don't bother reading things they're supposed to. You see that whenever you see a thread with "help me" or "urgent" in the title and other things.

Exactly what I was thinking.

I'm with Chris on this - the people who would read and apply the policy are the exact people who wouldn't cause an issue in the first place. The ones it is aimed at are typically not policy readers. As well, we don't have a huge problem with hijacking; yes, it does become noticeable occasionally, but set the low numbers against the threads which don't have an issue and it's the sort of level that can be picked up on a case-by-case basis.

Originally Posted by XavierP the people who would read and apply the policy are the exact people who wouldn't cause an issue in the first place. The ones it is aimed at are typically not policy readers.

And how many people come here just once to get a question answered? They just have a quick question (maybe they'll have 7 posts total for their account-All on 1 thread),they Stumbled across LQ on Google or Bing or something, and just posted to get their issue fixed. They will never come back and reading the rules is most likely not their first priority.

I'm not advocating that the mods go through the threads and look for hijacked threads, That is an issue the users can deal with without mod intervention.
Or even that someone post a sticky thread on what a hijacked thread is; I just think the community should have a basic understanding as to what it is. However, as Xavierp said; The people who care about this, Will not be the ones doing it.

Silverbacks recommended method seems to be the best:

probabally talk to the hijacker and ask him to start a new thread

I think it could be useful to the mods to have a guidelines page to point to when they have to moderate someone for thread hijacking, just as it's useful to mods and members to point persons to the "How To Ask a Question" page.

Persons of good will, will learn from it; the others will never learn anyway.

I tend to get the OP info confused with hijacked info. I can't see a reason to mix it all up.

I'm a fan of having rules (and guidelines) stated explicitly. Mods a free to moderate however they like, within reason I suppose, so they can link or not link as they please.

OTOH, where thread hijacking is concerned, such policy may be contrary to the way LQ tends to operate. LQ seems to prefer having 10,000 threads about how to invoke awk for specific purposes instead of a few unified threads broadly covering applications of the program.

Adding more, possibly tangential, info to existing threads can be very beneficial or very annoying. When I post a help request I probably don't want discussion pulled away from the problem at hand, even if such discussion may be said to be (tangentially) related. If the problem is eventually resolved, then I probably won't care much how the extended discussion develops.