Site Comments & Suggestions

Merging Threads, Please Respect Content As Well As Time

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 19th, 2012 10:16 am
Tags:
None
[OP]
Deal Expert
Nov 16, 2004
15222 posts
2138 upvotes
Toronto

Merging Threads, Please Respect Content As Well As Time

This afternoon, two threads on the breaking news of the Downsview Park stage collapse were posted in the same MINUTE of each other (literally, have the same time stamp).

Members began commenting in my thread, not to mention the OP of the second thread tilted their hat and asked that theirs were closed/merged with mine ... I also spent the time updating the thread over the course of an hour plus with multiple posts and photos.

2 Hours later, the threads were merged giving cudos to the OP of the other thread, leaving me no control over title or content to the thread.
I deleted most of my content because of this.

I think whatever moderator did this, made the incorrect decision and should have looked at the number of posts in the topics, as well as the updated content, rather than JUST the time stamp (which were identical) in selecting one thread over another.
If the moderators are too extended to see this, then that's a problem and it could certainly replicate itself in a Boxing Day thread or sale thread in Hot Deals.

It's SO SIMPLE, a complaint about nothing, but it's only "right" to give the nod to the thread that's moving and not the dead thread. C'mon guys?!?!?

Anyways, that's all.
RedFlagDeals addict
11 replies
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 2, 2009
14093 posts
576 upvotes
Toronto
DaVibe wrote:
Jun 16th, 2012 6:08 pm
This afternoon, two threads on the breaking news of the Downsview Park stage collapse were posted in the same MINUTE of each other (literally, have the same time stamp).

Members began commenting in my thread, not to mention the OP of the second thread tilted their hat and asked that theirs were closed/merged with mine ... I also spent the time updating the thread over the course of an hour plus with multiple posts and photos.

2 Hours later, the threads were merged giving cudos to the OP of the other thread, leaving me no control over title or content to the thread.
I deleted most of my content because of this.

I think whatever moderator did this, made the incorrect decision and should have looked at the number of posts in the topics, as well as the updated content, rather than JUST the time stamp (which were identical) in selecting one thread over another.
If the moderators are too extended to see this, then that's a problem and it could certainly replicate itself in a Boxing Day thread or sale thread in Hot Deals.

It's SO SIMPLE, a complaint about nothing, but it's only "right" to give the nod to the thread that's moving and not the dead thread. C'mon guys?!?!?

Anyways, that's all.
Maybe that's because he posted seconds before you? Any time a thread is merged, the thread is sorted by time - to the second. So if he posted even one second before you, his posts go first and he gets the OP tag for being the first/earlier poster - that's how it happens. And if he posted first, you posted second, a user posted in his thread after, and another posted in your thread after that, the posts zip up when the threads are merged accordingly.

'Sides, you still "have" kudos that you seem to ache so much for - in your "find latest started threads" page accessible from your profile page.
Moderator
User avatar
May 27, 2007
15684 posts
3106 upvotes
Toronto
DaVibe wrote:
Jun 16th, 2012 6:08 pm
This afternoon, two threads on the breaking news of the Downsview Park stage collapse were posted in the same MINUTE of each other (literally, have the same time stamp).

Members began commenting in my thread, not to mention the OP of the second thread tilted their hat and asked that theirs were closed/merged with mine ... I also spent the time updating the thread over the course of an hour plus with multiple posts and photos.

2 Hours later, the threads were merged giving cudos to the OP of the other thread, leaving me no control over title or content to the thread.
I deleted most of my content because of this.

I think whatever moderator did this, made the incorrect decision and should have looked at the number of posts in the topics, as well as the updated content, rather than JUST the time stamp (which were identical) in selecting one thread over another.
If the moderators are too extended to see this, then that's a problem and it could certainly replicate itself in a Boxing Day thread or sale thread in Hot Deals.

It's SO SIMPLE, a complaint about nothing, but it's only "right" to give the nod to the thread that's moving and not the dead thread. C'mon guys?!?!?

Anyways, that's all.
Hello DaVibe,

When threads are merged, the forum software gives the option to pick which of the thread to be deemed as "Destination Thread" (ie: the "OP").
By default, the earliest created thread is selected.

However, even if your thread was selected to be the "OP", only your thread title will remain, everything else will be merged chronologically by ascending time stamp.
So although it may appear that you and the other OP posted at the same minute (4:53?), he hit the submit button earlier than you within that minute.
For example, he may have posted at 4:53:10, and you at 4:53:30. Therefore, the other OP was listed as first by the forum software.

So with that said, this was not done on purpose and we have no way of over-riding the software settings.
RedFlagDeals.com
See an inappropriate post? Use the "Report Post" function to alert Moderators!
[OP]
Deal Expert
Nov 16, 2004
15222 posts
2138 upvotes
Toronto
That's fine, a computer made the decision.
If anything, I'm just stating what happened and how it pissed me off, the guy who was contributing to the thread, and maybe that's something that can be "fixed" in the months and years to come.

It's disappointing more than anything, that's all.

