[TH] Auto Merge Double Posts [Deleted]

[rfc0001]

The point of this add-on is to educate users to use the edit functionality rather than posting every new addition as a new post. It also is there to prevent users from pushing threads to the top of the list by adding new posts. By merging the new post into the old one, we achieve exactly this wanted behavior. We merge, because we do not want new notifications. After all, we do not want them, when a user edits his post, either. I've build in a notification for the user that his message was merged into his old one for the next version, but that's as much notifications as there will be.

I wouldn't assume those are the two reasons why someone would want to use this add-on. I'm not trying to prevent users from bumping threads, as I have zero problems on my forum with this. I also don't see how this add-on educates anyone about editing if it just automerges it for them. If anything, that encourages them not to edit their post, knowing it's going to get merged for them. If you wanted to really solve those two problems with an add-on, you should just have an add-on that when you post in reply to your own post simply throws up a message saying "You are replying to your own post. Please edit your previous post instead." This would have all that stated objectives including educating the user (they aren't able to post, so figure this out real quick), and would prevent bumping. My purpose for using this add-on would be neither of those objectives. It's simply to tidy up the thread unobtrusively, which means 1) not modifying the content by inserting a bbcode which a users who goes back and edits their post will have no idea how it got there or what it's purpose is, and 2) not swallowing alerts since the the user was just blissfully unaware of the fact they posted two posts and shouldn't be punished by not having others see the alert to their post. I would suggest simply having an option of "allow alerts on post" and implement this by inverting the merge target (merge older post with newer).

Style Properties -> [KL] Auto Merge Double Post -> Extra -> Insert:

display: none;

Then the merge message will be gone. There's also a ton of handy styling properties in place.

The content of the message can be edited in phrases. The name of the phrase is kl_amdp_merge_message.

I understand you can hide it, but I don't want to modify the content, so if a user edits their post they won't be confused about where this bbcode came from and what it does. I also wouldn't want it there in case I uninstall the add-on. A good add-on should be able to be uninstalled and not leave anything behind that needs cleaned up. I appreciate all the benefit of having the bbcode, so I would simply suggest an option to disable inserting it altogether. It would be a simple checkbox option and a simple if statement in your code.

 

[Lukas W.]

I wouldn't assume those are the two reasons why someone would want to use this add-on.

But the ones it has been designed with in mind.

My purpose for using this add-on would be neither of those objectives. It's simply to tidy up the thread unobtrusively, which means 1) not modifying the content by inserting a bbcode which a users who goes back and edits their post will have no idea how it got there or what it's purpose is, and 2) not swallowing alerts since the the user was just blissfully unaware of the fact they posted two posts and shouldn't be punished by not having others see the alert to their post. I would suggest simply having an option of "allow alerts on post" and implement this by inverting the merge target (merge older post with newer).

I understand your point, but as stated before, it's not been built for that.

A good add-on should be able to be uninstalled and not leave anything behind that needs cleaned up. I appreciate all the benefit of having the bbcode, so I would simply suggest an option to disable inserting it altogether.

Go ahead and explain me, how all the other BB Code add-ons do this in a manner that is suitable for boards with more than a million posts and I'll gladly include this mechanism. Until then, I consider my add-on just good enough for this community, thank you.

 

[rfc0001]

But the ones it has been designed with in mind.

I understand your point, but as stated before, it's not been built for that.

Typically you want to design software for the largest audience possible, not for a single purpose. Of the dozen people that have posted here, at least 3 have asked for the notification functionality. It's a simple option and if statement - 2 lines of code, easy to maintain, meets a frequently requested need.

Go ahead and explain me, how all the other BB Code add-ons do this in a manner that is suitable for boards with more than a million posts and I'll gladly include this mechanism. Until then, I consider my add-on just good enough for this community, thank you.

Why does this need to be a "BB code add-on"? I use 50 add-ons, and not a single one uses custom BB codes. I would expect an add on that merges two posts to just merge the posts and be done - super simple and elegant. I'm not knocking the way you implemented it, which is very powerful, but sometimes people prefer simple. In this case, again, it's one option and and if statement - 2 lines of code to meet this simple ask. Why insert a BB-code and render it on every page just to hide it with CSS? If someone doesn't want the bb code, just have an option to not insert it.

 

[Lukas W.]

Typically you want to design software for the largest audience possible, not for a single purpose. Of the dozen people that have posted here, at least 3 have asked for the notification functionality. It's a simple option and if statement - 2 lines of code, easy to maintain, meets a frequently requested need.
Why does this need to be a "BB code add-on"? I use 50 add-ons, and not a single one uses custom BB codes. I would expect an add on that merges two posts to just merge the posts and be done - super simple and elegant.

It's funny how you first ask me to implement stuff that was requested, then get outraged about the fact that I've implemented stuff that has been requested. Also there's a subtle difference between a hackish implementation ("2 lines of code") and a good implementation - just a reminder that you were the one talking about "good add-ons". All in all I'd like you to notice that I'm not here to sell you add-ons. I'm developing them in my free time, offering them for free, for a community that appreciates that. And I don't like people coming towards me, bragging about how they think my add-on is "bad" and how I have no idea about how things should be, just because my add-on doesn't meet their needs 100%. And I personally take myself the freedom to decline requests for all the reasons I want to.

