Forum upgrade complete

[SussexLad]

I believe the forum staff will tend to do it once for you if you've made a mistake in it or have some other specific reason, but there is no other option to do so.

OK, thank you. Could any willing forum staff please message me?

 

[py_megapixel]

OK, thank you. Could any willing forum staff please message me?

You can contact the forum staff by visiting https://www.railforums.co.uk/misc/contact

 

[SussexLad]

You can contact the forum staff by visiting https://www.railforums.co.uk/misc/contact

Thank you!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is the minimum time that has to elapse before a new posting on the same thread can be made.....Quizzes and Games forum, especially.

 

[Crossover]

What is the minimum time that has to elapse before a new posting on the same thread can be made.....Quizzes and Games forum, especially.

I think it’s something like 30 seconds between posts isn’t it? This is from memory, mind

EDIT: it may be 25 seconds

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think it’s something like 30 seconds between posts isn’t it? This is from memory, mind

EDIT: it may be 25 seconds

Some of the postings on the Quizzes and Games forum now appear to require a somewhat shorter time period between postings. I wonder if a member of the forum staff can clarify matters.

 

[Mojo]

The minimum time between postings is unchanged, it is 30 seconds as has been for a long time now.

I will also add, we have reintroduced the system that prevents customers making multiple posts in succession in the same thread. As is quite standard "netiquette" it has always been expected that customers would use the "edit" button where their post is the most recent in a thread, but it has taken up some significant moderator time of late to manually merge such posts.

 

[Jordan Adam]

I will also add, we have reintroduced the system that prevents customers making multiple posts in succession in the same thread. As is quite standard "netiquette" it has always been expected that customers would use the "edit" button where their post is the most recent in a thread, but it has taken up some significant moderator time of late to manually merge such posts.

Is there any chance a time limit could be added to this function? I just went to post in a thread where the previous post was made by myself around 2-3 weeks ago, because of that it merged my new post with the old one. This is annoying as it means no one will be notified of my new post and no one will likely see it until someone else posts in the thread. That aside it's glad to see this function introduced, it can be quite annoying when someone posts 3-4 times in succession in the space of a few minutes!

Thanks.

 

[Mojo]

Is there any chance a time limit could be added to this function? I just went to post in a thread where the previous post was made by myself around 2-3 weeks ago, because of that it merged my new post with the old one. This is annoying as it means no one will be notified of my new post and no one will likely see it until someone else posts in the thread. That aside it's glad to see this function introduced, it can be quite annoying when someone posts 3-4 times in succession in the space of a few minutes!

Thanks.

There is a time limit, however 3 weeks is a period during which we would expect the post to be edited within.

 

[Jordan Adam]

There is a time limit, however 3 weeks is a period during which we would expect the post to be edited within.

Fair enough, however that still seems too long.

 

[507021]

Fair enough, however that still seems too long.

I agree entirely. It's a useful feature, but three weeks is far too long in my opinion.

Personally, I think 24 hours should be the maximum.

 

[Peter C]

I agree entirely. It's a useful feature, but three weeks is far too long in my opinion.

Personally, I think 24 hours should be the maximum.

I'll be the third to say three weeks might be a bit long - I've had several posts merged recently (rightly so in most cases) but then just now a post I've made has been merged with one from the weekend. If it notifies people that the post has been edited and merged, fair enough, but if not, I'm agreeing with @507021 in that 24 hours would probably be long enough.

-Peter

 

[Jordan Adam]

I agree entirely. It's a useful feature, but three weeks is far too long in my opinion.

Personally, I think 24 hours should be the maximum.

Agree, the point of the function should be to stop duplicate spam posts, not merge posts that are days/weeks apart and often relating to something entirely different.

 

[Crossover]

Agree, the point of the function should be to stop duplicate spam posts, not merge posts that are days/weeks apart and often relating to something entirely different.

Or potentially an update on an old issue (fares area particularly where threads can be dormant for days or weeks at a time)

 

[507021]

I'll be the third to say three weeks might be a bit long - I've had several posts merged recently (rightly so in most cases) but then just now a post I've made has been merged with one from the weekend. If it notifies people that the post has been edited and merged, fair enough, but if not, I'm agreeing with @507021 in that 24 hours would probably be long enough.

-Peter

I agree with the idea completely, but if it's a topic which is only really updated by a specific user due to them having a good knowledge of the subject, or a thread for users to advertise their blog updates, then a lot of people may miss the new information which has been shared in the thread unless they actually check. I also think the three week period could cause a lot of threads to get lost among others, which could lead people to (rightfully) assume the thread is no longer being updated.

