i wonder if it is possible or desirable, to give the user the option to close a thread as solved.
The idea came to me, after being on the Ubuntu forum way back.
I thought this is a good thing, since it will indicate that a problem is solved and the thread can be closed.
Would that be something this community would agree on?
Also, sometimes you write something and then you conclude that it should be deleted, but the post is already posted. Now of course you can communicate to an admin, but if the user would have this option say for 10 minutes, like editing, it would perhaps also solve some unwanted posts.
Just my idea or thing i thing would improve the board.
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 22:06:01 +0000, JoergJaeger wrote:
> i wonder if it is possible or desirable, to give the user the option to
> close a thread as solved.
This has been suggested several times before - ultimately, the option is
there to ‘tag’ the thread, but the OP in a thread may not understand the
ramifications of the solution they’ve implemented, and for other readers
the problem description might mislead them into thinking that the same
solution would work for them when in fact they have a different (but
perhaps related) problem.
I like the present situation more for several reasons:
the OP can post how he implemented the suggested solution (often there are more in a thread, or there are directions given that in the lead the OP to solve his problem) and thus add to the complete story where simply saying Solved is not of much use to others.
those who never come back telling they solved their problem (and may be even say Thank you) will also not take the time to put their thread to Solved. They are to egocentric in any case.
you will see often that even after the original problem is solved people are going on with an interesting related discussion. Many like to learn from that discussion also.
The whole was discussed here several times as Jim says and more arguments can be found when you search for those older threads.
To help to find that older discussions and especially the (probably still valid) arguments of both sides I have tagged this thread and other 15 I was able to find
with mark thread as solved (see down in the section “Tags for this Thread”).
>
> True that is. I admit, it has its upsides. It just doesn’t jump into the
> eye.
>
> But what about deleting your post upon posting say by mistake?
>
>
JoergJaeger;
Keep in mind that the web posts also sync with the nntp portal. Once a post
has been passed to nntp there could be a reply that does not yet appear on
the web side. So what happens when a deleted post gets a reply? Kind of
awkward wouldn’t you say?
P. V.
“We’re all in this together, I’m pulling for you.” Red Green
On 04/07/2011 05:06 AM, JoergJaeger wrote:
>
> But what about deleting your post upon posting say by mistake?
>
if using nntp to post, one may delete/remove the post (on their local
machine and the nntp server) up until the time the gateway runs sending
it to the http machinery…and, it will not be seen by the web forum,
nor any nntp user downloading after the removal…
i’m not sure but i suppose if another nntp user had downloaded a message
for off line reading, and the message on the server is removed
afterwards, the already received message would remain in the users
machine…however, i think once the user’s machine is connected to the
server for sync the local copy would be marked ‘expired’
hmmmm…i’ve not tried it…but, i guess if an nntp user deleted a post
after the gateway ran, it would remain available to http users but not
for late arriving nntp readers…
i think i’ll try: i just deleted an old nntp test message to see if it
persists on the web forum, i suspect it will…
–
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD [NNTP via openSUSE 11.3 + KDE4.5.5 +
Thunderbird3.1.8] Can you believe it? This guy Ralph wins $181 million
in the lottery last Wednesday, and then finds the love of his life just
2 days later. Talk about LUCK!
When you have posted something you want to change you have several options that are dependent on how serious wrong the post is.
you can edit within a short (5 or 10 mins) time frame, for those typos you see a bit late or for a quick afterthought.
you can make a new post where you try to redress what you posted in error (people interested in a thread should read all posts before they jump to a conclusion and thus read your correction).
you can report your own post to the mods (using the triangle with ! below the post) and ask for deletion with GOOD arguments. You should not do this lightly because mods hate work the same as others and mods will not do this when it breaks the logical going of a thread. You could do this e.g. when you find out you were to harsh to people or offended them.
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:44:34 +0000, DenverD wrote:
> i’m not sure but i suppose if another nntp user had downloaded a message
> for off line reading, and the message on the server is removed
> afterwards, the already received message would remain in the users
> machine…however, i think once the user’s machine is connected to the
> server for sync the local copy would be marked ‘expired’
Depends on the reader and how the other user is caching the content.
Since control messages aren’t passed between (for example) the Typhoon
server here and a local instance of a message database, the only way that
some clients would know would be if they re-fetched all articles (which
isn’t typical).
Actually, i haven’t even thought about nttp at all. So in that regard it doesn’t make sense to delete a post after it is posted.
It would only make sense, i presume, if the post generated from the board are transmitted at a certain time or interval. If its posted right away, no point then.
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:06:02 +0000, JoergJaeger wrote:
> Actually, i haven’t even thought about nttp at all. So in that regard it
> doesn’t make sense to delete a post after it is posted. It would only
> make sense, i presume, if the post generated from the board are
> transmitted at a certain time or interval. If its posted right away, no
> point then.
Well, maybe - I sometimes myself will post something and then think
better of it, so I’ll cancel the post. Sometimes before the window
passes, sometimes not.
More common case, though, is with spam - we do delete that on both
interfaces, regardless of how long it’s been there. For my part, if I
see someone opted to reply to it rather than to report it, I’ll clean up
those replies as well since they either (a) tend to quote the spam that
was deleted, or (b) have no context so are useless messages without the
parent.
On 04/07/2011 09:44 AM, DenverD wrote:
> i think i’ll try: i just deleted an old nntp test message to see if it
> persists on the web forum, i suspect it will…
–
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD [NNTP via openSUSE 11.3 + KDE4.5.5 +
Thunderbird3.1.8] Can you believe it? This guy Ralph wins $181 million
in the lottery last Wednesday, and then finds the love of his life just
2 days later. Talk about LUCK!
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:44:34 +0000, DenverD wrote:
> i think i’ll try: i just deleted an old nntp test message to see if it
> persists on the web forum, i suspect it will…
I hadn’t noticed this - we used to have a link between the two (if a
message was deleted on one side, it would go on the other), but there
were problems so that’s been disabled.
On 2011-04-04, JoergJaeger <JoergJaeger@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> i wonder if it is possible or desirable, to give the user the option to
> close a thread as solved.
> The idea came to me, after being on the Ubuntu forum way back.
> I thought this is a good thing, since it will indicate that a problem
> is solved and the thread can be closed.
> Would that be something this community would agree on?
Imagine the situation where A posts a solution. He/you close the thread.
Then B comes up with a better/faster/whatever solution.
What then? If he can add it, the thread was not closed. If he can’t, we
loose the chance on an improvement.
> Also, sometimes you write something and then you conclude that it
> should be deleted, but the post is already posted. Now of course you can
> communicate to an admin, but if the user would have this option say for
> 10 minutes, like editing, it would perhaps also solve some unwanted
> posts.
Just send another post, explaining why people should disregard you first
one.
