[Forum Suggestion] Automatically merging your own comments when there is no comment in between

[Nyel.1843]

I know this thing from other forums (Elder Scrolls Online forums use the same template as this and have this option).

 

Sometimes it's very clunky to quote, edit and copy & paste a comment when you directly want to answer another player after you commented once.

 

Can we have an option that your comments are merged if you post in a thread two times, three times etc. in a row and there is no other comment in between?

 

So instead of having two separate comments (or more) we have one comment which gets edited automatically.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

I'm not sure I understand. Why not edit the original post instead of making multiple posts and asking for the forum to merge those posts to your first post?

[Gaile Gray.6029]

I agree: Why would you post multiple posts, when you can simply edit your own content? This is, I realize, dependent on the fact that people need to get to the point where they have unlimited editing times, but that doesn't take long.

[Dante.1763]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> I agree: Why would you post multiple posts, when you can simply edit your own content? This is, I realize, dependent on the fact that people need to get to the point where they have unlimited editing times, but that doesn't take long.

 

I forget exactly, but when does it get unlocked?

[Panda.1967]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> I agree: Why would you post multiple posts, when you can simply edit your own content?

 

Character limits... sometimes you might post a very long and passionate response to a post, and then proceed to respond to another post in the same thread but don't have room to respond to both in the same post.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > I agree: Why would you post multiple posts, when you can simply edit your own content?

>

> Character limits... sometimes you might post a very long and passionate response to a post, and then proceed to respond to another post in the same thread but don't have room to respond to both in the same post.

 

The OP said it's not when you're responding to others in between but posting in a row to the same person. And anyway, if it's too big to fit in the first post won't it be too big too merge?

 

 

[Nyel.1843]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> I'm not sure I understand. Why not edit the original post instead of making multiple posts and asking for the forum to merge those posts to your first post?

 

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> I agree: Why would you post multiple posts, when you can simply edit your own content? This is, I realize, dependent on the fact that people need to get to the point where they have unlimited editing times, but that doesn't take long.

 

The thing is, editing your old post and updating it with new stuff takes too much time and too many steps (click edit, copy & paste your new comment, click save) compared to the solution I suggest. I know this forum can handle it like I said and it's so much easier.

I am somebody who likes to quote and answer directly to quotes instead of quote person 1 and answer that post, scroll down a bit, see person 2, quote that person, write a comment, copy & paste it to edit your old comment just to go on and find person 3 you want to quote again. If a thread has many comments or you missed it for some hours / a day it gets quite hard to edit one comment with all of your replies and quotes. I mean sure, you could do it. But there is a much easier way to achieve this, by letting the forum make this for you.

 

What I suggest is exactly that but instead of you editing your comment every time the forum does this automatically without requiring consent. And it only does this when there is no newer reply to the thread. If I post two comments in a row it will be merged to one "edited" comment. If I post a comment and another one posts a newer comment and I post another comment just 10 seconds later it will be two comments because it just merges comments when they follow each other without anything in between. If you haven't experienced this option in another forum it's hard to understand what I mean but if you frequently use forums where this is the status quo you will quickly realize how much better this is.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @Nyel.1843 said:

> > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > I'm not sure I understand. Why not edit the original post instead of making multiple posts and asking for the forum to merge those posts to your first post?

>

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > I agree: Why would you post multiple posts, when you can simply edit your own content? This is, I realize, dependent on the fact that people need to get to the point where they have unlimited editing times, but that doesn't take long.

>

> The thing is, editing your old post and updating it with new stuff takes too much time and too many steps (click edit, copy & paste your new comment, click save) compared to the solution I suggest. I know this forum can handle it like I said and it's so much easier.

> I am somebody who likes to quote and answer directly to quotes instead of quote person 1 and answer that post, scroll down a bit, see person 2, quote that person, write a comment, copy & paste it to edit your old comment just to go on and find person 3 you want to quote again. If a thread has many comments or you missed it for some hours / a day it gets quite hard to edit one comment with all of your replies and quotes. I mean sure, you could do it. But there is a much easier way to achieve this, by letting the forum make this for you.

>

> What I suggest is exactly that but instead of you editing your comment every time the forum does this automatically without requiring my consent.

 

How would it handle posts that are meant to be separated, like the gemstore thread for new/returned/sales where there will be multiple posts by the same person, sometimes on the same day and sometimes with a day between. Merging all those posts meant to be on different days, successive posts, would ruin that thread.

 

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

Also, how about content makers on one thread that post successively. They won't automatically want their posts all merged together if it's supposed to be successive posts.

[Nyel.1843]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> How would it handle posts that are meant to be separated, like the gemstore thread for new/returned/sales where there will be multiple posts by the same person, sometimes on the same day and sometimes with a day between. Merging all those posts meant to be on different days, successive posts, would ruin that thread.

>

 

Well, this is a no issue when you're (the forum software) doing it right. I'm not into the details behind all of this so I really can't tell you how it's working in other forums that use this way of "editing", but it works. I'll try to figure it out somehow.

 

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> Also, how about content makers on one thread that post successively. They won't automatically want their posts all merged together if it's supposed to be successive posts.

