Problem Reports, Questions & General Announcements

[BCFC_1982]

Originally Posted by Pepper II

If the Mods feel a member is just intentionally bumping his thread by posting several single images over time this can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Or if the image posted with a comment of "could this be the same person" that could potentially be deemed as an additional ID request. As Pepper said, things are handled with on a case by case basis.

[Immy]

2012/328 = 2013/35 ?


Mod Edit
Thanks Immy
Linked, 2013 post moved to the Mystery Corner and opened.
From same requester, but different photos, may be different sessions, so kept both.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by BCFC_1982

Or if the image posted with a comment of "could this be the same person" that could potentially be deemed as an additional ID request. As Pepper said, things are handled with on a case by case basis.

So you're saying if I've got material that I'm unsure whether it's query A, I'm better to start a fresh query B with that additional material, & let mods. later decide whether to merge them?

Case by case can be fine. The reason one might search for patterns of behaviour within an organisation, however, is so that a whole lot of extra work for all parties (mods & well as members) can be avoided. If we know that case B is like case A then we can follow the usual pattern of steps/behaviour for such cases. We don't have to be told each time. We don't have to ask for a judicial inquiry each time. It just (mostly) works/operates.

An example of patterns in operation are the letter codes mir mods. have adopted for use.

If absolutely everything really is on a case by case basis, with no patterns, then guess how much you're multiplying the work you mods. then have to do? No-one would want that.

Originally Posted by Immy

2012/328 = 2013/35 ?

Not sure why, but for some reason the second image makes me think of Suze Randall photog. Could be well astray.

[Immy]

2015/539 = 2016/289



Mod Edit
Thanks Immy!
Exact duplicate from same member, so removed 2015 request
Added dupe images to 2016 request in case of image failure

[effCup]

Originally Posted by Immy

2015/539 = 2016/289



Mod Edit
Thanks Immy!
Exact duplicate from same member, so removed 2015 request
Added dupe images to 2016 request in case of image failure

A small request: can mods. please leave intact any links to such box posts, rather than simply erasing them? I know, once it's soft-deleted it becomes a link we can't use... except that in such cases we still can, of sorts.

The reason I ask is because: a member may have saved the post that's being deleted/merged. In the above case I had saved the second post, the one that's being kept, so nothing lost there, but on another occasion I might have instead saved the one that's been deleted. If the vef post id is retained then I can readily retrieve it & merge/manage as appropriate. It's more difficult if mods. erase all of the post link incl., crucially, the post id. The post no. stuff (2015/539) is irrelevant--i.e. it's not canonical. Solve one of the 2015 box posts & 539 could change to 538, etc.

It is also possible to search/re-find queries based upon the assoc. material (image filenames, etc.), but that's a bit less reliable (-bam issues, etc.) than simply retrieving the vef post id we've used under which to save/store stuff.

Thanks.

[BCFC_1982]

Up to the box guys.

If you're keen on saving things why don't you save the web page so the details are saved along with the thumbnail?

I'm actually in favour of staying as we are. We've got enough duplicates hanging around as it is.

Post IDs preferred to post counts:
showpost.php?p=4341903&postcount=545

As that's the best way to identify posts. Post count will change when things are moved so should not be relied on

[Pepper II]

Merging and removing posts and threads is just a normal part of housekeeping and I really don't want to keep all these redundant links. I've received PM's in the past from well-meaning members alerting me to links which just lead back to the thread they're already viewing and some, of course, lead nowhere if the post or thread has been removed.

We all use different methods to save threads we're interested in. I personally keep keywords since these will work on any active post or thread.

[effCup]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. I'm not saying to keep the post itself. I'm saying please just keep the text of the html link that Immy posted in his post, rather than erasing it when you delete the post to which it used to link. That way we can still see the text of the post id in his link. It is that by which we use to store mir stuff, locally.

Originally Posted by BCFC_1982

Post IDs preferred to post counts:
showpost.php?p=4341903&postcount=545

As that's the best way to identify posts. Post count will change when things are moved so should not be relied on

Yes, that means precisely what I wrote in my earlier post above. I use the post id. Knowing the postcount figure is irrelevant because of deletions. You're agreeing with me, not disagreeing.

[BCFC_1982]

As Pep said, we don’t want to keep redundant links.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by BCFC_1982

As Pep said, we don’t want to keep redundant links.

As I wrote, I don't want you to keep any redundant links. All I'm asking for is the text of the post id.

Here the postcount has been kept:

Originally Posted by Immy

2015/539 = 2016/289

but the post id is what I'm asking to be kept, instead, in its place. The postcount number is of no use to anyone, because it can readily change. The post id is very useful to at least some of us.

You don't have to keep "live" links as here, if you don't want to. All I ask for is the text of the post id. Because that's the preferred way to reference mir info. That's the way I reference mir info.