Merged Posts SUCKS!!

[LizKat]

I don't mind the word usage at all.

It's just that I'm old and that word was considered a swear while growing up .

Yeah I think I never dared use that word around my elders even when I was in my 30s and 40s.

The word probably sticks out in this forum more because it may show up less frequently than in PRSI. Over there anyway the thread titles in PRSI are sometimes outré enough to make inclusion of that word practically irrelevant in the first reactions of a reader.

As for the merged post thing, I too can find it inconvenient when just wanting to react to part of a merged post. I'm aware in that moment that it would have been a lot simpler not to have to qualify my reaction. To award the equivalent of a "like" or "disagree" to just part of a merged post takes making a separate post and quoting part of the original. I end up asking myself if my reaction matters and may just move on.

Usually my internal response to having two of my own posts merged is to think that I must have better things to do than hang out here all day. In a way I figure that that's the whole point of the merged-post routine: a less than subtle hint that one is hogging the thread, whether or not one meant to "bump" ideas in an earlier post.

Sometime I see two posts of my own get merged and if I do notice that immediately upon making my second post, and the two don't address the same points, I will sometimes edit the thing and remove the second post and save it for reposting later if it's still germane to the thread flow. But one can only sensibly do that if no one has yet posted a reply to all or part of a merged post.

It's possible that the merged-posts routine is much more applicable to the tech forums where a newbie asks a question and five minutes later bumps it with another post saying "Anyone? Anyone help me out here?"

 

[Ambrosia7177]

It's possible that the merged-posts routine is much more applicable to the tech forums where a newbie asks a question and five minutes later bumps it with another post saying "Anyone? Anyone help me out here?"

So address "thread bumping" separately from what I brought up in my OP.

If I start a thread, and 4 people respond, all with different takes, and then I go to reply to those 4 *separate* people with 4 *separate* posts and often 4 *separate* ideas, then why should my 4 *separate* responses get lumped into ONE POST??

Apples and oranges.

I love Thanksgiving turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes & gravy, and pumpkin pie, but I would never place them all in a blender and then try and digest what came out... ;-)

 

[LizKat]

So address "thread bumping" separately from what I brought up in my OP.

If I start a thread, and 4 people respond, all with different takes, and then I go to reply to those 4 *separate* people with 4 *separate* posts and often 4 *separate* ideas, then why should my 4 *separate* responses get lumped into ONE POST??

Apples and oranges.

I love Thanksgiving turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes & gravy, and pumpkin pie, but I would never place them all in a blender and then try and digest what came out... ;-)

I don't care what happens with post-merging really. In the end I figure it's up to post readers to select what they want to respond to in anyone's post, quote it to emphasize their own focus if that seems needed, and then reply. But I do think the original aim of the timed auto-merging process was to consolidate bumps...

 

[annk]

If I start a thread, and 4 people respond, all with different takes, and then I go to reply to those 4 *separate* people with 4 *separate* posts and often 4 *separate* ideas, then why should my 4 *separate* responses get lumped into ONE POST??

Because that's what we ask users here to do. Readers are able to understand that you are responding to four separate posts, because those posts are quoted and your responses are directly under each post.

 

[maflynn]

then why should my 4 *separate* responses get lumped into ONE POST??

Speaking as a member and not as a moderator, but I'd much rather see a single post, with 4 quotes and responses then four posts, one after another. Additionally, we're not just talking about 4, we could see a whole wall of posts by the same member and that would just increase the annoyance.

As a member, I'm not really worked up over this one way or another, but I can see how multiple posts by the same member can annoy others.

 

[D.T.]

Speaking as a member and not as a moderator, but I'd much rather see a single post, with 4 quotes and responses then four posts, one after another.

That's not the use case that causes this to be a bit annoying. For what you identified, it's OK, though that does kind of break the ability to "react" to a discrete post when they're combined.

 

[I7guy]

Out of curiosity, were any changes made to "merged posts". I'm seeing more non-merged posts in different forums?

 

[ericgtr12]

Unless they've changed how the board functions in terms of the latest reply bumping the thread back to the top, disabling this feature will be short lived IMO. It was designed out of the need to prevent spam, and you can rest assured some will abuse it to keep their posts alive.

 

[arn]

yeah -- I did reduce the time-limit for merged posts from 15 minutes down to 1 minute. Also talking about turning off entirely. Can see how problematic the multiple posts become, and maybe just live with it to a degree

 

[ErikGrim]

1 minute seems a good compromise. It's far more likely that the merged post would be a "continuing thought" by people unaware that you can edit posts in that timeframe.

 

[2984839]

I totally agree with @Texas_Toast, merged posts make it awkward to follow a conversation or respond to multiple people. Is there a way to only merge if the quotes are of the same user? That would be preferable IMHO.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Honestly, it seems like an oft inappropriate substitution for having actual sub-thread support. This site's forums BADLY needs that and has for forever now.

 

[D.T.]

I totally agree with @Texas_Toast, merged posts make it awkward to follow a conversation or respond to multiple people. Is there a way to only merge if the quotes are of the same user? That would be preferable IMHO.

See a couple of posts above (#34), the merge only occurs if the subsequent post(s) are made within a minute - that should roll up a bunch of rapid fire posts that are probably the same thought (which is the design intent) vs. longer, more discrete ideas / responses (which is was part of the original complaint).

 

[GermanSuplex]

I'm missing the feature and am constantly double-posting now. I will try to stop it, but old habits die hard.

 

[theSeb]

I've been away on a long hiatus from the forum. Back in the day when the grass was greener and we had to walk in the snow up hill both ways to just post on the forum double posts were bad and frowned upon by the moderators.

Reading this discussion I understand that I won't get a warning for doing it? It's especially easy to do when reading a thread on the front page and hitting respond to posts that one finds interesting. I have never trusted multi-quote and I have some irrational fear of it.