 

Well, your comment now is a good example what I meant. Instead of being a second comment under your other comment the forum would've merged both with an

- - - - Updated - - - -

line in between and turned it into one comment. Would've been better than having two separate comments, wouldn't it?

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @Nyel.1843 said:

> > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > How would it handle posts that are meant to be separated, like the gemstore thread for new/returned/sales where there will be multiple posts by the same person, sometimes on the same day and sometimes with a day between. Merging all those posts meant to be on different days, successive posts, would ruin that thread.

> >

>

> Well, this is a no issue when you're (the forum software) doing it right. I'm not into the details behind all of this so I really can't tell you how it's working in other forums that use this way of "editing", but it works. I'll try to figure it out somehow.

>

> > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > Also, how about content makers on one thread that post successively. They won't automatically want their posts all merged together if it's supposed to be successive posts.

>

> Well, your comment now is a good example what I meant. Instead of being a second comment under your other comment the forum would've merged both with an

> - - - - Updated - - - -

> line in between and turned it into one comment. Would've been better than having two separate comments, wouldn't it?

 

If I had wanted them to be the same post I would have edited my first one. The second post was meant to be separate. Sometimes I post separately because I want the two situations to be considered separately.

[Haishao.6851]

> @Dante.1763 said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > I agree: Why would you post multiple posts, when you can simply edit your own content? This is, I realize, dependent on the fact that people need to get to the point where they have unlimited editing times, but that doesn't take long.

>

> I forget exactly, but when does it get unlocked?

 

I think once you have 2 stars.

I can edit comments I posted last week and there's no timer anymore on the edit button so I guess it's infinite.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

I don't want the forums automatically updating anything that I posted. How would the forums know if I deliberately chose to post twice in a row, to address different aspects of the same person's post? For example, sometimes people post something on topic *and* in the same post, something off topic. I expect the latter to get removed by mods, but in case it doesn't, I will sometimes offer a rebuttal. I don't want the posts merged, not ever.

 

And all of this because they OP claims "updating it with new stuff takes too much time and too many steps" -- I disagree with that premise. It takes hardly any time and if it's that important, then that time is worth spending.

 

tl;dr no thanks -- this is something that people can handle as it comes up for them; it's not something I want to leave to a bot that can't be relied upon to tell the difference between posts separated at birth and a deliberate choice to make two.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

As long as there is an opt out then it sounds ok. /shrug. However it also sounds like a solution in search of a problem. I've never had trouble typing edit: below the main post then adding an addition if I want it on the same post.

 

Depends how much trouble to add this feature _and_ be sure to have an opt in/out.

[MithranArkanere.8957]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> I agree: Why would you post multiple posts, when you can simply edit your own content? This is, I realize, dependent on the fact that people need to get to the point where they have unlimited editing times, but that doesn't take long.

 

When people can do something, they will do it. The only way to prevent double posts is making them impossible. Either because they merge automatically, or because the system tells the user "the last post is still yours, copy this text, edit the other post and paste it there".

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @MithranArkanere.8957 said:

> When people can do something, they will do it. The only way to prevent double posts is making them impossible. Either because they merge automatically, or because the system tells the user "the last post is still yours, copy this text, edit the other post and paste it there".

 

First, there are good reasons why people might post twice in a row, so it would be a bad thing to "prevent double posting". Second, what's the harm if there is double posting?

 

There are so many other things that we're already asking to be changed and this one seems like a low impact, low frequency issue affecting a tiny fraction of people, with an existing work-around.

[Nyel.1843]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> If I had wanted them to be the same post I would have edited my first one. The second post was meant to be separate. Sometimes I post separately because I want the two situations to be considered separately.

 

This doesn't make any sense. You can adress the same issue in just one post, why do you need two separate ones? I understand your issue when you're a content creator and need placeholder comments but not really in this case. Still interested in your explanation, maybe I'll understand it then.

 

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> First, there are good reasons why people might post twice in a row, so it would be a bad thing to "prevent double posting". Second, what's the harm if there is double posting?

>

> There are so many other things that we're already asking to be changed and this one seems like a low impact, low frequency issue affecting a tiny fraction of people, with an existing work-around.

 

Well, except the situation mentioned by Just a flesh wound I really don't see good situations for having to separate comments in a row. I know you said something about on topic vs. off topic comments but I really don't see this as a reason to create two separate comments instead of only one. "Harm"? Well, it's just spamming the thread, nothing else. Wouldn't call it harm at all but it looks a bit weird when a player has two or three comments in a row. Quoting is easier, I agree on that, but overall it's not (at least in my opinion).

 

Low impact, low frequency? Believe me, if you're used to forums where this is the standard you wouldn't say things like that. It might have no impact on day 1 or week 1 but the more you post the more useful it becomes.

________

 

I totally understand when my suggestion seems to be weird or unnecessary for some of you, I respect your opinion.

[MithranArkanere.8957]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> [...]

> First, there are good reasons why people might post twice in a row, so it would be a bad thing to "prevent double posting". Second, what's the harm if there is double posting?

> [...]

 

The only good reason is because you are posting some large chunk of text like a guide, and it doesn't fit in one comment, so you have to post in the following one. That would shows that the forum's text size limit is too short, or the text too long. And there's ways around that like using some reliable free blog site to have the guide there, or making the size limit larger for the opening comment in a thread.