 

[Peter C]

I agree with the idea completely, but if it's a topic which is only really updated by a specific user due to them having a good knowledge of the subject, or a thread for users to advertise their blog updates, then a lot of people may miss the new information which has been shared in the thread unless they actually check. I also think the three week period could cause a lot of threads to get lost among others, which could lead people to (rightfully) assume the thread is no longer being updated.

That's a very good point: could the admins please clarify what would happen with blog threads, e.g. those where people share trip reports? Having one post for all of them instead of separate posts would be terrible. I assume this system has been turned off for the trip reports sub forum?

-Peter

 

[Mojo]

That's a very good point: could the admins please clarify what would happen with blog threads, e.g. those where people share trip reports? Having one post for all of them instead of separate posts would be terrible. I assume this system has been turned off for the trip reports sub forum?

Hi, Are you referring to the Forum called ‘Trip Planning & Reports,’ as there are no Subforums under this forum? If so then it isn’t switched off as I’d have still expected people would edit their posts as per standard “netiquette,” however if this is deemed an issue then I could look into switching this off either for all or just regular users.

 

[Peter C]

Hi, Are you referring to the Forum called ‘Trip Planning & Reports,’ as there are no Subforums under this forum? If so then it isn’t switched off as I’d have still expected people would edit their posts as per standard “netiquette,” however if this is deemed an issue then I could look into switching this off either for all or just regular users.

Ah OK - I think I've got my words a bit wrong
That's what I meant: having one post for every report is a bit silly and would make it harder to read different reports and differentiate one from the other quickly. Turning it off for all users in that section would probably be a good idea but obviously it's not my decision to make

-Peter

 

[Yew]

The minimum time between postings is unchanged, it is 30 seconds as has been for a long time now.

I will also add, we have reintroduced the system that prevents customers making multiple posts in succession in the same thread. As is quite standard "netiquette" it has always been expected that customers would use the "edit" button where their post is the most recent in a thread, but it has taken up some significant moderator time of late to manually merge such posts.

Wonderful, I remember the old "double post prevention system", and I'm glad it's back

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Hi, Are you referring to the Forum called ‘Trip Planning & Reports,’ as there are no Subforums under this forum? If so then it isn’t switched off as I’d have still expected people would edit their posts as per standard “netiquette,” however if this is deemed an issue then I could look into switching this off either for all or just regular users.

It would be rather confusing to have multiple trips being described in a single post wouldn't it? The way I do mine is one post for each trip being described, plus I add a selection of photos from the day as well.

 

[Crossover]

Or potentially an update on an old issue (fares area particularly where threads can be dormant for days or weeks at a time)

I should state, more specifically the disputes area

 

[The_Train]

I agree with the idea completely, but if it's a topic which is only really updated by a specific user due to them having a good knowledge of the subject, or a thread for users to advertise their blog updates, then a lot of people may miss the new information which has been shared in the thread unless they actually check. I also think the three week period could cause a lot of threads to get lost among others, which could lead people to (rightfully) assume the thread is no longer being updated.

I've just come across this in my UK Rail Log Website thread where I post updates on my progress with the site. Posted a short update tonight and it has merged with a post I made yesterday so people won't see the update which kind of renders the thread pointless, especially if the merge covers a 3 week period

Equally, trip reporting has been a major thing for me to do on here and if my reports start merging together then it will be pretty off putting to bother typing them out as I think people will be put off reading extremely long posts.

To be honest, my little brain is struggling to comprehend the need for something like this? It appears to be some sort of 'spam' prevention system but does this site suffer from such a thing?

 

[Crossover]

I've just come across this in my UK Rail Log Website thread where I post updates on my progress with the site. Posted a short update tonight and it has merged with a post I made yesterday so people won't see the update which kind of renders the thread pointless, especially if the merge covers a 3 week period

Equally, trip reporting has been a major thing for me to do on here and if my reports start merging together then it will be pretty off putting to bother typing them out as I think people will be put off reading extremely long posts.

To be honest, my little brain is struggling to comprehend the need for something like this? It appears to be some sort of 'spam' prevention system but does this site suffer from such a thing?

It is something the forum used to have in a previous life and it is generally useful, particularly on some threads, but then there are times when it isn’t!

 

[507021]

I've just come across this in my UK Rail Log Website thread where I post updates on my progress with the site. Posted a short update tonight and it has merged with a post I made yesterday so people won't see the update which kind of renders the thread pointless, especially if the merge covers a 3 week period

Equally, trip reporting has been a major thing for me to do on here and if my reports start merging together then it will be pretty off putting to bother typing them out as I think people will be put off reading extremely long posts.

