Quantcast
Channel: Discourse Meta - Latest topics
Viewing all 60279 articles
Browse latest View live

Don't merge topics!

0
0

@Remah wrote:

Continuing the discussion from Moving posts into an existing topic doesn't keep chronology:

I don't agree with any of the options proposed to resolve how to merge posts and my comments have moved too far from the topic to reply within it.

Don't merge topics at all. Come up with another solution.

IMO, at the risk of upsetting others because I don't mind expressing this strongly, there is no generally acceptable method to merge two or more conversations without bastardising the merged conversations in some way. I see the issue as very clear cut. I'm also optimistic that there is a better range of possible solutions.

It's similar to the practice of photoshopping (merging) people - the absent, the dead, the imaginary - into a family photo. You can do it but it isn't generally a good idea and doesn't feel right. Although, I guess early photography was built on preserving the memory of dead people - after all, they were the only ones who sit perfectly still for the full exposure. :slight_smile:

So maybe this is not a good example but it expresses the idea that this feels wrong. :anguished:

Where do you stop?
If you have to do it for two conversations then you potentially have to do it for many. The more posts that are merged then the more issues can be expected to emerge.

What happens when further new posts are created on the same topic? A better and more logical solution would be to beef up the moderation or to improve the automated topic checking at the point of creating a new topic. For example, inputting a new topic title and searching could be combined more than once up until the posting of the new topic. That would give people more than one opportunity to realise there is a better path to take.

There are better things to do

How do you decide which topic remains? When combining topics of similar quality and merit this becomes a rather arbitrary exercise which will reduce the apparent contribution of one or more of the users who started the topics. That's not fair and may prove to be wrong if merging topics is made very easy.

My assumption is that the conversations should be preserved as they occurred. If preservation is no longer a key driver then there are better things to do than just merge topics.

I've have seen many topics that add little or nothing to the quality of the discussion in a forum. If there is moderation of conversation quality then something should be done to reduce the noise and I would hide, archive or delete those topics. If there is no moderation for quality of discussion by such methods then why is there such a need to merge topics that are useful and similar?

There are better solutions e.g. wiki
The solutions proposed don't seem to be required for the problems documented here:

If the advice or solution needs to be in one place or is too important too repeat why not wiki it in a new topic? Even then, some of the reasons for multiple topics will still occur - e.g. didn't search for the right terms - but at least there is a proper solution to save typing.

Is the process of resolving an issue less important than the solution? As long as the two topics are cross-linked then anyone can see what is happening. Some people will learn from the journey as much as the final solution. Merging the topics loses/obscures/denigrates that journey.

Like the original issue, there are solution posts that superficially appear to be the same or nearly so but which are significantly or radically different. To merge them and reduce the solution to one topic may lose the subtle or deep differences.

Again, if the correct solution is desired then it should be in a wiki too more clearly help anyone else with the same sort of issue. There is then one point of reference for a comprehensive description of the solution that can be linked to for every new topic on ths same issue.

The proposed solutions are worse than the problem

I do not want a batch of old comments to appear as new comments even if they don't appear in the latest notifications. The topics still has great potential to be confusing and it will not be obvious why unless it is signposted as merged. I won't necessarily join it at the start or read the end so some alert would need to be visible everywhere in the merged topic. Why should the discussion be converted into a sort of email-like melange when the two different topics make sense standing on their own?

I would also find it confusing to have two topics merged in an interleaved manner. I read the topic as it occurs and don't want to read it as someone else wants it to be.

People do not stop making mistakes, don't even realise that they have made mistakes, and commonly produce confusing behaviour. Why is there a requirement to correct this? If it is for clarity then there are better solutions. If it is for tidiness then the topics would be better fit into a hierarchy of categories using another solution than Discourse.

Feature request example

The ability to merge forum topics, especially in feature requests, the same question or idea gets posted multiple time.

I copied this from a web search because it makes a more compelling case. In a category of feature requests it makes good sense that each feature should only be documented once. But there are many reasons why it should not: The main one I want to focus on is that the superficially similar topics actual cater for different people who, for example, use different language and word pictures. If they don't know the correct terminology or way to describe the issue or feature request then there is a good chance that someone else doesn't either. Retaining the posts is useful but how do you retain the original flavour.

