Auto merge duplicates doing more harm than good

[tamarian]

I guess this auto merge things is intended to prevent bumps? And if so, it should really check the text and look for some cluse to determine if it's really a bump, or a duplicate.

It does ruin some good threads. For example, me and Amy are trying to debug a problem with crons. 7 hours later, after my last reply, I wanted to add a new peice to the puzzle, that I'm unable to duplicate the problem. Yet the new post, which is not duplicate, and several hours later, is still merged and marked as duplicate. This doesn't make any sense.

The worst part of it is that it will not send a notification to those subscribed to it, and will not update the last post time, so it will not show up as having any update.

Here's an example:

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showpost.php?p=740082&postcount=16

Same happened to several threads I'm subscribed to, and I've never been notified of the updates, not was I able to see if they were updated, because of this automerge thing.

Is it really worth it?

And if so, could you at least let send a notification to those who want it...

[Logikos]

They should do a dateline check.

[tamarian]

Here's a second example, where this auto merge can prevent people from getting help and/or support:

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?t=92526

1. Member asks for help
2. A fix was offered
3. Member confirms that the fix worked
4. Member posts later that there's still a problem
5. Post in #4 is auto merged, so no one gets notified about the remaining problem
6. 4 days later Someone else replies that they have the same problem.
7. Now a notification is sent, and the person helping is able to see that there was a post that was missed due to auto merge.

[Christine]

I have missed a few things as well as I use New Posts to see what threads have been updated.

[Paul M]

I like the basic idea of the auto-merge, except the way it has been implemented here is poor. The dateline of an automerged post should be updated, so it shows up in "get new posts". I also think the timelimit on it is very excessive here.

[sketch42]

I like the basic idea of the auto-merge, except the way it has been implemented here is poor. The dateline of an automerged post should be updated, so it shows up in "get new posts". I also think the timelimit on it is very excessive here.

well so far i have noticed that i never had a problem with my posts being merged... even if i post one after another... i believe the reason is i use the quick reply button which always quotes the person before me so it doesnt get merged because of the quotes... im not saying that people should do this to get around the automerge.. but what i am saying is that the automerge isnt perfect an should be looked and have someof these new suggestions applied

well so far i have noticed that i never had a problem with my posts being merged... even if i post one after another... i believe the reason is i use the quick reply button which always quotes the person before me so it doesnt get merged because of the quotes... im not saying that people should do this to get around the automerge.. but what i am saying is that the automerge isnt perfect an should be looked and have someof these new suggestions applied

wow that was a first... never got auto merged before

never mind my babling than

[tamarian]

wow that was a first... never got auto merged before

never mind my babling than

It sneaks up on you doesn't it :)

But your post reminded me of a 3rd case.

Case #2 deals with people offering help missing any new feedback on their proposed solutions/fixes.

Case #3:

1. You release a hack
2. 3 Members post questions/problems about the hack
3. You reply to each question separately, and it may take a while to investigate each case.
4. All 3 answers get automerged as "duplicates"
5. Members who asked the 2nd and 3rd question will not get a notification. They get the 1st notification, which contains the answer to question #1.
When they check new posts, the see you have "ignored" them, since it doesn't show as anyone replied.

Eventually you realise that you can no longer rely on vB's reply notification, new posts, or thread subscription panel. So if you care about seeing if there are any posts, you'll need to bookmark those threads, and keep checking. Or ignore it completely, and members can PM you to let you know their posts were auto-merged, if they really want to hear from you. :)

Instead of enhancing the parameters and complicating it further, why not just get rid of it... I know bumps are annoying, but at least we got used to them. Auto-merging important stuff and not being able to see updates is not just annoying, it makes it hard to keep track of things.

[Paul M]

Automerge does not happen in the hack forums.

[tamarian]

Automerge does not happen in the hack forums.

That's great. Not as bad as I thought.

But this implies that discussions in the hack forum are too important to mess with, while the rest could be deemed trivial or of less importance...

[Xenon]

As we said several times now regarding that topic:

Since the automerger has been installed here we did a step forward, as bumps do not happen anymore.

We did not activate that hack in hackforums as there wasn'T a bumpingproblem, and also there it was usefull to do multiple replies (hack updates and such)

however in the requestforum it will stay as we don't want the senseless bumping again.

We still know how it was before, and how it's now. Ok we know that there is no perfect way, as each thing has it's advantages and disadvantages, but the way it is now has fit in our needs the best.

We cannot make everyone happy.

[tamarian]

Ok we know that there is no perfect way, as each thing has it's advantages and disadvantages, but the way it is now has fit in our needs the best.

