Creating a master list on a particular topic (wish list, bugs, etc.)

The following quote is taken from the thread: http://www.ipacs.de/forum/showthre…ighlight=master

Quote from adak47

... [There are two] problems with threads in the forum -- (1) they can quickly go off-topic by morphing into a discussion on an entirely different issue; (2) sometimes information is duplicated in two or more posts. What is needed is a way to have a thread that is created and maintained by just one person. People wanting to add items to that list would post them as normal in here, and then the person maintaining the master list would add them, insuring no duplication of items, vetting out irrelevant material, and organizing the list in a logical fashion.

I have thought a bit more about the problem of off-topic, duplicate, outdated, or erroneous posts being made in a thread which was designed to form a list of ideas, suggestions, bugs, etc. There is a very simple solution that requires no changes in the current forum design. To illustrate, take donka's "Wish List" thread, which had 1000+ views in the first two weeks. Good ideas are scattered throughout the thread, but they are not in one place. So here is the solution. Since donka created the thread and posted the initial list in it, only he has rights to edit that initial post. As new suggestions come streaming in, donka can add them to the original list, eliminating redundant items, items that are off-topic, and items that belong in a different master list. He can also organize them in some logical fashion.

This solution has two virtues. First, a visitor need only read the initial post to get all the relevant information. If the visitor wants to add an item, he or she simply posts it at the end of the thread and donka will update it in the future. Second, if the visitor wants to review the complete history of the thread, it is all there: master list at top, and the complete thread history below.

Now, it would be useful to mark these special "integrative" threads in the title of the thread. I would propose that future posters put "MASTER LIST:" at the beginning of the title when ever they plan to integrate information in the first post of the thread:

MASTER LIST: Wish List (iPad/iPhone)
MASTER LIST: Bugs in Aerofly FS 2 (iPad/iPhone)
MASTER LIST: Bugs in Aerofly FS (1.3.1)
MASTER LIST: Installing user designed aircraft and scenery on the Macintosh (Aerofly FS 1.3.1)

Some may wish to create more narrowly defined categories, so in addition to the Wish List, which has some aircraft suggested, you might want to create a specific thread just for aircraft:

MASTER LIST: Aircraft to add to Aerofly FS 2 (iPad/iPhone)

So all of this just relies on establishing the convention that someone take responsibility for maintaing such a list. Presumably that would be the creator of the list. A problem arises if someone who started a list no longer wants to maintain it. There is no way at present (that I know of) for another member to pick up that responsibility. A clumsy solution is to just copy the content of the now-abandoned master list to a new one, along with a link to the original thread for people who want to review the complete thread history.

Think about this, and post your thoughts. Maybe we can come to some agreement about how to proceed.

Regards,

Adak47

Quote from Trisnpod

I quite the way threads often go into a few little threads as long as the main purpose of that thread is still kept going, so with this idea, would you be able to view the thread in its natural order?

Tristan, yes, only the first post is being changed in order to maintain the comprehensive list. Everything beyond that is still in its original form and order. Of course, the authors of subsequent posts can edit them at any time, and even delete them if they wish. In that sense, each person "owns" his or her own posts. My suggestion does not change anything from the way it is now. I am just recommending that the list creator update the initial list to reflect everything of value in the subsequent posts, so viewers don't have to go through all the individual posts (relevant and irrelevant) to get the essential info.

Quote from donka

We currently have the wish list and bugs list in this forum. We could call one out for Aerofly FS as well I guess although the wish list at least seems redundant as I would imagine all focus will go version 2.

Probably, but the distinction between iPad/iPhone FS2 and the desktop FS 2 will probably still be necessary...

Quote from donka

Isn't that already made by virtue this is the iPhone/iPad forum?

I can imagine threads that apply to both with minor tweaking. Do we maintain duplicate copies in each forum with their own thread history? If so, how do we indicate that so that people reading posts in both forums know that this thread is the one customized (tweaked) for a specific platform? That is what I was thinking when specifying the device explicitly. But I think maybe you are right, and it probably isn't necessary.

Quote from Overloaded

Tying threads to rigid frameworks could ossify the forum, uncontrolled flexibility carries the danger of weirdness, repetition, diversion and misinformation but it is the originality, creativity and the shock of the new that drives forums into the unpredictable directions that make their monitoring rewarding, informative and hopefully interesting.

You don't think the creator of the list can incorporate new ideas and frameworks for the list? You don't give them much credit. And if the list is rigid and inflexible, it won't meet the needs of the forum members and will slowly sink into disuse, just as some threads do now. The risk is neither greater nor less this will occur with integrated (master) lists. Like user designed aircraft and scenery, they will only be as good as the people creating and maintaining them. Some will be good at it, some not so good.

There is absolutely nothing mandatory about these integrated lists. All the action is in what the list creator decides to do by way of editing and updating the initial post to reflect the ideas and contributions of the people posting to the thread. If people are not happy with how that is being done all they have to do is ignore the first post, and read the rest of the posts in the thread just as they do now. Or, alternatively, they can start a new thread and do it they way they want. If that way turns out to meet the needs of the members better, they will gravitate to that thread and away from the old, just as they are free to do right now. Evolution in action.

There is nothing -- and I emphasize nothing -- different about the integrated list other than what goes on in the first post.

Quote from Overloaded

Some excellent threads end up with almost nothing to do with the original post. It must drive the originator nuts but it is productive.

Well, that is a good thing. And I can imagine the thread creator, or one of the members visiting the thread, might decide to start a new thread with a focus based on the one that "evolved" in the parent thread. Nothing wrong with that. The initial post in the new thread could link back to the one that spawned it so visitors could get the full back-story if they want. But probably that would be unnecessary, as the initial post would hopefully do a good job of summarizing the salient points and ideas in the old thread that spawned the new.

Sometimes textbook authors add enough new material to a chapter in a revision that it is necessary to break the material into two separate chapters, simply because that is a more effective way to present the expanded material. That is an argument for changing the chapter organization, not for avoiding writing in chapters in the first place (which is what I took your earlier post to mean).

Quote from Overloaded

Next table/snug is similar but after a similar start the person on a high stool says "you are not following my thesis, could you become compliant or I will have to send you away".

There is nothing in what I have said on this topic that would support this interpretation. The only place the creator of the room exercises any influence at all is the updates to the initial post. Anyone can post anything they want, and will. If it actually contributes in some way to the intent of the list creator, then it might end up being incorporated into the initial post. That's it. End of story. As it is, the author of any thread can edit the initial post, or any post, any way he or she wants. As can you.

But as nobody else has spoken in favor of the integrative threads I have suggested (in response to issues raised by other members in this forum), I am prepared to abandon any effort on this matter. I really do have better things to do...

Quote from Overloaded

Is the proposal that the great bulk of regular conventional posts support a streamlined directed top layer?

Human nature being what it is, I doubt that would be possible. That makes the list creator's job more difficult, but not impossible. He or she would simply have to mine the content of the thread to find on-topic suggestions, ideas, or other contributions. In most cases these could be incorporated in the initial post. Exceptions would be items that are duplications, or items which might be better combined or subsumed under an existing category. That is really up to the creator to work out. No doubt the other contributors to the thread would have ideas on how best to do this as well, and that would be another "layer" of input for the list creator to consider.

You know the old adage about jumping up and down with one leg, rubbing your stomach in circles with one hand, patting your head with the other, all while blowing bubbles with chewing gum? A little like that.

Ancient maps had a printed warning at the edges of the known world that said "Here be dragons." A little like that too.

Ok, I have convinced myself that integrative lists are not possible…