You "need" to create a new post to retain the original topic description. If you don't retain that then why not just delete the repeating posts?

Anyway, one solution is that there can be more than one category for feature requests. A plebeian/lay category where suggestions are made then a canonical/professional category where the requests are refined and single features combined by the "priesthood".

But even with features more clearly delimited there will generally be overlapping scope, shared descriptions and other interdependencies. Merging request topics does not remove this issue.

Posts: 7

Participants: 4

Read full topic


Action reminders for moderators

0
0

@JagWaugh wrote:

Every now and then someone creates a post on our forum which raises my attention, but my reaction isn't immediate.

Two examples:

A user creates a post online complaining that they can't submit via email. I go and look at the logs and see that there have been bounces from them (or not). If they have reached the bounce threshold I clear it, then I reply to the post online and say "Check your spam, talk to your ISP yada, yada".

A user writes a post which is not quite against the rules, (i.e. calling for a deletion), but I would like them to revise it. I reply, either publically, or via PM, and say "Please revise your post".

In both cases, I would like discourse to remind me (in some configurable period of time) so that I go and check the situation/reaction/response later.

Is this technically possible?

Posts: 3

Participants: 2

Read full topic

A new trust level: The Helpful member?

0
0

@KajMagnus wrote:

Hi,

I'm thinking Discourse forums might benefit from one more trust level, namely the Helpful member or Considerate member. (Considerate means like kind & helpful.)

I'm thinking: Some people might visit the forum infrequently, and post helpful answers and stuff the community likes, and cast helpful flags. However, they are short of time and don't visit often. They won't become Regular members. But when you observe them over a long period of time (like a year?), it becomes clear that they are indeed kind and helpful people you can trust, and it could make sense to give them their own trust level and more power to help keep the forum a good place.

Now you might ask: Why have both Considerate and Regular members? Well, the difference is that the Regular members visit regularly, and thus are up-to-date with everything that happens in the forum. But the Considerate members don't visit regularly, so they might not know what's going on right now. And, since the Regular members are up-to-date with everything that's happening right now, they could/should have a bit more power than the Considerate members, because the Regulars are in a better position to make goo decisions. (And only regular members would get access to the "frequent flier's lounge".)

A regular member that leaves and returns a year later, becomes a Considerate member (and thus loses some of his/her super powers, but not all of it).

(The reason I'm posting this topic, is actually not that I'm hoping/suggesting that anyone will implement it. Instead, I'm about to reuse Discourse's trust levels in a project of mine, and I'm thinking about including this additional trust level too, and thus wonder what others think about that trust level. Plus, I think this discussion can be useful for the Discourse community — if it turns out Discourse could actually benefit from that "missing" trust level. Namely the kind-and-helpful members that visit infrequently only.)

("Considerate" could perhaps be changed to "Helpful" or "Well-behaved" or "Kind" or ...)

Anyone interested in this? What are your thoughts? Would you want this new trust level in Discourse?

Posts: 7

Participants: 3

Read full topic

Tracking number

0
0

@Alavi1412 wrote:

Where Can we find how many users are watching or tracking a topic or a category? Does it save any where in discourse?

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic

Database wont migrate Discourse

0
0

@mrabalogu wrote:

I am new to Discourse and I am looking to make a forum.. I cloned the discourse repo and "bundle install worked" but "bundle exec rake db:migrate" keeps throwing an error. Would appreciate a better approach to hosting discourse clone in dev and prod

Posts: 2

Participants: 2

Read full topic

Error after SSL setup changes

How to Add Custom Menu to Header Nav like Sitepoint

0
0

@bRionZ wrote:

When I visit SitePoint, it was incredible. It has full-width menu and has any custom button/ links. I really love that, and I want to realize it in my site.

thanks before.

Posts: 2

Participants: 2

Read full topic

Benchmarks: VPS vs dedicated/bare metal?

0
0

@ljpp wrote:

Lately I have been planning one potential Discourse case, where big resources will be needed. I am well aware of the benefits in virtualization, but for this particular case I find a dedicated server an interesting option. The topic is not discussed too much here.

