Code of conduct – Item 9 – PLEASE READ

Just as an example of how I think the mods want things to work…

A few months ago, PhantomII started a thread on the F-100*.

While I was back-checking to see if any old threads had pertinent info, I found a question from a similar thread from 2006 that was never answered. Since I had recently come across the exact info the poster was asking about, I answered him… but NOT in the old thread.

I looked up the poster in the “members” area and found he was still active (had posted recently).

Since there was a currently-running thread on the aircraft, I put my answer there in the new thread, but quoting the question from the old thread and linking to it.

If, however, there had not been a currently-running thread, I would have answered in the old thread and it would have been fine, because my thread-resurrecting post would have been pertinent & relevant to that thread, and provided new info that answered an unanswered question in that thread.

* actually, he started 2 copies of the same thread, one in Historic (which quickly died from a bad case of being ignored) then the second (more successful) one in Modern Military.

Thank Mark

As has been said.. only for the not-logged-in

I was quite worried for a moment.

Moggy

Me neither.

Can we have a screen grab please?

Moggy
Moderator

Yes, here’s a screen grab, and yes its there when you search without logging on, I hadnt realised it wasnt there when you did?

I normally view the site without logging on, and if I need to search for something do so again without logging on.

I only log on to post/reply, or to access or send a PM, and my email tells me if I have received a PM so I dont log on routinely just to check.

With the old threads it would be of value if the main index page showed the original author (which it does) and the original date posted of the first post, that would seem to resolve most issues?

I routinely look at the date of a post when reading through such threads to put the comments in a time context in anycase.

I know the image verification has to be complicated enough to stop a character recognition to be done by a BOT but sometimes its so difficult to identify that it takes 3 or 4 go’s, I will just log on before searching in the future! smiles

regards

Mark Pilkington

Confused O’i be

I saw one of those 2002 threads the other day, (Without looking at date). That looks interesting I thought ,and went to add a bit then saw the date and thought ” He might have moved in 8 years ” so didn’t bother.
I just have a look see for half an hour , then my eyes glaze over with the need to grab a spanner and make something.

Yes I believe it is only when you are not logged into the site, well it’s the only time I’ve seen it.

I do agree, it’s a case of using common sense – both ways.

The only time I see the ‘verification code’ is when I search when not logged in – otherwise its very simple to search on here! :confused:

Me neither.

Can we have a screen grab please?

Moggy
Moderator

Never seen image verification on this site

How many of us can remember exactly the wording,number or type when searching,not only that you may not know that a thread even existed that’s why you are searching in the first place.
If you go on holiday for 2 weeks there can be pages of new posts to catch up on.
Mark ,what does the image verification code bit mean?

Trumper,

its a random 6 character code designed to stop “bots” or “autospams” from navigating the search engine, though I am not sure why that matters unless its bandwidth related due to constant abuse by those “bots”?

Its on the search page:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/search.php

Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

How many of us can remember exactly the wording,number or type when searching,not only that you may not know that a thread even existed that’s why you are searching in the first place.
If you go on holiday for 2 weeks there can be pages of new posts to catch up on.
Mark ,what does the image verification code bit mean?

Ok Moggy, my bad I speed read past the personal part, sorry.

No problem 🙂

Moggy

Search works well enough for me, but sometimes you need to know the exact title which isn’t always the same as the subject matter within.

😎 It would also help if the search function was accurate.If you can’t get the answers you need from it then you need to ask.

It would help if you could search without having to enter an image verification code that was difficult to read – smiles

Regards

Mark Pilkington

😎 It would also help if the search function was accurate.If you can’t get the answers you need from it then you need to ask.

Ok Moggy, my bad I speed read past the personal part, sorry.

There should be no more posts on the Spitfire then as im sure it’s all been covered millions of times before!

BTW, It’s the first time I’ve seen death given as a reason for forum control

I thought I made it clear that was a personal aside – nothing to do with the Code of Conduct?

Thank you for your understanding.

Moggy

VoyTech
Such a ‘linking button’ exists now – e.g. your post above is #15. If you right click on the number you can copy the link URL : – http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1639691&postcount=15

Or you can click on the number it will open a new window, with just that post displayed (whole thread title and URL is also displayed in the top right of the new window).

I think the rule is open to interpretation both ways – would be better to not have the rule and just to let the Mods use their heads as to whether a post is worthy of resurrection. Many forums have similar rules about thread bumping/necromancy but they tend to be frequented by idiots who deliberately post nonsense to old threads and so the rules are in place. I don’t think Flypast has that form of troll yet…

Wouldn’t the best solution be to start a new thread and make a link to the old one in the first post?

Forgive if the following is non-sense for those who know (I’m virtually illiterate when it comes to computer/web things) but wouldn’ it be possible to change the forum so that each thread which has been inactive for a certain amount of time (like 6 months) is automatically locked and gets a new button (like the one we have for ‘Quote’ at the end of each post) which says something like ‘start a new thread with a link to this one’?

*Sighs*

There is no blanket ban on resurrecting old threads.

The words are quite plainly

“Threads over 6 months old should not be resurrected without specific reason.”

That you can add something to a story, say a recovery that is going ahead, or can answer a specific query, even though an old one, is plenty sufficient.

All we ask is that some thought is given as to which is the best course of action, resurrect or open a new one.

And meanwhile can I add a personal note?

Having been here a while I have inevitably lost a few ‘friends’ along the way, many of us have. I don’t always check when opening a thread the date of the first post, and memory doesn’t permnit recall of every thread title posted.

It can sometimes be quite a shock to suddenly read a post from somebody you know died several years back.

No big deal, and afterwards it can be quite pleasant to re-read their thoughts.

So please, just think?

Moggy
Moderator