As designed Merge users loses Avatar

[Mr Lucky]

I merged two users. Obviously there cannot be two Avatars, but if only one user has an Avatar, that should remain.

Say I merge user B into user A. User B has an Avatar, user A doesn't. After user B is merged into user A the Avatar is not there.

Not just that but it doesn't seem there is a way to retrieve the Avatar. Has it been lost forever?

 

[Mike]

The avatar is removed, yes.

However, when there is only one value for something, we keep the destination user's value. This includes all profile details, for example.

 

[Mr Lucky]

That seems wrong. If there is only one value, it should be merged if possible if the term "merge" is used to describe the action.

Is there a way to add the old Avatar apart from reuploading it? Avatars only seem to have an option to upload, not link to URL or existng Avatar that was previousl uploaded, or would that have got deleted with the user that was merged from?)

 

[Mike]

The merge refers to the content ownership being merged (into the target user).

The avatar would have to be reuploaded.

 

[Carlos]

That seems wrong. If there is only one value, it should be merged if possible if the term "merge" is used to describe the action.

You gotta understand; when you merge accounts, you're effectively "deleting" the old account. When you merge two profiles, you merge posts, and content posted on the profile, but you lose the avatar, because that's "deleted."

 

[Mr Lucky]

You gotta understand; when you merge accounts, you're effectively "deleting" the old account.

I get that. The old account is no longer there, but I would expect merge to merge as much as possible. As mentioned, if there are two avatars, they cannot be merged (nor, obviously can two passwords), but if there is only one avatar I would expect it to be merged along with other data.

I would also expect there to be a way to do that manually if it doesn't happen automatically. Still if it's designed like that then I must accept that's the way it is, I just thought it's worth pointing out as it caught me out.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I agree. As a general principle, I think "stuff" should only disappear in a merge when there is a conflict. Otherwise, it's not truly a merge.

 

[HWS]

I agree. As a general principle, I think "stuff" should only disappear in a merge when there is a conflict. Otherwise, it's not truly a merge.

It should never disappear silently!
In a merge the data of the destination user should have a higher value. However if there is no value in a data set at the destination user the value of the merged user should be used automatically.

A perfect scenario would be a popup where you can choose which value should prevail and which would get deleted.

 

[Mr Lucky]

It should never disappear silently!
In a merge the data of the destination user should have a higher value. However if there is no value in a data set at the destination user the value of the merged user should be used automatically.

I agree. I just tested and the same thing happens with email addresses. If the destination user has no email address, then you'd think the email of the user you are merging into the destination user would then merge. But it doesn't.

 

[Jay]

I guess somebody ought to make a suggestion on the way things are merged then.