I'm sorry about them, I am very rarely in front if a computer. I'll try to make an effort to edit my posts with Tapatalk in the future. Thanks staff for being so tolerant of my ADD posts all over the place.
See ya
Printable View
I'm sorry about them, I am very rarely in front if a computer. I'll try to make an effort to edit my posts with Tapatalk in the future. Thanks staff for being so tolerant of my ADD posts all over the place.
See ya
Moved this thread to the correction section of the forum so there's that... Anyways, if you double-post from now on then please delete it. If you double-post and for some reason can't delete it then report your own post and fill out why you're reporting it in the following page. That way we can be on top of it in a heartbeat.
Ahhhh the rules, without them we are just 4chan. Sorry again people !
No worries, dude. Just try to keep it to less than a minimum. :)
Guys, can we use some discretion when addressing double posts. At least 3 times I have made a post talking about something new in a thread that was months old. In these occasions , I noticed I was the last one who posted previously. Now instead of updating the last - months old post, I made a separate post in the thread. Obviously there is good reason for this. However, on each occasion my post has been merged with the much older post, with a note saying not to double post .
Point in question - > http://ouyaforum.com/showthread.php?...l=1#post156764
Can I suggest in these circumstances, that posts are not merged. Also, when posts are merged for whatever reason , can we make sure they are time stamped with the current date so that the thread & post show up as the most recent updated
But one of the points of not double posting is so that you can't bump yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Coleiro
Clearly its not a matter of bumping, its a matter of new information being made visible and not hidden behind the old posts time stamp. Why would anyone update an old post with new info when that leads to the thread/post not showing up as recently updated (and remains buried). Clearly, this is a great example of when discretion should be used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schizophretard
I'm inclined to agree with Victor on this. If the time between posts is significant, then the thread has gone cold. If the same person posts with new info at that point, no one will ever have a reason to revisit the thread. The obvious alternative is to start a new thread with the same subject matter but i don't think anyone wants that. Those would be very specific circumstances though, a dormant thread updated with new information by the same person who was last to post before it went cold. Very easy to identify.
~
+1 Victor Coleiro :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Coleiro
Hmm... Good points. If I talk the other kids into it then it would have to be at our discretion based on things like,"Is this updated info of high enough importance to other members to justify being bumped?", "Is the member just trying to bump their own thread and/or trying to put a topic into everyone else's faces that no one is interested in presently?" and things of that nature. Also, they would still have to be merged but with the new time stamp to keep them bumped up because members already get confused about when they can double post and wouldn't realize it was an exception to the rule like the one week Unofficial Support double post exception or the devs updating their game threads exception. It would also help but not necessarily required if we were sent a reported post about your post to ask to have the newer time stamp with the reasons for it. For an example, Victor Coleiro could do a reported post on the linked post with something like,"Please merge with the new time stamp because it is about a sale that is happening right now and if buried it wouldn't be found until over." Sound fair?Quote:
Originally Posted by dra6onfire
Imo this sounds fair but I would add the original date in the old post (some note like originally posted by user on dd/mm/yyyy) before the line usually put in merged posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schizophretard
Schiz. I was in the middle of a post.
To keep it short.
Trial period. If there is NEW and RELEVANT info, it will keep the new timestamp. But if it becomes a cluttered mess then we have to go back to the way it was. A lot of people are just bumping to bump up their own personal thing which is what needs to be prevented but someone may be posting a contest, sale or something and no one else has posted. Let's see what happens.
I think that usually the old date doesn't matter because many times the date isn't important especially if there is a link to the old news showing it is obsolete. For an example, if I were to merge his post under these criteria with the new time stamp it would look like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffry84
If you click on the old post you can still see that the $124 is still on sale and if you didn't then you would know it is old news without needing to know the exact date.Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Coleiro
Well, I got there first. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Killswitch
That is basically what I was suggesting so your,"To keep it short." version works. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Killswitch
Well unless we want to just have a dedicated Amazon TV sale thread, then the user could also just start a new thread about the sale and the issue would be resolved wouldn't it?
Folks, you're talking more about double threads, rather than double posts.
And, whilst there is a rule about avoiding resurrecting old threads, I don't see any need to create an entirely new thread because of the view that it has "gone cold". Take an upcoming game as an example. The Dev might not have put any new information in there and so, those following or subscribed to the thread wont post in there until something new comes in.
You add something new to the existing thread, all the original followers/subscribers will get a notification, you've kept things clean and not getting multiple search results just because of this "newer" idea.
If it's a completely different thing, then yes, new thread.
But if it's an update then nope, I'm -1 to this.
I too have had posts months apart merged. +1 victor.
The results are quite ridiculous.
"This kills me. I want to use ouya for XBMC, but unplugging the keyboard constantly is a pain.
UPDATE: Any news on new content? I love this game."
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Over on my website, there's a 10 minute "merge" rule.. If someone's being stupid enough to post that quickly, they deserve to have their posts merged.
Anything beyond that limit, it makes sense that, occasionally, someone might want to add new information to a thread. This is what "true" double-posts are for.. They're to keep the thread alive, if important new things occur.
My first "Merged Posts" happened earlier today, when I posted today's Alpha Collexion game, which got merged with my previous post which had been made about 12 hours earlier.
.. That's a bit "too" large of a timescape, methinks!!
If your merging is indeed time-dependent, I'd probably make it a bit shorter!
But otherwise I see no issues with doing it. Keeps threads neater, and isn't really a problem, as long as it doesn't occasionally mess up posts along the way!