Messages merging into one.

[Quantumspotter]

Hello there,

Hope everyone is well today?
Just a quick question about the above message title. My resent message replies to my thread have all been merged into one. Are the individual members receiving my replies? It just keeps stating that my messages are merging. It has become a little annoying. Many thanks.

Kind regards.

QS.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

This is only if ( except in the quiz section ) you have made consecutive posts in a thread without anyone else posting something in between.

Everything will still be visible,

 

[Gloster]

Is there a specific time that merging continues for, after which two consecutive messages from the same poster appear as two posts? Usually my posts in this situation are merged, even if I would prefer them to be separate, but sometimes they don’t merge. I can’t work out where the dividing line is.

 

[30907]

Is there a specific time that merging continues for, after which two consecutive messages from the same poster appear as two posts? Usually my posts in this situation are merged, even if I would prefer them to be separate, but sometimes they don’t merge. I can’t work out where the dividing line is.

I've certainly had automerge work with a 24hr gap.

As I hardly ever "follow" threads, I don't know how it feels to receive the message saying x's posts have been merged. Anyone willing to comment?

 

[swt_passenger]

The automerge posts time limit is adjustable but I believe it is currently set to 7 days.

The last discussion seems to have been here:

Your post has been merged into your last post

Is this a new feature? I replied to my thread where the last post was by me and instead of adding a post it seems to have merged into the previous one https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/alternative-train-operator-delay-repay.225382/ The only problem is it doesn't make it too obvious which...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Gloster]

It has definitely been less than seven days before posts appear as separate ones: a few hours in one or two cases.

 

[najaB]

It has definitely been less than seven days before posts appear as separate ones: a few hours in one or two cases.

It's definitely longer than a few hours in General Discussion. As an example in the thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/potential-overturn-of-roe-v-wade.231210/page-3 - I posted three times: on Sunday, Monday and Wednesday and all three posts have been merged into one.

 

[Typhoon]

It has definitely been less than seven days before posts appear as separate ones: a few hours in one or two cases.

Divine (ie Mod) intervention?

 

[Quantumspotter]

Currently it is standing at 7 days and still in one large mess of a message. Even the new queries I posed are in with individual members replies.

Kind regards.

QS.

 

[StKeverne1497]

I haven't posted much in these forums, but as with when I post elsewhere, I often come across a thread after it has become "established". There may therefore be two or three previous replies in a thread to which I want to comment, and doing so to each one individually keeps the discussion threads clear.

I can't get used to the post merging in this forum. It's unnatural and unlike anything I've seen anywhere else. I can't find anything in preferences to alter this behaviour and I thought I was just being thick - missing something - until I came across this discussion.

If there is ever a debate about it, could my vote go with the "remove the feature entirely" camp? Or at the very least, allow individuals to turn it off for themselves?

M.

 

[GusB]

I haven't posted much in these forums, but as with when I post elsewhere, I often come across a thread after it has become "established". There may therefore be two or three previous replies in a thread to which I want to comment, and doing so to each one individually keeps the discussion threads clear.

I can't get used to the post merging in this forum. It's unnatural and unlike anything I've seen anywhere else. I can't find anything in preferences to alter this behaviour and I thought I was just being thick - missing something - until I came across this discussion.

If there is ever a debate about it, could my vote go with the "remove the feature entirely" camp? Or at the very least, allow individuals to turn it off for themselves?

M.

Using the multi-quote feature allows you to reply to each individual post, though, while keeping everything in a single post. I can't see why it's a problem.

 

[najaB]

Using the multi-quote feature allows you to reply to each individual post, though, while keeping everything in a single post. I can't see why it's a problem.

Indeed it does.

I haven't posted much in these forums, but as with when I post elsewhere, I often come across a thread after it has become "established". There may therefore be two or three previous replies in a thread to which I want to comment, and doing so to each one individually keeps the discussion threads clear.

And what's more you don't even need to quote the entire post, you can highlight the portion that you want to reply to and quote just that, like so:

 

[Quantumspotter]

Using the multi-quote feature allows you to reply to each individual post, though, while keeping everything in a single post. I can't see why it's a problem.

Hello there GusB,

All I have currently done is to reply to each individual member with thanks and follow up questions. I have also posed some additional questions/queries to everyone one who has replied within the thread. I have not received any replies or any other messages since the 7th of May. Some members have been extremely helpful and very informative, yet I do not know if my collection of various messages has been received to them. Hope that clarifies my original query. Many thanks.

Kind regards.

Lee-James.

 

[Mojo]

It’s fairly standard “netiquette” to not make multiple replies in succession but indeed to edit your post with the new content.

The system that we use has the benefit of you not having to manually edit a post, but also means that anyone “watching” the thread will still get a notification.

