[nettneu]

Please could someone tell me how long I have to wait, after posting something, such that a subsequent post in the same thread appears separately rather than getting merged at the end of the previous one? Or will this combining always happen when no-one else posts in between?

[HackerX]

	Originally Posted by nettneu
	Or will this combining always happen when no-one else posts in between?

And if it doesn't, it should be edited by a mod such that it does.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by HackerX
	And if it doesn't, it should be edited by a mod such that it does.

Why?

I find that if I have already looked at a post, then if something gets added to it later I'm very likely to overlook the added bit. And I doubt if I'm the only one.

Having bits of posts overlooked disrupts the discussion - it tends to lead to misunderstandings or repetition or both. So it should be avoided whenever possible. From this point of view it is clearly better if new additions are separate posts, so that they are less likely to be overlooked by people who had already read the first bit. It can't be desirable for mods to come and make things more likely to be overlooked.

I read somewhere that the reason the posts get combined at all is to make things easier for mods to deal with someone who makes lots of rule-breaking posts in quick succession. And of course I'm entirely in favor of making things easier for mods. But if you want them to go around sticking non-rule-breaking posts together, you're making things harder for them again!

So, we need the combining to happen for a sufficiently long time to overcome the multiple-posting-trolls problem. In order to also overcome the overlooked-bits-of-posts problem, the ideal would be that after that time, people can add new posts, and that they know how long that time is, so that they can contribute to preserving the quality of the discussion by timing their additions such that they do not get combined and overlooked. Hence my original question.

For all I know it may be technically too hard to make the combining stop after a time, and in that case there's nothing that can be done about it, you either have to wait till someone else posts, or else put up with the risk of your addition being overlooked by people who would otherwise have been interested in it. But if the combining does happen to stop after a time, why ever would you want the mods to manually prolong it, resulting in more work for them and a less satisfactory discussion?

[Jezebel]

	Originally Posted by nettneu
	I read somewhere that the reason the posts get combined at all is to make things easier for mods to deal with someone who makes lots of rule-breaking posts in quick succession. And of course I'm entirely in favor of making things easier for mods. But if you want them to go around sticking non-rule-breaking posts together, you're making things harder for them again!

This has absolutely nothing to do with why we don't want double posting. It's there because it's annoying to read several posts in a row made by the same person. It artificially lengthens threads. There are exceptions, such as blog threads, but in general we want members to edit their last posts instead of making new ones if nobody has posted between.

[Still Standing]

	Originally Posted by nettneu
	Please could someone tell me how long I have to wait, after posting something, such that a subsequent post in the same thread appears separately rather than getting merged at the end of the previous one?

Seemed to me that a new post gets created if posting after 24 hours. Did I dream this?

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by Jezebel
	it's annoying to read several posts in a row made by the same person.

You're annoyed by it? I'm surprised, personally I'm much more interested in what a post says than in who posted it. I'm not even sure that I'd notice that it was the same person, if the content was making a new point - certainly if I did notice I wouldn't mind. Still, there's no accounting for tastes, I suppose. Thanks for the explanation anyway.

Do you happen to know whether the "go to first new post" feature counts a post as "new" if it has been added to since the last time you looked at it?

[Jezebel]

	Originally Posted by nettneu
	You're annoyed by it?

Yes. It isn't something unique to this forum; on many forums it's considered good etiquette not to double post. Here it's automated.

	Originally Posted by nettneu
	Do you happen to know whether the "go to first new post" feature counts a post as "new" if it has been added to since the last time you looked at it?

It works like an edit at this time. Merges used to count as new posts, but it only seemed to encourage people to create new posts for minor edits when they should just edit the posts in the first place.

	Originally Posted by Still Standing
	Seemed to me that a new post gets created if posting after 24 hours. Did I dream this?

No, the auto-merge does expire after enough time has passed.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by Jezebel
	Merges used to count as new posts, but it only seemed to encourage people to create new posts for minor edits

I'm not surprised at that. After all, if it's worth making the change, you presumably want people to know that you've made it. So you're hardly likely to do it in such a way that people who had read the original don't get any indication that it has changed.

	Originally Posted by Jezebel
	on many forums it's considered good etiquette not to double post

I've not encountered that, but that doesn't mean much since I've only ever participated in a couple of other forums. Evidently a lot of people use forums very differently than I do. Oh well, I guess I'll adapt.

---------- Post added 07-15-2012 at 06:21 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Jezebel
	No, the auto-merge does expire after enough time has passed.

So would it be possible to answer my original question and tell me how much time? Please? Of course I can experiment for myself if you really prefer, but it would be helpful.

[Jezebel]

	Originally Posted by nettneu
	So would it be possible to answer my original question and tell me how much time? Please?

Sorry, I meant my post as confirmation of Still Standing's question. It's 24 hours.

[The Dan Keizer]

Come on dog I'm trying to bolster my post count.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by The Dan Keizer
	Come on dog I'm trying to bolster my post count.

Why? I know you need a certain number of posts in order to see various sub-forums, but I thought they were relatively small numbers. Are there still more things that you can't access even with 653 posts? If so, is there a list of them somewhere, so that we can tell what we're supposed to be aiming at?

[Jezebel]

	Originally Posted by nettneu
	Are there still more things that you can't access even with 653 posts?

No.

[The Dan Keizer]

No.

[zibber]

Restrict all of your posting to the blogs section.