Seperate forced merge posts

[chilihead]

We added it in the exact same way it was done in IPB 3.4 which is what people asked for

@Charles also note, in 3.4 the timestamp updates to the new time. In 4.0 it stays the same. I am not sure which is better. I'd say the latter or maybe the original and add the "edited at" text, since that is not applied unless the post is actually edited.

 

[Adriano Faria]

One more example why it HAS to update the date/time of last post. Now on PM:

Sent a new version to user and he replied that would test it.

He replied again and the messages were merged. So I'm waiting for 16 hours for a feedback!

I gone again to the PM to ask if the user test it, and to my surprice, the reply is there.

[craigf136]

I have never seen or understood the need to merge posts, simply because they have been made in quick succession. It just make things a mess imo - I disabled it immediately, that's what we have staff for, if the posts need to be merged, they will merge them.

I agree with a fair bit of automation but this is something that staff should be doing imo - frankly for me, it's a useless and pointless feature.

[Vikestart]

I'm not sure Private Messages should be merged, only publically available posts.

Still, the comment should be marked as unread again whenever a merge occurs... >_>

[chilihead]

Yeah someone complained about support tickets too as they didn't know they had a new reply.

Charles said the "mark unread" function is coming back:

Ah yes it should mark it unread - we can make it do that. But no lines

BUT I would exclude the feature from PMs and tickets. Really it is for public posts. If there's back-to-back in private I don't care and it may be more intuitive for messaging. 

[chilihead]

Ah yes it should mark it unread - we can make it do that. But no lines

 

I'll assume the mark unread is coming soon but wanted to point out a few things also.

In 3.4 the date is also is updated. So if I post at 3:33 and post another, it merges and says 3:34. In 4.0 it is not changing, which causes confusion. The marking unread and bumping will help but the time should be updated like in 3.4.

But also when you add a post, edit it, and then add a new post, it merges, and the edit time is the older one not the merge date. Seeing as the post date is also not updated, this really causes confusion. One or the other, or both should be updated otherwise it makes the post look physically impossible. There is new info added but the edit time and post date pre-date the information.

Updating the post date should address but I believe the edit date should also be updated as the physical post is being edited automatically. Yes the edit button wasn't used, but a process edited the post by adding info and it only makes sense if it was edited that be updated. If it wasn't edited using the edit button pre-merge the updated post date would suffice.

If you think about it logically, how could a post date be later than an edit date?

In 3.4 I use an hour window so you can see how these setting will confuse in 4.0.

Thanks.