Merging threads appears to renumber the posts within the merged thread. This means that any use of the post number e.g. post #12 to refer to another post within the original thread can later be misleading.
I guess one solution would be to always add a label or line within a renumbered post with both the original thread reference and the original post number. That solution would even survive multiple thread merges / splits.
I would say it would be nice to have a solution. Whether it is worth the effort to implement such a solution I cannot say.
That is correct. All I am saying is that if a post is renumbered, it would be good if the renumbering history was visible (somehow) in the renumbered post.
Merge source topic's posts to the destination topic.
Reply to the destination topic a notification of the moderation action.
Given these hypothetical topics:
Topic A
Post A1
Post A2
Topic B
Post B1
Post B2
Merging Topic B to Topic A with the current procedure results in this:
Topic A
Post A1
Post A2
Post B1
Post B2
Moderation action notification
If the merge procedure steps listed above were reversed, the notification would also serve as a marker for where the merged posts began, resulting in this:
Topic A
Post A1
Post A2
Moderation action notification
Post B1
Post B2
Any thoughts on that adjustment to the procedure? I'm not sure how I feel about it.
@pert, I do not think that that solves the reported problem of incorrect references to post numbers. If I reply in topic B referring to post #2, it will no longer be post #2.
I don't think there is a simple solution for that.
If the reader has a marker of which post was post #1 in topic B, then it is possible to convert the references. In my hypothetical example, you would know that you must add 3 (the number of posts in topic A to the topic number references in the topic B posts. So if someone had said "post #1" in post B2, you would know they were referring to post #4 (1 + 3) in the merged topic.
The problem is then about knowing when the need for a conversion ends, since there is no marker of where the merged topic B posts end.
It is an actual issue because it can make merged threads more difficult to read. It is also not clean because changes to a post, in this case the post number, are made without an audit trail and the information is lost about which thread the post/replies originally belonged to.
Having said all that, usually the consequences are small and I did question whether it is worth doing anything about. I'm certainly not recommending manual changes to correct any references, at most a system change to add a marker in the merged in/out posts indicating their initial thread names/post numbers.
It was initiated by this thread https://forum.arduino.cc/t/how-to-measure-frequency-on-atmega8a/987094 where the OP appears to have had 2 threads, each discussing a different solution to exactly the same problem. It is still not clear to me which is the OP's first post in the second thread. Post currently numbered #33 seems likely but it appears to be a linked reply to a post in the original thread currently numbered #5 which I can't even see how you do across threads.
I merged those.
After the merge I put reply #32 saying that I'd done it, so reply #31 is the last post of the second topic before they were merged. Post #33 is the first reply after they were merged, excluding my reply. The first post of the second topic is very hard to determine! And now I've been looking I think he might have other topics on the same subject that I missed. I need a cup of tea before I investigate!
That is the case with the "current procedure". That is not the case with the adjusted procedure I described in #1986:
In the post structure diagram you see in that quote, the "Moderation action notification" is the same thing as what you have referred to as "post from the mod" in your quote. Note how its position in the thread has been changed from marking the end of the "Topic B" posts to marking the start of the "Topic B" posts.
The wording of the "post from the mod" would be adjusted to reflect this (i.e., "I have merged your topics" -> "I am merging your topics").
I'm not convinced that it really matters. Of course it would be nice if the forum software could square this away, but anything that requires more effort from the moderators seems like it would be more work than it's worth.
I observe that there is a small cadre of regulars that answer questions from folks that have a mayfly like lifetime in the forum. Although the responses to problems posed by those ephemeral posters may be seen by plenty of other readers with related issues, I don't see that any confusion caused by their making multiple posts that must be merged justifies a mechanism to repair the damage done by them.
The adjusted procedure I described would not require any additional effort from the moderators. We would only perform the existing steps in a slightly different order.
But of course that adjusted procedure only provides a slight improvement at best in this situation. Carefully reviewing every affected post for references and editing those posts to account for the new post number would require more effort.