To be honest, my little brain is struggling to comprehend the need for something like this? It appears to be some sort of 'spam' prevention system but does this site suffer from such a thing?

I think it's a very good idea as it discourages users from creating numerous posts one after the other, instead of using the multi-quote feature to reply to more than one post or editing any spelling errors or incorrect information from their post. But, I think 24 hours seems a much fairer period of time. In certain threads, three weeks of posts being merged one after the other will just end up with ridiculously long posts which, unless people check the thread regularly, will only be read after the three week period has elapsed.

 

[The_Train]

I think it's a very good idea as it discourages users from creating numerous posts one after the other, instead of using the multi-quote feature to reply to more than one post or editing any spelling errors or incorrect information from their post. But, I think 24 hours seems a much fairer period of time. In certain threads, three weeks of posts being merged one after the other will just end up with ridiculously long posts which, unless people check the thread regularly, will only be read after the three week period has elapsed.

I see how it would tidy things up, particularly in the case where someone is catching up on reading through 10 pages of a thread and replying to posts as they go - I think a lot of people would just hit 'reply' to a single post than use 'quote' not knowing if they will want to reply to multiple messages or not.

Isn't there a chance that this approach could also lead to unnecessary new threads being started? For example, if I have a single question about something I will search out a suitable old thread to add it to instead of starting a new thread just for 1 or 2 replies. But if I was the last person to post in said old thread then my new question isn't going to be seen by anyone and go unanswered so instead I have to start a new thread. Seems a waste to me in that regard.

If this is necessary and does a job then I absolutely agree with you that 24 hours is more than enough time (I'd even go for half or even quarter of that time). Does it really matter if someone makes 2 separate posts in a row in a thread if the 2 posts are 2 months apart compared to if the 2 posts come within 10 minutes of each other?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does it really matter if someone makes 2 separate posts in a row in a thread if the 2 posts are 2 months apart compared to if the 2 posts come within 10 minutes of each other?

You make a most valid point here and one that should be considered by the website staff in the same way that led to the Governmental U-turn over the matter of the algorithm and the A-level resulting result debacle.

 

[507021]

If this is necessary and does a job then I absolutely agree with you that 24 hours is more than enough time (I'd even go for half or even quarter of that time). Does it really matter if someone makes 2 separate posts in a row in a thread if the 2 posts are 2 months apart compared to if the 2 posts come within 10 minutes of each other?

It's basically to discourage members from posting for the sake of it to boost their post count, which I'm in full agreement with.

 

[Peter C]

It's basically to discourage members from posting for the sake of it to boost their post count, which I'm in full agreement with.

I can understand that from a point of view of someone trying to boost their post count through responding to several posts one after the other with a new post for each response, but apart from that I can't see much of a point in the way it works (unless there's something really obvious I've missed, which has probably happened )

-Peter

 

[The_Train]

It's basically to discourage members from posting for the sake of it to boost their post count, which I'm in full agreement with.

I get that side of it (although I will never get the whole thing with post counts and its importance to some people). I'm a mod on a football forum (very much more a light hearted approach by the admin team on such a forum) and we had to endure a member posting a large quantity of single word posts to inform us all that he was approaching 10,000 posts - pretty nauseating to say the least but admin allow it so we had to endure it

But those people are ones who post quickly in succession, not with gaps of months between their posts hence my query about the length of time involved. Someone who posts 4 times within 10 minutes on the same thread is much more likely to be counting their posts than someone who posts consecutively on a thread but with a gap of 2 months between their posts

 

[507021]

I get that side of it (although I will never get the whole thing with post counts and its importance to some people). I'm a mod on a football forum (very much more a light hearted approach by the admin team on such a forum) and we had to endure a member posting a large quantity of single word posts to inform us all that he was approaching 10,000 posts - pretty nauseating to say the least but admin allow it so we had to endure it

But those people are ones who post quickly in succession, not with gaps of months between their posts hence my query about the length of time involved. Someone who posts 4 times within 10 minutes on the same thread is much more likely to be counting their posts than someone who posts consecutively on a thread but with a gap of 2 months between their posts

I know the feeling, there's a few of those on the forum I moderate on as well.

I do think the period of time is far too long, and have previously suggested the 3 week period is reduced to 24 hours. Otherwise, I can see a lot of threads which are generally updated by a specific user (such as trip reports or blog updates) getting lost underneath those which receive contributions from a greater number of members.