Responding to posts.

[Chas]

I gave reasons that are not esthetic - you are just too stupid to understand them.

Coming from a guy who can't even spell aesthetic? Whatever bro.

---

Coming from a dolt too ignorant to know there are two spellings.

And you have no reason for there to be one.

The reasons have been explained throughout the thread. Less clutter, easier to deal with spammers...

And 'less clutter' is an esthetic opinion.

[pocaracas]

Are you guys seriously arguing over this?

From the POV of users, it's an aesthetic thing. Some like it, some don't... live with it we must.[/yoda]
From the POV of mods, it's an aesthetic thing and makes it easier to clear posts by spammers, if they stayed within one only thread... everything gets clumped into one, so you only need to remove one post... but I haven't seen any such heavy spamming... mods always on top of things, perhaps?...
From the POV of the Database, there are less entries, but I think the extra strain would be minimal.... there is an extra processing strain in identifying that the previous post was done by the same user and the new content must be appended to the previous post, instead on generating a new post... but I guess that is also minimal.

One detail concerning the new post information... I may be mistaken and mixed things up, but it seems that, sometimes, I do get that information, even when the new post gets joined with the old... could it be that the forum is actually creating a new post and then joining it with the previous?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This is very easy to fix - turn the option off. If you are correct that the posts have been combined in the database, there will be no problem.

I think you are not giving it due consideration because you clearly don't understand my comment.

I explained that it is clearer if they are separate. You may or may not agree, but I think folding them together is purely someone's esthetic decision as it serves no function.

Come on Chas, no need for dismissal and patronisation. Syn was only giving is perspective on it.

We're the ones who have to moderate the forum and we're also the ones that have to ensure everything runs as smooth as possible. If we think it's easier to sort through the way it is, then we'll obviously want to keep it that way to lessen the sometimes considerable workload in formatting and editing (all I've done thus far since being promoted it seems :\). I'm in no way saying that we don't value your perspective as a user and a valued contributor, but the staff who have contributed thus far want it kept the way it is.

Can we just leave it at that for now?

Many thanks,

Fidel.

[Chas]

This is very easy to fix - turn the option off. If you are correct that the posts have been combined in the database, there will be no problem.

I think you are not giving it due consideration because you clearly don't understand my comment.

I explained that it is clearer if they are separate. You may or may not agree, but I think folding them together is purely someone's esthetic decision as it serves no function.

Come on Chas, no need for dismissal and patronisation. Syn was only giving is perspective on it.

I was neither. MS did not address the substance of my comment.

We're the ones who have to moderate the forum and we're also the ones that have to ensure everything runs as smooth as possible. If we think it's easier to sort through the way it is, then we'll obviously want to keep it that way to lessen the sometimes considerable workload in formatting and editing (all I've done thus far since being promoted it seems :\). I'm in no way saying that we don't value your perspective as a user and a valued contributor, but the staff who have contributed thus far want it kept the way it is.

Can we just leave it at that for now?

Many thanks,

Fidel.

I expressed my opinion and hoped for a useful discussion of the feature.

I am disappoint.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Come on Chas, no need for dismissal and patronisation. Syn was only giving is perspective on it.

I was neither. MS did not address the substance of my comment.

Ok. That's fine, but you could have simply said 'maybe there's been a misunderstanding' or 'let me clarify' instead of dismissing Syn's comment as non-responsive. Tis all.

This started as a polite request, I just want the dialogue to be civil.

We're the ones who have to moderate the forum and we're also the ones that have to ensure everything runs as smooth as possible. If we think it's easier to sort through the way it is, then we'll obviously want to keep it that way to lessen the sometimes considerable workload in formatting and editing (all I've done thus far since being promoted it seems :\). I'm in no way saying that we don't value your perspective as a user and a valued contributor, but the staff who have contributed thus far want it kept the way it is.

Can we just leave it at that for now?

Many thanks,

Fidel.

I expressed my opinion and hoped for a useful discussion of the feature.

I am disappoint.

