In the Arf section there are many threads about the same plane. I tried to start a comprehensive thread on a particular plane. It went unposted for about a week and once off the front page was lost so another got started.

In a perfect world we would have threads consolidated with a merge which I understand is in the future and a search within a thread feature for larger threads would also be nice.

In the meantime perhaps a notice at the top of the ARF section for example, explaining that there are already threads for many of the planes and a desire to keep the information consolidated for ease of searching as new members come along.

I agree with BB. Also I try to run a search for specific info about a plane or plane /engine issue and many times I get nowhere having to go through pages of a thread. ANY help to streamline things would be appreciated. Pete

Whilst I concur with the opinions expressed so far, I don't see how this can easily be done. I have seen several times an effort to have a single thread relating to questions on a specific plane. These threads can get quite long and that is part of the problem.

People who can't be bothered to trawl through 20 odd pages of a mixture of information, opinions and general banter end up posting seperate threads to answer specific questions.

It can't be be helped, this is a discussion board after all, and each thread is just that, a discussion; nothing more. Merging two entirely seperate concurrent discusion threads on a similar subject will only serve to confuse further.

The only way to create a meaningful resource from this is to take all the threads and extract the useful information and place it into an article. This then raises the issue of what to include and what to leave out. This would also be a lot of work to do for every useful subject that comes up for discussion....

No doubt. But I don't think Marc or any of the moderators get paid enough to do it.

Tiger, It can and most likley will be done with a thread merge function that the moderators will have. In the meantime a little education would help stem the flow of multiple threads on the same topic.

Additionally being able to search within a thread as we could on the old system can't be to far off in our future here. That feature would also help people find what they are looking for without having to ask again. Now if people are to lazy to look, that is another discussion altogether.

Problem with merge is that posts can get interspersed based on date and then the flow of responses can make no sense. Think of it as blending to 100 post threads at the same time where posts are made during the same date range. One post may be from one thread then the next 2 from the other and so on. IT would potentially be difficult to follow

I tend to agree, Richard, but thread drift is a fact of life, and it's extremely difficult to know where to make a break as the drift often starts very subtly.

The same thing can be said about thread gluing. It's normally very difficult to glue two similar threads together, as whatever you do, the 'flow' of each part of the new consolidated thread is bound to be disrupted, and searching for a particular theme gets even more difficult.

I suppose we should look at the threads more as a discussion and less as a thesis about a subject, and put up with the search problems that creates.

My 2c!

-David C.

That's the part that makes things tough. The forums have a tree-style that would potentially make that sort of thread easier to read, but I doubt very many people use the tree-style. I know I don't.

Some things could be merged, but that's best done at the beginnings of a thread. The problem with very long-lived threads is that the subject often tends to drift. Is there really much difference between searching within a forum and searching within a thread?

I think there is a really big differance when you are looking for specific information and you get a large thread as a search result. It takes to much time to read through the Patty thread for example when you just want to see a DA50 install. I used the feature a lot in the old format.

OK merging large threads isn't practical but how many times do we need to start a Great Planes Showstring thread? When a new one pops up it would be appropriate to merge it into the old one and keep the subscriptions so more people are aware of it.

The second Patty thread was started because the original had to much socializing for one member and now they are mirrors of each other with constant double posting of questions. The net result is fewer people get help because the knowledgable members get tired of answering the same questions. If new members could search the thread and not double post they would get more information and isn't that one of the main goals of RCU?

I didn't realize that the search function isn't going directly to replies. You're right, that's somewhat useless. Not only that, but when I was trying that I searched for "Showstring" which should generate just one hit in this forum, but it didn't. The search had no results. How can that be?

If the searches don't point to specific replies I can't imagine that consolidating threads would help. Even if it did, how many people who pose repetitive questions even use a search? That's a behavior that can be very difficult to instill in people.

One thing I do use quite often is the web browser's ability to search for text within a page. If you've got a specific term you're looking for hit Ctrl-f, and Ctrl-g to look for the next result. It's pretty handy when dealing with large amounts of information.

Hi Mike,

Yes, but that only works for the page you are showing. If you have 3,675,523 pages, like in the Patty thread, you have to do that search for every page. Even the f6 (repeat search) doesn't take you to a new page.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I have yet to come across a thread generating software that does take you to the string you are searching. They always take you to the thread, not the message. This particular problem is rampant in this format.

-David C.

UBB Threads will do that. Click a search result and it takes you right to the reply you're looking for. It's very flexible, letting the user determine how many replies are on each page and such. That can be pretty handy.

Another work around is to use the site search feature on google.com. Type in site:www.rcuniverse.com in Google's search field along with what you're looking for. That'll at least take you to the right page within a thread.

Hi Mike,

Hmm! I suppose that's true.

Although that would be relying on Google updating their databases frequently enough for you to be getting the latest entries. When you use Google to search, you are actually searching their databases, and not the 'net directly. It's true they update these databases very frequently, but you are still relying on them for the latest postings.

Also, does Google go deep enough into each web site to pick up the pages needed?

Good idea though!



-David C.