@mpalmer has mentioned earlier that he is using some dedis. UpCloud has published a benchmark featuring their 40$ plan vs a LeaseWeb Dell R210. According to their couple of years old test the performance is very similar.

As an example, from Hetzner you get a Skylake Core i7 dedicated with 32GB ram and 2x500GB SSD for 39€ (+setup). So a quad core CPU, tons more RAM than typical 40€/$ VPS's and a large disk. I am wondering how this kind of box, or similar, works for Discourse? What is the real-life capability to serve in comparison to a typical VPS offerings?

With VPS you can scale up if you run out of power, but with dedis you do not have this option. So I am trying to figure out how capable these boxes really are.

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic


LeaseWeb experiences

0
0

@ljpp wrote:

I was just skimming around for dedicated server providers, and noticed that LeaseWeb also has a VPS product line.

Very typical budget offering starting from 4.90€. What catches the eye here is that the smallest and cheapest S product has a 40GB disk, along with 1GB RAM and 1 CPU vCore. 40 gigs is very nice in the sub fiver category. For example Hetzner has 25 gigs.

Anyone used them? Any benchmarks to share - what is the CPU?

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic

Tracking signups from referral

0
0

@Wil wrote:

Hello

Following my question here I'm suggesting this feature.

I think shared content leading to a signup should count as an invitation

I believe users are more likely to share interesting content than send email invitations.

Each time a user lands on Discourse through a ?u=username link and then signs up, this should be counted as an invitation by @username

This could appear like this on the user profile (screen from /users/username/invited/redeemed in french )

Pros
- Able to track influencers based on actual signups not only traffic
- Removing steps to invite people (literally 2 clicks away on any URL)

Cons
- Risk of fake signups (but no incremental risk compared to email invitations)

Who else is interested in this?

Any comments or ideas?

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic

Is it a good idea to restrict posting to controversial threads?

0
0

@dfabulich wrote:

Like many forums, we have to deal with some controversial topics, and tempers can and do run high.

One idea I'm considering is to make a "controversial" category, and set up the permissions list so everyone can see the threads, but only TL3 users can post there. It'd be like the Lounge, except that anybody can see what the regulars are saying in there.

The idea is that our trusted regulars can show other folks how we discuss/think about controversial topics, without shutting down the conversation entirely by locking/deleting threads when folks get too upset. "Grown ups only," we'd say.

Have any of y'all ever tried/seen something like this? Is it a good idea?

Posts: 3

Participants: 3

Read full topic

Set up a podcast and other types of communities?

0
0

@RichGriese wrote:

Hey Discourse gods,

You folks should consider setting up a instance of Discourse to attract the podcast community. I've been listening to more and more history podcast, and one of the issues I am constantly wrestling with is how does a community find itself. At this point Twitter hashtags seem to help bring these into being, but it seems that a series of Disourse instances set up in subdomains would be a opportunity for you. Even to the point of YOU setting them up. Stuff like;

podcasts.discourse.org or even history.podcast.discourse.org & shortstory.podasts.discourse.org would be an obvious draw to folks looking to meet others interested in a topic.

I just recommended this idea via tweet to 2 podcasters, but after I did, I thought, I'd just create a topic here too. You might even create an "outreach" subcommittee at Discourse to help run forums on non-tech communities. I'd be happy to help, if you ever consider doing something like this.

Cheers!

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic

Updating and saving topic on button press results in 404 not found

0
0

@Janno_Liivak wrote:

I have a plugin which places a button after main buttons. When pressing a button I would like to update topic and save it. But topic.save(props); results in 404 not found. Debugging reveals that Discourse is trying to PUT at /topics/:topic_id instead of /t/:topic_id. Is there something I'm doing wrong or is it a bug?