And what are your needs? And how does this auto-merge thing fit those needs?

If the needs of the moderators is to not be annoyed by bumps, does that need outweight the rugular operations of a discussion forum, where, by default, members expect to be notified of new replies, and see those threads when they click "new posts"?

This really does not fit the usual comparison of advantages vs. disadvantages. It just seems extremely selfish to disable those standard features and alter the behavious of the forum for everyone, just because a few are more annoyed by bumps than the average joe. We all run forums, and we all deal with those bumps.

[Xenon]

Well and on your forum you can handle bumps as YOU want it to be handled, on our forum we have to handle that.
And we ahve decided for a way that we think it's the best. You might agree or not agree, but our experience showes that our way fits in the best for our needs.

An no it's not because mods are annoyed of bumps.
User get annoyed of bumps as well, especially if someone is bumping his topics more often so that other topics go down fast, which are actually newer ones.

[tamarian]

Well and on your forum you can handle bumps as YOU want it to be handled, on our forum we have to handle that.
And we ahve decided for a way that we think it's the best. You might agree or not agree, but our experience showes that our way fits in the best for our needs.

"Your" forum is actually a Jelsoft forum and not a personal forum, this is something you guys told me more than once.

My feedback on this has nothing to do with how I might run my forums. I'm simply giving you feedback and showing you specific cases where you are preventing me and other members from being notified of important replies to support issues. This doesn't have to be another "us and them" issue.

An no it's not because mods are annoyed of bumps.
User get annoyed of bumps as well, especially if someone is bumping his topics more often so that other topics go down fast, which are actually newer ones.

Both are annoying. But you have a stated rule against bumping. Don't punish all of us just because a few don't follw the rules.

[Marco van Herwaarden]

Tamarian this has been discussed numerous times, also a few times recently, and if this has so much of your interest, i can't believe you have missed those discussions. In those discussions we always ended up with members who liked it how it is now, and others who where of the opinion that there where more negaitve then positive sides to this. In the end all those discussions ended with enough support by members to keep the system how it is now.

So i am really curious why you try to force this discussion again. I find it very hard to look at this as a positive attempt to make this place batter.

[tamarian]

Tamarian this has been discussed numerous times, also a few times recently, and if this has so much of your interest, i can't believe you have missed those discussions. In those discussions we always ended up with members who liked it how it is now, and others who where of the opinion that there where more negaitve then positive sides to this. In the end all those discussions ended with enough support by members to keep the system how it is now.

So i am really curious why you try to force this discussion again. I find it very hard to look at this as a positive attempt to make this place batter.

Sure, I'll tell you.

I never noticed it taking place. I type fast, reply to one question and go to the next, and it looked curious a few times why I didn't get any feedback on an issue. It's only recently I noticed that I don't see the replies, or get the notifications, and miss a whole lot of issues and feedback, fixes, debugs, etc.

If what you say is true, and the members who give support to others have found it a great idea to eliminate those features, then I'd be astonished. When something doesn't make sense, it usually doesn't make sense.

I suspect members agree that bumps are annoying. That is totally different, since I definitly agree thet they are annoying. And the rule posted against bumping should be there as it is.

But that is a different issue than eliminating updates and notifications, since that is not only annoying, but misleading. The ones who usually get caught in it are the ones who try to help and get engaged in discussions to help others. While usually the ones who violate the rule don't care. I don't see why I should be denied those basic standard vB features, just because of the few who don't respect the rules.

[Dream]

if I ever install "automerge doublepost" in my forum, it would be with a "merge post" checkbox...

is someone is bump happy, no biggie, I just ban them

[Erwin]

If this is already disabled in the hack support forums, I don't see what the issue is. I personally don't care one way or another but it does appear that most of the members and staff like this feature.

[Logikos]

Doesn't bother me any....

[tamarian]

If this is already disabled in the hack support forums, I don't see what the issue is. I personally don't care one way or another but it does appear that most of the members and staff like this feature.

Actually, only staff so far said they like it, 5 members don't like it (or how it's implemented), one neutral. If this means "members like this feature", you could've fooled me. :) If you really care what members think, open it for a vote.

And it is not disabled in hacks, as the problem I had was in premium hacks, and the other one was in how-to's and questions. Too extreme, if the stated reason was for bumps in requests and paid services.

[Dean C]

Well add my name to the hat. As a moderator dealing with repeated bumping, it's a pain. And whilst your points are valid about it occasionally having detrimental effects, the benefits outweight the costs tenfold. I don't know if you were aware of the bumping problem we had before, but it was out of control...

