thread merging

[FreeLance]

it's for wussies.

i posted a thread of photography almost an entire month ago, and when i put up a new thread of new photography, they are merged? and yet, most people here who put forward any sort of art start new threads with the same sort of regularity. names usually appear at least two to three times on the same page of threads.

why is it my two threads were merged, even though they were posted a month apart?

this normally wouldn't bug me, but the older thread was a themed set of photography and hence was left on its own, the photos were meant to be together and that's all.

[Stijn]

Because they had roughly the same subject, merging them would bring back the thread to the top of the list (thus no issues with it being a few weeks old), and with things like "the photos aren't really that much of a theme" in the first post it doesn't indicate that it is a "themed set of photography" to me (or is themelessness the theme?), but rather made it look like you just got a new batch of unrelated photographs done that would thusly fit perfectly in that thread, as a sort of repository for your published photos.

It's perfectly fine with me if you open a new thread if those photographs really stand on their own, if they would've been a (like you said) themed set of photography, but to me it seemed like they did not.

[FreeLance]

the photos aren't really that much of a theme, but most of them are more or less related to indie culture, coffee culture, travel culture, et cetera.

i can see how this language could be confusing, but my point was not that they weren't a theme but rather that being a themed set they were not all that well themed together.
they all even have matching titles.
i just had returned from a road trip, so i put together a set of pictures that dealt with the culture and experiences i had while road tripping.
they were photos from a set of photographs, meant to be together in such a way.
the new photos were taken over a longer period of time and are from various times and places with completely unrelated subject matter and have absolutely nothing to do with one another nor with the photos from the older thread.

how could they have 'roughly the same subject' anymore than drawings of various anthropomorphic characters or what have you have 'roughly the same subject,' and as such basically any thread posted by anyone in art forum should be merged with any other thread posted by that person.
why not merge ALL of my photography, ALL of batty buddy's cartooning, et cetera?

this is just silly. there's absolutely no reason for the two threads to be merged.

[Stijn]

As I said it was not clear to me that they were to be taken as sets.

Your two threads were posted close enough after each other for me to assume that they could safely be merged together, especially since I assumed both contained only more or less unconnected photos. Apparently this was not the case, but this was really not clear to me. Even then both lists of photos are still in seperate posts so I do not really understand all the fuss you're making about this.

If someone else would have done the same I'd have merged it too. However, there have been no people who recently posted did so while I was actively moderating the forum, or I found the two threads different enough to warrant two seperate threads (as with BB's collaboration and "big list" threads).

[FreeLance]

The newest thread was completely unrelated to the old thread, and was nothing more than random photos - the old thread was a set of photos all of which but two shared a common naming convention and theme (as the post said, and as I hope I made clear in my previous post in this thread).
The merger of the two was senseless, as they were posted close to a month apart (three days shy), and were not related in any way except that they contain photography - which would be like merging all drawings posted by any one poster together with the others.

I see no reason to merge the two together.
I generally like to keep an eye on things involving my photography - for instance, when I post links to them on various message boards I like to keep an eye on how many people view the threads so I can gauge interest in my work and what have you. It's just something I do. With the threads merged together, this is next to impossible.

[Violet CLM]

Umm, yeah, we get it already. How about this: just agree that Stijn was wrong in this particular instance, that the threads did not need to be merged for reasons stated by Freelance in this thread but were perhaps not perfectly clear in the originals, and Stijn is presumably somewhat sorry for the inconvenience and will be more careful merging threads in the future? Saves you from repeating the same things over and over.

[Stijn]

Just what I was about to say. I think I made it clear enough that I did not understand that they were seperate sets and thus mistakingly merged them, so I suppose we can say case closed?

[FreeLance]

Umm, yeah, we get it already. How about this: just agree that Stijn was wrong in this particular instance, that the threads did not need to be merged for reasons stated by Freelance in this thread but were perhaps not perfectly clear in the originals, and Stijn is presumably somewhat sorry for the inconvenience and will be more careful merging threads in the future? Saves you from repeating the same things over and over.

Even then both lists of photos are still in seperate posts so I do not really understand all the fuss you're making about this.

I guess I figured that meant he did not, at the time of my replying to it, really understand all the fuss I was making about this.