Posts: 3

Participants: 2

Read full topic

Twitter (and Dailymotion) video onebox autoplays without user interaction

0
0

@David_Taylor wrote:

When a video from twitter is oneboxed, it seems to auto-play without any user interaction. This is quite obnoxious. For example

https://twitter.com/UniofNottingham/status/827966230568988672/video/1

Posts: 9

Participants: 5

Read full topic

Can't run ./launcher rebuild app - Docker storage driver is unsupported

0
0

@lt100 wrote:

Hello,
I run a Discourse Docker image on a DigitalOcean's Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS droplet. Tried to update my SMTP settings in app.yml and an error occured while executing ./launcher rebuild app. The system returns:

Your Docker installation is not using a supported storage driver.  If we were to proceed you may have a broken install.
aufs is the recommended storage driver, although zfs/btrfs and overlay may work as well.
Other storage drivers are known to be problematic.
You can tell what filesystem you are using by running "docker info" and looking at the 'Storage Driver' line.

If you wish to continue anyway using your existing unsupported storage driver,
read the source code of launcher and figure out how to bypass this check.

Apparently, my Storage Driver is devicemapper , but I have no idea how to bypass the check or whether it won't mess things up. Can anyone help me out? Thanks.

Posts: 4

Participants: 3

Read full topic


Issue with mail after install

0
0

@chagara wrote:

Hello,

I just installed discourse in DO and I'm having issues sending email: This is what I see in the logs:

Processing by Admin::EmailController#index as JSON
  Parameters: {"_"=>"1486273924108"}
Completed 200 OK in 18ms (Views: 0.6ms | ActiveRecord: 12.0ms)
Started GET "/about/live_post_counts.json?_=1486273924109" for 69.138.184.85 at 2017-02-05 05:52:04 +0000
Processing by AboutController#live_post_counts as JSON
  Parameters: {"_"=>"1486273924109"}
Completed 200 OK in 20ms (Views: 0.3ms | ActiveRecord: 9.7ms)
Started POST "/admin/email/test" for 69.138.184.85 at 2017-02-05 05:52:18 +0000
Processing by Admin::EmailController#test as */*
  Parameters: {"email_address"=>"computertech2124@gmail.com"}

so not sure where Is the problem. I'm using mailgun and I have added all the records required and my domain is verified.

This is what is on my app file:

DISCOURSE_SMTP_ADDRESS: smtp.mailgun.org
  DISCOURSE_SMTP_PORT: 576
  DISCOURSE_SMTP_USER_NAME: postmaster@gaming.org
  DISCOURSE_SMTP_PASSWORD: "mypassword"
  DISCOURSE_SMTP_ENABLE_START_TLS: true

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic

Data Explorer tab doesn't appear in navigation stack on Plugin page in 1.7

0
0

@jmardenslp wrote:

Hi! We have a managed installation that was recently updated to 1.7. Previous to the update, I had enabled discourse-data-explorer and added some queries. Now the Data Explorer tab no longer appears on the Plugins page, though data_explorer is enabled (version 0.2). I've tried disabling and enabling the plugin, but no joy. I don't know for sure that this problem began with the 1.7 update, but this is the only clue that I have for something changing. Is anyone else seeing this problem? Anything I can do to fix it?

TIA!!

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic

Notification button for Category

0
0

@Alavi1412 wrote:

one widget exits called topic-notifications-button. This widget is used for button for each topics that users can watch or track or ... a topic but I need a widget like this for category but nothing was found except this and this is not a widget and I can't use it in my widget, what is your suggestion for this?

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic

SEO Titling on Topics

0
0

@mitchellk wrote:

I have searched for an answer to this but to no avail.

Is there any way to change the way Discourse creates the page title for a topic.

What is happening is that it correctly builds the page title using TOPIC+CATEGORY but then it adds the Site Title at the end so it's doing TOPIC+CATEGORY+SITE-TITLE which ends up in a rather long page title that goes beyond the recommended limit for search engines.

It would be a nice option and result in cleaner looking SEO results if the page title were not so long on topics.

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic

Error Message: "TypeError: Self.get is not a function"

0
0

@JonLumb wrote:

Some of my users are seeing this error message coming up periodically when posting / editing a post. I've not seen the error myself, but I think this has only started after I updated to the latest beta (v1.8.0.beta4 +4).

There's a thread here on it: http://audioabattoir.com/t/weird-error-when-posting-or-editing/893

It doesn't seem to be actually blocking functionality (you can still post if you just press OK on the error message etc.) but thought it worth mentioning.

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic

Viewing all 60279 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images