[Chris M]

It doesn't ever cause any hassle for me...

Satan

[bigcurt]

As long as its not enabled for hack support forum, all the other forums its fine. Doesnt really seem to bother me any, but I don't know about others.

~curt

[tamarian]

Well add my name to the hat. As a moderator dealing with repeated bumping, it's a pain. And whilst your points are valid about it occasionally having detrimental effects, the benefits outweight the costs tenfold.

It doesn't outweight the benefit of being able to support a member, or have them read the update to the issue. One can easily ignore members who bump, and not have to disable these standard features for everyone.

I don't know if you were aware of the bumping problem we had before, but it was out of control...

No, I was not aware of that. But surely temporary problems can be solved by temporary measures. No need for such extreme measures.

This features installs a permanent bug, that considers every second post a duplicate, regardless of the content or context. I've presented 2 real cases, and there's a lot more, where the action taken is a bug, since the posts where neither bumps, nor duplicates.

You don't need to punish everyone for the annoyance of the few. Punish members who bump, since the forum rules clearly stated that they should not do it.

[Zachery]

It doesn't ever cause any hassle for me...

Satan

Not everyone reads these threads, but the issue has come up time and time again.

I like the system and I have no want or need for it to be changed. 5 members is not alot, look at the other threads here.

[tamarian]

I like the system and I have no want or need for it to be changed. 5 members is not alot, look at the other threads here.

I did. Staff obviously wants it, members either don't want it, or don't care either way.

The members who don't want it are usually the ones giving support and try to help newbies with their issues or invistigate problems.

[Zachery]

Whats your problem with it when its disabled in the forums where most of the support is going on?

[Dean C]

Ok then how do you suppose we combat this bug tamarian? :)

[tamarian]

Whats your problem with it when its disabled in the forums where most of the support is going on?

Some forums are support forums as well.

How about enabling it only in the problem forums, say hack requests and paid services. (Hack requests still contain some interesting discussions about requirements or enhancements)

Or at least disabling in how-to's, premium hacks and hack questions.

Ok then how do you suppose we combat this bug tamarian? :)

Pattern matching for usual keywords used for bumps.
Checking for short one liners

[Wayne Luke]

Ok then how do you suppose we combat this bug tamarian? :)

Intelligent filtering.

I will go on record as saying I don't like the feature as it is implemented and it can be improved. It creates detrimental effects on the purpose of running a discussion board which is discussion.

Simple merging based on time is wrong and disrupts conversations and their flow. To much of this and they become meaningless. In my opinion, anything that uses technology to limit human interaction is wrong and shouldn't be done. The whole point of a site like this is human interaction.

[Brad]

While I agree, on the other hand it allows the mods to spend more time watching over the community and less time removing and warning people for bumping. Just having a 'no bump' rule doesn't work, lets be honest how often does someone check the rules page anyway? ;)

I think we need to look into changing this hack some as you guys have already mentioned. I do like the idea of a filter to check for common 'bump' posts, but keep in mind this won't catch everything and people that really want to bump will eventally figure out how to get around it.

Email notification can be improved (al la 'a reply was posted but was merged with a pior post due to auto bumping' in the email).

[Gio~Logist]

why not just make is so that it shows as a new post but doesnt bumb the thread? instead it just has a (new posts) in red, next to the thread name.

[tamarian]

While I agree, on the other hand it allows the mods to spend more time watching over the community and less time removing and warning people for bumping. Just having a 'no bump' rule doesn't work, lets be honest how often does someone check the rules page anyway? ;)

It's a lot easier to just place them in the ignore list.

Alternatively, anyone that violates the no bump rule could be placed in a new usergroup, and only that usergroup is to be subjected to this auto-merge punishment. This way you don't need to warn them or remove them :)

I do like the idea of a filter to check for common 'bump' posts, but keep in mind this won't catch everything and people that really want to bump will eventally figure out how to get around it.

True. But this is already doable. If someone wants to circumvent the auto-merge to bump threads, it's easy to do so right now.

Email notification can be improved (al la 'a reply was posted but was merged with a pior post due to auto bumping' in the email).

As I always rely on email notifications, this would solve 50% of the problem for me. But may not solve it for those who rely on "new posts". So I may not miss their post, but they would miss mine, which is the other 50%.

[Erwin]

Just letting members know that staff will be discussing this issue. Keep those suggestions coming. :) The more feedback from more members (not just a few), the better we can get an idea of what the members feel about this.

[Guest190829]

How about something like an update button, once a post is merged together an update button appears. Once clicked, it tells all subscribers to that thread that a significant update has occured. This will work great because only important threads are subscribed too, so the system can't be abused. And if someone does abuse the system in an important thread they can be placed in a usergroup that can't use the update button.

