• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Merging multi-posts

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,280
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I already reported the issue (see text below), but I don't know how reports are handled, plus I wouldn't mind a discussion.

I just saw that my three posts were merged.
PLEASE DON'T DO THAT.
There was significant time between them, so people might have already seen the first one or two before the merge. Now if the merge-post isn't shown to them as "new", they'll miss the last post(s), and if it is, then they'll have to find what's new and wonder if something was changed in the parts they've already seen.
THAT IS BAD.
I am fully aware that I can edit my posts and if I don't, THEN THAT'S FOR A GOOD REASON. And I don't appreciate being treated like an *****.
 

DJHenjin

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
6
Location
North of nowhere
Stefan, As a forum moderator on a couple of sites that I run, It is always the practice to merge posts that immediately follow one another by a single user, I believe there is a better solution than just demanding "DO NOT MERGE MY POSTS".

For the forum mods here, the following is the practice that I follow, teach and recommend when merging posts:

Firstly Merge the posts as normal, and preceding the merge, put a simple "Next Section Merged from seperate post at MDY/HMSS"
secondly post a short message below the merged posts stating "Posts merged for double post reasons" or another good reason
Thirdly, when merging a post a second time Do step 1 then, Post a new merge notice, THEN delete the original merge notice so that users will be notified about the new merge.

any other suggestions and/or addendums are welcome, and lets not hate the Mods, let us simply suggest means of better managing the site.


DJHenjin
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
340
Location
Provo, UT
WCA
2013LLEW01
Stefan, As a forum moderator on a couple of sites that I run, It is always the practice to merge posts that immediately follow one another by a single user, I believe there is a better solution than just demanding "DO NOT MERGE MY POSTS".

For the forum mods here, the following is the practice that I follow, teach and recommend when merging posts:

Firstly Merge the posts as normal, and preceding the merge, put a simple "Next Section Merged from seperate post at MDY/HMSS"
secondly post a short message below the merged posts stating "Posts merged for double post reasons" or another good reason
Thirdly, when merging a post a second time Do step 1 then, Post a new merge notice, THEN delete the original merge notice so that users will be notified about the new merge.

any other suggestions and/or addendums are welcome, and lets not hate the Mods, let us simply suggest means of better managing the site.


DJHenjin

I'm ok with this, but it seems like a lot of work for mods. Is there a reason you are avoiding sequential posts from the same user?
 

waffle=ijm

Waffo
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
3,511
Location
Waffletopia
WCA
2008MANA02
YouTube
Visit Channel

Though I do like your approach I for one believe that not everyone reads everything especially things that look longer because of post merges. Personally 2 posts in a row from the same user gets my attention more than "Section Merged." because it yells out "DOUBLE POST COULD HAVE BEEN MERGED NOW I HAVE TO READ BOTH SO I CAN YELL AT THE USER FOR MESSING UP."
 

MWilson

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
288
If there has been significant time since the last post, then it's reasonable to allow multi-posting because just editing a previous post does not inform subscribers to that thread that there is an update, nor does it bump the thread. One post after another within minutes serves only post count++, but waiting hours/days/weeks/years until someone else responds to the thread before posting an update of some sort, just to make sure subscribers are notified and the thread gets bumped, seems silly.

I think it should be up to the mod's discretion whether or not the multi-posts are actually separate updates, or if they're just post count spam.
 

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I think it should be up to the mod's discretion whether or not the multi-posts are actually separate updates, or if they're just post count spam.
This, and this is exactly what Stefan's saying. Double posts can sometimes be acceptable, for various reasons. And a long-ass post plus a moderator "merged two posts lolz" post is not any shorter (either in number of posts or in text length) than the two posts separately, so what's the point?
 

mark49152

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,719
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
Visit Channel
I'm ok with this, but it seems like a lot of work for mods. Is there a reason you are avoiding sequential posts from the same user?
I second this question; unless it's clearly excessive, what's the problem with sequential posts?

I've also noticed that some threads get merged into others, which can be confusing when trying to follow them, and in doing so, posts get merged or even deleted. I'm new here and it's a great site that I really enjoy reading and getting involved in, but I've already had a couple of posts deleted presumably because they were considered "information free" and that's a bit disconcerting when it happens.

To my mind, the issue here is information archiving versus live discussion. If the purpose of the forum is to preserve threads for future reference then some tidying up makes sense, but if it is for live discussion then interventions like these can make it more difficult to follow or participate in those discussions.

Perhaps posts could be left in their original form for a week before being tidied up if necessary?
 

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,280
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
what about automatically merging posts as soon as the second one is posted if they were a certain amount of time apart?

Would help against the broken link issue, but I still dislike forced merges for the other reasons and I'd rather not have the system do it automatically because that might make it happen more often. Right now when there's a multipost, I can still hope that no overzealous mod happens to see it :D

Mods could also change the post# in any quotes of the merged post so that they still go to the intended place.

Wouldn't help if I let's say emailed a link to someone.
The server could instead forward to or display the new location, though.
 
Last edited:

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Honestly, in many cases of unnecessary double posts, I'd rather them just be left like that, so we can see what actually happened. It's a bit different if someone makes a ton of posts in a row, but if it's just two and they would be pretty long if combined together, just leave them apart.
 

Sa967St

Not A Moderator
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
3,795
Location
Waterloo, ON, Canada
WCA
2007STRO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Are there any reasons for merging posts at all?
The way I see it, it's easier to not allow multiple posts in a row (with few clear exceptions) than allow users to do so whenever they want. If there are too many multiple posts around, it might give the impression that they are allowed at any time. We don't want to see a bunch of short posts in a row by the same user, since they take up more unnecessary space, continuously bump the thread, and increases their post count more than it should. The forums shouldn't be like a chat room - there needs to be more organization. At the same time, it's nice to have certain posts separated, like if they are completely different ideas or they're long posts addressed to different people, but it seems easier just to merge them than make them part of the exceptions. I usually don't merge multiple posts unless it's clear that the user was just trying to increase their post count, or didn't know how to quote multiple people at a time, but I'll probably be fine with any merging another mod decides is okay.
 
Last edited:

Sa967St

Not A Moderator
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
3,795
Location
Waterloo, ON, Canada
WCA
2007STRO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The points you picked out are not big problems, but they're still reasons why merging posts is an improvement over not merging them.

y axis real estate is an issue on the internet now?
That doesn't have to do with what I said at all...

There's a noticeable difference when multiple people post 5 short posts in a row instead posting one long post. Since we can only have 40 posts per page at most (although most people have their settings at 10 posts per page), it's nicer to see more content on each page.

This is useful when the thread contains new content.
I was thinking more along the lines of if someone was purposely using this to their advantage to bumping his/her thread.

Oh god! The horror!
Posting for the sake of increasing post count used to a problem before, back when the off-topic subforum counted posts. Allowing multiple posts could also encourage pointless posting. (By "pointless", I mean content-wise, not because of the extra y-axis space.)
 
Last edited:
Top