Do you like the new feature of adding new posts to your old one?

[Jim Alfredson]

One of the new features that the upgrade instituted is something that has caused some members grief. What happens is if you post a reply in a topic, and then go back and post another reply minutes later, before anyone else, the software will automatically add that new reply to your old one.

Do you like this feature? Yes or No?

[Jim R]

I'm not sure yet just why, but I don't think I like it. I think it might be the feeling that you're not totally in control. If somebody wanted to add to an existing post soon after they'd posted it, they could use "edit". This way, you don't get a choice to make two separate posts, if that's what you want to do. Also, I can't really see any positive aspect to it... but I'm willing to hear what any proponents might have to say...

[RDK]

Don't like it. Sometimes one wants to add another thought (or respond to another member) in a seperate post.

For emphasis.

[Free For All]

Looks pretty unanimous at this point.

[RDK]

Damn. That "For emphasis" part was added in a seperate post (as was this one). But it combined them. See what I mean?

And then I saw that Free For All got in the way...

[gdogus]

[Jim Alfredson]

Looks pretty unanimous at this point.

Well, I like it but I didn't vote. By the way, I found the function to control this and I can set the time limit. Right now it's set at 10 minutes. Would it be better to set it to 1 minute or just do away with it altogether?

[gdogus]

Looks pretty unanimous at this point.

Well, I like it but I didn't vote. By the way, I found the function to control this and I can set the time limit. Right now it's set at 10 minutes. Would it be better to set it to 1 minute or just do away with it altogether?

Jim,

Can you explain some of the advantages you see in the feature? Like Jim R, I'm having a hard time finding the point. Maybe a failure of imagination on my part.

[Dan Gould]

I franly think the whole point is to limit 7/4s string of posts, so I support any software that will take those strings of non-sequitors and combine them into a single post.

Seriously, I don't see what the big deal is. If you truly have a NEW thought, post it in a few minutes. Y'know, get some work done in the meantime, then come back and post. Otherwise, if you really have to make a separate post for "emphasis", use the many text editing functions to emphasize your point.

Otherwise, its all just post-padding, afaic, so I vote to keep it.

[Ron S]

If you truly have a NEW thought, post it in a few minutes. Y'know, get some work done in the meantime, then come back and post.

I can't remember for that length of time.

[catesta]

Don't like it. Sometimes one wants to add another thought (or respond to another member) in a seperate post.

For emphasis.

Yep.

[Claude]

The only thing this function does is limit the choices of the user.

Normally it is possible to add something by either editing the previous post or by writing a new post. With the current board function the first option is carried out even if the user wants to make a new post.

Do we really have the problem of too many posts by the same users in the same thread within a certain time (= chatting) that make this function necessary?

Edited December 5, 2005 by Claude

[Rooster_Ties]

I franly think the whole point is to limit 7/4's string of posts, so I support any software that will take those strings of non-sequitors and combine them into a single post.

Maybe there is a setting so that only 7/4's posts combine??

Maybe set the limit at 1 minute, and see how that goes for a week. Most people can wait a minute to get their "2nd post" in, if they really want two separate posts. But having it set at something (though a small length of time), would prevent a chain of 10 or 20 one-line posts, unless someone REALLY wanted to take the time for that sort of thing.

[Jim Alfredson]

I franly think the whole point is to limit 7/4's string of posts, so I support any software that will take those strings of non-sequitors and combine them into a single post.

Maybe there is a setting so that only 7/4's posts combine??

Maybe set the limit at 1 minute, and see how that goes for a week. Most people can wait a minute to get their "2nd post" in, if they really want two separate posts. But having it set at something (though a small length of time), would prevent a chain of 10 or 20 one-line posts, unless someone REALLY wanted to take the time for that sort of thing.

That seems sensible to me. And this is not a feature implemented specifically because of one member like 7/4, although I do find that kind of posting annoying. Other people have done it in the past (not naming names) and I've had to take a lot of time to clean things up before. This limits people from being either malicious as well.

[J.A.W.]

The only thing this function does is limit the choices of the user.

Normally it is possible to add something by either editing the previous post or by writing a new post. With the current board function the first option is carried out even if the user wants to make a new post.

Agreed.

[7/4]

That seems sensible to me. And this is not a feature implemented specifically because of one member like 7/4, although I do find that kind of posting annoying. Other people have done it in the past (not naming names) and I've had to take a lot of time to clean things up before. This limits people from being either malicious as well.

I would think I stopped doing that a long time ago, unless I did it as a joke.

[Jim Alfredson]

I realize that. I'm not trying to pick on you. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is if I lower the time limit to 1 minute, as has been suggested.

[J.A.W.]

Frankly, I don't see what the problem is if I lower the time limit to 1 minute, as has been suggested.

Some of us are in a hurry...

[rostasi]

I think a minute or two is a nice compromise.

I had a problem with the current function once

because I, first, answered someone's question

in the "what are you listening.." topic

and then tried to post what I was listening to

and it would just glob on to the previous.

I missed the info about the 5 minute delay and

so I thought that it was a incompatibility problem.

Anyway, I'd vote for the compromise.

[7/4]

I realize that. I'm not trying to pick on you. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is if I lower the time limit to 1 minute, as has been suggested.

I know you're not, but it looks like folks like Dan Gould are going to carry this shit to their graves.

[Ron S]

I agree with Jim R that the edit function already allows someone to supplement a post without the need for this automatic feature, which actually takes away some control and can be confusing and/or frustrating.

[Jim Alfredson]

I'll let the poll go until tonight and make the change (just because I will cry when it is done so I want to put it off.)

[Dan Gould]

I realize that. I'm not trying to pick on you. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is if I lower the time limit to 1 minute, as has been suggested.

I know you're not, but it looks like folks like Dan Gould are going to carry this shit to their graves.

As opposed to carrying shit like "she's spreading her legs" to the end of time.

[Jim R]

I'll let the poll go until tonight and make the change (just because I will cry when it is done so I want to put it off.)

[7/4]

I realize that. I'm not trying to pick on you. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is if I lower the time limit to 1 minute, as has been suggested.

I know you're not, but it looks like folks like Dan Gould are going to carry this shit to their graves.

As opposed to carrying shit like "she's spreading her legs" to the end of time.

Like I said...

BTW Dan, there's nothing pornographic about a woman in underware.