 

[Typhoon]

I suspect the reason why there are few posts in this thread is that members are happy with how the system works. It is particularly helpful when wanting to make a point that refers to two posts making related but not the same point. It also cuts down on the reading when reviewing what others have read.

Basically my opinion is summarised in #11 and I would have 'Liked' it if there was that option.

I do not know if my collection of various messages has been received to them

When a member has quoted my post, I have been notified so that I can read the response and respond (or not if I have nothing more constructive to add, or when others have put the point better than me), even when that member has quoted others in addition to me. That is standard. I think that is what you are asking? It takes a little time to get accustomed to how things work but that is always the case, 'Everyday is a learning day' as I used to say to my students. If you are referring to Conversations, it could be that members would rather contribute openly as part of a thread.

(Thanks to @najaB, I have learnt something new, I have been using +Quote and editing the quote until today.)

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I suspect the reason why there are few posts in this thread is that members are happy with how the system works.

Reckon it's more a question of you having to either "like it or lump it"!

 

[GusB]

I have also posed some additional questions/queries to everyone one who has replied within the thread. I have not received any replies or any other messages since the 7th of May. Some members have been extremely helpful and very informative, yet I do not know if my collection of various messages has been received to them.

It may just be the case that no-one else has replied.

Are they aware that you have replied to them? In your reply to me, you quoted my post and I received a notification that you had done so. If you don't quote at all, there will be no notification unless the other person is "watching" the thread.

Even if someone is watching a thread, it's quite easy to miss a notification if they're following several threads, or if they're regularly receiving replies.

Are you using the "watch" feature? Tapping the "Watch" button near the top-right of each thread page gives you the choice of being notified only when logged in to the forum (the bell icon in the top bar will light up) or, if you're an infrequent visitor, you can choose to be notified by email when the thread you're watching has been updated.

Hope this helps

 

[StKeverne1497]

Ok, well, I grew up with Usenet (NNTP, Newsgroups), email-based groups and other similar forums where - obviously - it was technically impossible to edit an already-posted message. Standard "netiquette" in those days was to quote the part you were replying to, make an attribution and create a new message. The system used on Railforums is unique in my (very limited) experience of these things; that's not to say that it's "wrong", but it will take me some time to get used to it, particularly with the way it means jumping about the threads.

I've been lurking here for a while and not made very many postings yet. I'm sure that will change and I'm sure I'll get used to the way Railforums works.

M.

 

[jfollows]

Reckon it's more a question of you having to either "like it or lump it"!

That's my view, I don't like it at all but I've got more important things to worry about.
Essentially it's a brainless process which can't know whether or not two consecutive posts are related, whereas I as a human do - if I think a follow-on posting is related I'll edit the earlier post to add it whereas if I think I'm making a separate point I wouldn't personally merge them. My circumvention in the latter case is to put something like

========

above the text that I write so that although the automatic merge happens, the resulting single post is relatively clear still.

Bottom line is that I know better than this silly bit of automation, but I can live with it!

 

[Bevan Price]

I suspect the reason why there are few posts in this thread is that members are happy with how the system works. It is particularly helpful when wanting to make a point that refers to two posts making related but not the same point. It also cuts down on the reading when reviewing what others have read.

Personally I think that automerge is a menace, but accept that it is pointless to complain.

 

[Crossover]

Personally, the merge is probably a good thing (and undoubtedly, we can do this subject to death!) - the only thing that I am less keen on is that it doesn't show where posts have been merged, so you end up trying to remember which bits have been read. On the old forum software a few years ago, the automerges got a banner in the post body to show where a new post had been made

 

[Peter Mugridge]

On the old forum software a few years ago, the automerges got a banner in the post body to show where a new post had been made

...which on my posts I would always go back in and remove through editing so the post looked neat and tidy...!!!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Using the multi-quote feature allows you to reply to each individual post, though, while keeping everything in a single post. I can't see why it's a problem.

To my mind the problem comes when your replies are to different sub-discussions:

If I reply to a couple of different posts, but those posts are both part of the same sub-thread and are strongly related, then the auto-merge is fine. It means I have a longer post, but that long post is broadly coherent.

The problem comes if I reply to two different posts that pertain to completely different sub-discussions within the thread topic, and where my two replies are therefore unrelated to each other. In that case it feels unnatural to merge the replies - and I would argue it's unfriendly to people who want to read them: Intuitively, if I see a single post, I'm expecting that post to be coherent and to address one sub-thread. I'm not expecting that post to suddenly change sub-topics half-way through. If a post is going to to that, I'd find it less jarring and more intuitive to see two different posts.

Overall, the merge posts feature works OK, but I think it would be much better if there was an option to to specify that you don't want a particular reply to auto-merge [because it is not related to the post that the system would automerge it with].

 

[317 forever]

I find some posts with for example 3 different replies in them quite hard to read at times, as they will usually have unrelated points and therefore not flow as well as other posts.