[Boofo]

I don't mean to be on the outside in this one, but is this a hack or part of vb now? I guess I've been away a little longer than I thought. ;)

[Guest190829]

Both. :)

[Boofo]

Ok, how so and where are the settings? ;)

[darnoldy]

The more feedback from more members (not just a few), the better we can get an idea of what the members feel about this.I admit that I do not have the taboo against double posting that some here have--I come from communities where threading has been the standard for 20 years.

If the principal reason for automerging is to stem a tide of thread bumping, and that behavior occurs principally in the request forum(s) --as I understand the situation--then limit the automerging to that (those) forums.

my 2?-worth, anyway

--don

[Guest190829]

Oops, I thought you said "or a part of vb.org". Which is a stupid assumption being that this is the Site Feedback Forum.

/me needs more coffee.

[Wayne Luke]

Intelligent filtering.

I will go on record as saying I don't like the feature as it is implemented and it can be improved. It creates detrimental effects on the purpose of running a discussion board which is discussion.

Simple merging based on time is wrong and disrupts conversations and their flow. To much of this and they become meaningless. In my opinion, anything that uses technology to limit human interaction is wrong and shouldn't be done. The whole point of a site like this is human interaction.

Let me clarify... I can see the usefulness of the Automerge for the purpose it was designed for. However, I think it can be smarter so that only certain things are merged to prevent bumping.

[JJR512]

Intelligent filtering.

I will go on record as saying I don't like the feature as it is implemented and it can be improved. It creates detrimental effects on the purpose of running a discussion board which is discussion.

Simple merging based on time is wrong and disrupts conversations and their flow. To much of this and they become meaningless. In my opinion, anything that uses technology to limit human interaction is wrong and shouldn't be done. The whole point of a site like this is human interaction.
Bingo!
Well and on your forum you can handle bumps as YOU want it to be handled, on our forum we have to handle that.

And we ahve decided for a way that we think it's the best. You might agree or not agree, but our experience showes that our way fits in the best for our needs.
And let this, ladies and gentlemen, be an example of how not to run your message board, if you realize that the members make your message board, not you.

[Borgs8472]

While I agree, on the other hand it allows the mods to spend more time watching over the community and less time removing and warning people for bumping. Just having a 'no bump' rule doesn't work, lets be honest how often does someone check the rules page anyway? ;)
As I've stated in another thread, this is why the requests forum needs more moderation.

If people's requests were marked as already made, resolved or in development, there would be no NEED to bump these modification request threads.

Bumping in itself is not a problem, it is a symptom of unsorted requests the modification request forum gets.

[Chris M]

As I've stated in another thread, this is why the requests forum needs more moderation.

If people's requests were marked as already made, resolved or in development, there would be no NEED to bump these modification request threads.

Bumping in itself is not a problem, it is a symptom of unsorted requests the modification request forum gets.

There is also the problem of user impatience ;)

Satan

[Paul M]

Question;

Do people have a problem with the automerge of posts, or just the fact that it doesn't update the timestamp of the post ?

Personally I like the automerge, but dislike the fact that the timestamp is not updated.

[Andreas]

Updating the Timestamp would defeat the anti-bump purpose, wouldn't it?

[Chris M]

If the auto-merge was only active in request / non-discussion forums then it would be better, but it barely affects me :)

Satan

[timetunnel]

Hello.

I'm new to this 'automerge' feature.

I created a thread asking for help. Someone responded with good suggestions, yet I didn't totally understand how to implement them. I stated this in my reply to that person.

Approx. 22 hrs later, I had another idea that I wanted to present that didn't involve creating another table as the responder suggested in one of his/her suggestions. I had this idea before that person or another responded.

Because of automerge, they nor anyone else will probably respond...wow, what a shame...

This is a disappointing... :disappointed:

[Code Monkey]

Auto merge is pretty much why I won't seek any info on the inner workings of vBulletin at this site. It is freekin anoying and makes me just say screwed it and abandon the thread. I pretty much only post in the hack forums now. It's one thing when people treat you poorly. But when a bot spits in your face, that's a whole other problem for me.

[Revan]

Auto merge is pretty much why I won't seek any info on the inner workings of vBulletin at this site. It is freekin anoying and makes me just say screwed it and abandon the thread. I pretty much only post in the hack forums now. It's one thing when people treat you poorly. But when a bot spits in your face, that's a whole other problem for me.Congratulations. I must say I have never in my entire life read a more ridiculous post. What that post can be boiled down to is "I don't like the auto merge because a bot edits my post." Wtf? If you are going to make a fool out of yourself like this, at least post a REASON, like the poster above you. Not saying his point is any more valid, but at least he TRIED.
Hello.