I've already said my piece. I can't see us changing it because, as staff, we want to ensure that the forum is as easy for us to manage as possible, and the auto merge has been deemed as a useful facet to that end. I'm sorry that you don't like the feature and that you think it should be changed. Please let this be on the record that we do not dismiss requests/opinions from users without dialogue both in and out of the staff area first.

That we disagree with your view does not mean we value you and your opinions any less. Indeed, we welcome input from users.

Other staff who haven't contributed might have a different view, but that's all I have to say at this time.

Thanks

Fidel

[Jackalope]

Personally, I don't care much for the automerge feature. However, as Tiberius and/or Darwinian are likely the only two staff who know the full history of why it is set the way it is, I'd like to hear from them and understand the rationale before taking a position on changing it, regardless of my personal preference.

From my perspective, the pros and cons:

Pro:

- I only have to scroll through one post header and signature block of someone who's posts I don't care to read, instead of potentially a dozen or more in a row.
- Impatient thread bumpers are thwarted, at least for an hour.

Con:

- When someone screws up their quotes and we have to fix it, merged posts make for a much larger post to deal with.
- Inline quoting an automerged wall of text can be a (major) PITA, especially on a mobile device.
- Automerge breaks the "new post" feature, which I use heavily (i.e. if you've read the post before the automerge occurred, the new content is not flagged as new to you).
- Automerging often results in fragments of multiple simultaneous sub-conversations occurring in the same post, and it sucks a bit to have to read through an enormous wall of text to find the bits I'm interested in (I don't know about anything else, but I find it far more efficient to scan through multiple short posts than one long one).

As far as the technical issues, I'll defer on those to the senior admins - I am still coming up to speed on the internals of the software.

[Chas]

I was neither. MS did not address the substance of my comment.

Ok. That's fine, but you could have simply said 'maybe there's been a misunderstanding' or 'let me clarify' instead of dismissing Syn's comment as non-responsive. Tis all.

This started as a polite request, I just want the dialogue to be civil.

I expressed my opinion and hoped for a useful discussion of the feature.

I am disappoint.

I've already said my piece. I can't see us changing it because, as staff, we want to ensure that the forum is as easy for us to manage as possible, and the auto merge has been deemed as a useful facet to that end. I'm sorry that you don't like the feature and that you think it should be changed. Please let this be on the record that we do not dismiss requests/opinions from users without dialogue both in and out of the staff area first.

That we disagree with your view does not mean we value you and your opinions any less. Indeed, we welcome input from users.

And that's all I have to say at this time.

Thanks

Fidel

Well, I never made a request - polite or not - I expressed my opinion of the way it works.

And I read MS's response as dismissive.

I was looking for a discussion about why it is the way it is.

[Jackalope]

I was looking for a discussion about why it is the way it is.

Frankly, until Tiberius and/or Darwinian weigh in on it, any such discussion is going to be speculative.

[Angrboda]

For what it's worth, I prefer posts be split as well. It creates a better logical separation as to what is being responded to, and to whom. If you automerge a short reply after a reply to a longer one (think Statler Waldorf), nobody reads the second (or third reply). It also makes things clearer if you are posting graphics or videos as separate responses in addition to other textual replies.

I've been on a forum that does split each reply off, and it didn't seem to cause any additional problems. Perhaps they have less spam, or perhaps the idea of the multipost spammer is more boogeyman than reality, I don't know. If you build it, they will come, I suppose.

Regardless, if it's technically problematic, I suppose it's a dead issue.

(ETA: Btw, is it 60 minutes or 120 minutes before it stops automerge? I always thought it was the edit window time.)

[Cyberman]

Well, I never made a request - polite or not - I expressed my opinion of the way it works.

Yes you did; and the Staff, as well as regular grassroot members, who responded thus far expressed their opinions, alongside more specific technical reasons.

And I read MS's response as dismissive.

Personally I read it as informative, of the very thing you asked about. It was only dismissive in the sense of explaining why the answer's no.

I was looking for a discussion about why it is the way it is.

That's fine. How do you see this discusion progressing?