 

[Emre]

@katsulynx , Hi.
Marge post not alerts. Alerts add add-ons?

 

[Lukas W.]

@katsulynx , Hi.
Marge post not alerts. Alerts add add-ons?

I've build in a notification for the user that his message was merged into his old one for the next version

 

[Emre]

Excuse me! I did not see Thank you for your interest. Good work

 

[Lukas W.]

Excuse me! I did not see

No worries, it was well hidden between a large bunch of other lines.

 

[Emre]

No worries, it was well hidden between a large bunch of other lines.

Not so hidde. I found. Thank you again.

 

[rfc0001]

It's funny how you first ask me to implement stuff that was requested, then get outraged about the fact that I've implemented stuff that has been requested. Also there's a subtle difference between a hackish implementation ("2 lines of code") and a good implementation - just a reminder that you were the one talking about "good add-ons". All in all I'd like you to notice that I'm not here to sell you add-ons. I'm developing them in my free time, offering them for free, for a community that appreciates that. And I don't like people coming towards me, bragging about how they think my add-on is "bad" and how I have no idea about how things should be, just because my add-on doesn't meet their needs 100%. And I personally take myself the freedom to decline requests for all the reasons I want to.

It's not free. Almost all forums have ads or sponsors or some form of income. Therefore, before I purchase a commercial license, I'm simply asking if you would consider two simple changes, both of which have been asked for about 3 out of a dozen people posting here. I've explained the simple rationale for these changes. I also believe them to literally be two lines of code - simple, elegant. If you didn't have the CC-Non-Commercial license I'd be happy to make the changes myself and release it for free, but since that prohibits commercial use, it's a deal breaker. A license that prohibits making money from the code, but using the add-on in a commercial website would be more flexible in this regards. As it is, if you are unwilling to make simple changes, and I am unable to modify your code, then it's easier to just write my own.

 

[Lukas W.]

I also believe them to literally be two lines of code - simple, elegant.

By all means, go ahead and include those "two lines" for the notifications if you think it's that simple. No one is keeping you from editing the code to your liking. Only redistribution is prohibited.

It's not free. Almost all forums have ads or sponsors or some form of income.

Makes me wonder why no-one has bought a single commercial license for any of my add-ons yet, and I still have a total number of downloads that tend to thousand and upwards.

 

[Lukas W.]

katsulynx updated [KL] Auto Merge Double Posts with a new update entry:

1.1.0

Changelog
Bugfixes & Changes

• Some integral parts of this add-on have been restructured to include a bunch of new functionalities. The code has essentially been cleaned up a little.
• Captchas are now correctly verified before merging the new post into the old one.
• It is now possible to set up per-node permissions. This allows you to have different merge times for all users/user...

Read the rest of this update entry...

 

[Loohney]

katsulynx updated [KL] Auto Merge Double Posts with a new update entry:

1.1.0



Read the rest of this update entry...

Thanks for adding my suggestions. I really appreciate it.

Regards,
Loohney

 

[LiNk]

Hi, @katsulynx ! Great stuff! Thank you!

You wrote that last version has new functionality

• Users may now receive an alert that their post has been merged into their previous one. This is activated by default and can be deactivated through the options menu.
• Users may now receive alerts as if a new post has been added, including mention and quote alerts. This is deactivated by default and can be activated through the options menu

Can you please clarify where I can find this options?
Because of it is absent in plugin options ((


XF 2.0.4

Best regards,
LiNk

 

[Lukas W.]

Can you please clarify where I can find this options?
Because of it is absent in plugin options ((

Quite interresting that no one else noticed their absence yet, lol. I'll upload a hotfix.

 

[Lukas W.]

Hotfix is up. It's upgradeable, so you can just go ahead and install it like a normal update.

 

[LiNk]

Thank you very much! )

I've read your explanation about merging to old post without changing date and understand you.

But it would be great if such possibility was as option (if somebody (like me ))) wants the date of the original post was changed to merged post (and this post appears in "Whats new" section)).

Best regards,
LiNk

 

[akhan]

The message merge notifications is working incorrectly.
Just a notifications to the message owner should go but,
The notification to the person who creates the thread is going.

 

[Lukas W.]

The message merge notifications is working incorrectly.
Just a notifications to the message owner should go but,
The notification to the person who creates the thread is going.

I don't see how that would be possible. The notification is sent to the current visitor, so the only situation where the thread owner would receive the alert is, when he is the double poster. But just in case, you should verify that you're not interpreting the options wrong. Send merge alert to author sends a notification to the poster when his message is merged. Send notifications for merged posts will send a notification to everyone who would normally receive a notification for a new post in that forum.

 

[akhan]

I don't see how that would be possible. The notification is sent to the current visitor, so the only situation where the thread owner would receive the alert is, when he is the double poster. But just in case, you should verify that you're not interpreting the options wrong. Send merge alert to author sends a notification to the poster when his message is merged. Send notifications for merged posts will send a notification to everyone who would normally receive a notification for a new post in that forum.

Where can I see these options?