I'm new to this 'automerge' feature.

I created a thread asking for help. Someone responded with good suggestions, yet I didn't totally understand how to implement them. I stated this in my reply to that person.

Approx. 22 hrs later, I had another idea that I wanted to present that didn't involve creating another table as the responder suggested in one of his/her suggestions. I had this idea before that person or another responded.

Because of automerge, they nor anyone else will probably respond...wow, what a shame...

This is a disappointing... :disappointed:One word for you mate: Bullsh*t.
If that someone didn't respond, odds are he didn't read your reply in the first place. Or perhaps you can prove that he *did* read it? Hm? Didn't think so.

[Princeton]

it does get annoying some times...
keep the automerge -- just make it smarter

[Talisman]

When somebody posts a message, email notices are sent to those subscribed to that thread. Now, if that same poster goes back to edit that same message ten minutes later, all those people who received email notices won't find out that something was changed, added, or deleted unless they happen to re-read the same message again once they come back here to visit the site.

The flow of discussion in that thread could quite easily have continued on to another page by this time. Most folks don't scroll back far enough to re-read all the messages they're already familiar with, so they read on from the point in the conversation where they left off. The result of this being... that a good number of people don't find out later that the original content has changed.

If this has never been a problem when messages are edited on purpose, why is it such an issue now when subsequent posts have been automerged?

[Revan]

And how often do people read the email and post within 10 minutes?

[Chris M]

There is no way to make it smarter really - It works on a time limit...

If you make it so that it doesn't do it for quoted posts (for example) people will just abuse the system...

There may be a way to send an email update on an auto-merge :ermm:

Chris

[Mark.B]

I despise auto-merging with a vengeance. Anyone who likes it should be tied down and have pins inserted into their feet.

[Paul M]

I despise auto-merging with a vengeance. Anyone who likes it should be tied down and have pins inserted into their feet.As a forum feature, I like it. I don't like how it's implemented here.

[timetunnel]

Revan,

I'm sorry you missed my point. That person who replied to my post gave me some good suggestions from his perspective. I thought of another after his ideas gave me an idea for which I am very appreciative. But because of the automerge in this particular case, there is not good way to let him know that he ultimately helped me more than I knew initially without sending him a PM or E-mail.

I do understand the purpose of automerge and I may even use it in the future for my forum, but it will be at least a minimum of say, 12 hrs, maybe more, because I want the discussion to continue when my members get new ideas and other breakthroughs. This type of discussion continuation has worked for me on other forums which ultimately even got others involved and it was GREAT!

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion and I am to mine.

Let the discussions continue within a reasonable time limit before automerge kicks in, is all I'm saying.

Try not to get too emotional...its just automerge... :squareeyed:

[dre]

how do i add automerge onto my forums? is it a hack? I need this badly.

Cheers

[Chris M]

Search for Xenon, and you will see a 3.5 version in his list of hacks :)

Chris

[Brad]

<a href="https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?threadid=96602" target="_blank">https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showt...threadid=96602</a>

[Xplorer4x4]

As a forum feature, I like it. I don't like how it's implemented here.

I mostly agree with Paul, although I think it should be implemented here BUT, perhaps change it to a figure like 12 hours rather then 24.

[Revan]

Revan,

I'm sorry you missed my point. That person who replied to my post gave me some good suggestions from his perspective. I thought of another after his ideas gave me an idea for which I am very appreciative. But because of the automerge in this particular case, there is not good way to let him know that he ultimately helped me more than I knew initially without sending him a PM or E-mail. I did understand your point, and MY point is that had he read the thread, he would have replied with "np, feel free to contact me if you have any further questions" or something like that, which is common for helpful people to do.
Therefore I don't believe he read your reply.
And in the event of him HAVING read the reply and didnt bother to reply with above, he wouldnt care if you sent him a PM either.

[timetunnel]

Revan,

I again see your point and I've made mine. Let's just agree to disagree somewhat, of course, not totally since I understand from both sides.

I've been on many forums and have helped many people and v.v. and oops, I guess I forgot to add to each of them 'feel free to contact me'. Somehow, I don't remember any replies that said that to me, either as I've always taken it to be implied as warranted. I'm fine with it this way (requires less typing, too).

If I find you have something I may be able to assist you with, which I don't mind, let me tell you in advance, if I don't say 'feel free to contact me', it's "implied..."

Take care.