Does it matter? Not really
Will I get over it? Of course
Do I think you guys made a mistake? Hells yes.

That is all.
RedFlagDeals addict
[OP]
Deal Expert
Nov 16, 2004
15222 posts
2138 upvotes
Toronto
45ED wrote:
Jun 16th, 2012 6:24 pm
Maybe that's because he posted seconds before you? Any time a thread is merged, the thread is sorted by time - to the second. So if he posted even one second before you, his posts go first and he gets the OP tag for being the first/earlier poster - that's how it happens. And if he posted first, you posted second, a user posted in his thread after, and another posted in your thread after that, the posts zip up when the threads are merged accordingly.

'Sides, you still "have" kudos that you seem to ache so much for - in your "find latest started threads" page accessible from your profile page.
Yes, I understand WHY it happened. The computer chose the earlier thread.
I'm just explaining the HUMAN quality that a moderator in a community could have noted before simply clicked their way into merging threads.

Over and done with, I just don't like to see bad threads put over top of good threads, especially when someone is working hard on it (me). It has nothing to do with kudos, it just had to deal with updating the content in the thread. I was updating the original page, like a news story, and posting applicable pictures and information as it became available.
By allowing the other thread to go first, which he was not updating, the information is dated and quite possibly incorrect. My information is lost in the thread.

Oh well, that's all.
RedFlagDeals addict
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 30, 2006
8728 posts
297 upvotes
Toronto
Why does it matter who has control over the thread title and as for control over the thread content. I don't get it. You still have the ability to post in the thread. What kind of control are you looking to have?

And does it really matter about the "kudos"? Do you see people posting "Hey great job posting this thread OP!! You have great writing skills!! You are the MAN!!"
[OP]
Deal Expert
Nov 16, 2004
15222 posts
2138 upvotes
Toronto
Again, I was actively posting the updates as they were becoming available. Updating the news story several times, adding pictures, adding additional links.
As the active thread (over the other one), it would have made more sense to put it on top.

It's like putting last week's Staples flyer over this week's staples flyer, because it was posted first. Meanwhile, the content is dead and irrelevant.
From a reading standpoint (since that's what I was going for ... click on the thread, read the updates) it would have made more sense to have the most applicable content on top.
OP's thread was a question "1 Dead?", mine was a statement, followed by facts given so far "1 Dead, 1 Sent to Hospital, As many as 2 additional injured"

Like I said, I put a lot of time into, disappointing, that's all. That was 4+ hours ago, I'm watching Cars on ABC now :)
RedFlagDeals addict
Deal Addict
Mar 21, 2010
4279 posts
1147 upvotes
Toronto
DaVibe wrote:
Jun 16th, 2012 9:52 pm
From a reading standpoint (since that's what I was going for ... click on the thread, read the updates) it would have made more sense to have the most applicable content on top.
No offense, but since when? The whole structure of the forum is set up so that the latest post comes last. Why would someone even look at page 1 of a thread that they've already read... nobody expects to find the new stuff there. I mean maybe in very specific instances, but a news thread just like any other news thread, in my opinion it's just confusing when posts get edited over and over rather than a new post added for new information, since people have to go back and re-read and see if they can tell what's changed.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Feb 23, 2008
7127 posts
1737 upvotes
Hey DaVibe,

Im very sorry that this occured to you. I can totally understand how you feel, putting all your effort only having to lose it so please accept this apology on behalf of the forum system and we certainly didn't meant to do it on purpose because it was an automatic calculation and there was no hidden agendas behind choosing the other post vs yours.

Hope we can put this behind us and look forward.

Cheers Bud!
Nothing is true, everything is permitted - Ezio Auditore.
[OP]
Deal Expert
Nov 16, 2004
15222 posts
2138 upvotes
Toronto
Trust me, it's fine. I appreciate the message.

I just acted (and posted) in the heat of the moment, that's all. I think forum regulars understand the high frustration level of something so simple but again, I wasn't doing ANYTHING ELSE at the time except for updating that thread, which was over an hour plus. Then my thread was merged with a dead one.
Like I said, if anything, just pointing it out for a "one day fix" type of scenario, who knows.

That's why I posted a new thread in this section as well, lighter topic :D
RedFlagDeals addict
Moderator
User avatar
Jul 5, 2004
23505 posts
3055 upvotes
Although I wouldn't care about something similar, I guess I can understand why that would be frustrating. At the same time, it doesn't sound like the mods had a choice in the matter. The forum software seems to merge the older thread into the newer one and it doesn't sound like there's any way for the mods to override that. If that's the case, no amount of complaining will change it, at least not until the forum software is changed.

Although perhaps in the future if one thread appears to have a lot information and posts and the other doesn't, the dead thread can be locked/deleted and the updated one can remain. No need to merge the threads, just delete one or lock it and let it die on its own.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 23, 2010
2505 posts
571 upvotes
We are looking into a plugin that will let us manipulate the time and user of the post. I haven't given it much of an investigation but in light of all the merging issues lately, I have moved it up in my 'to do' list.

Again, we do apologize for this situation.
For all community related matters, please PM TomRFD

Top