Locking old Support Threads

January 25, 2012, 8:06:54 PM PST

A good example is firefox crashes constantly regardless of webpage the page has >4k votes and is a year old.

There is nothing wrong or abusive in the thread to report, and some tips may be useful, however for instance long lists of crash IDs posted by others months later have no value.

Is it worth locking such threads,and if so what is the recommended procedure, PM a random mod, post in this forum, (you could make a sticky thread) or report as abuse (if so maybe a new category is needed such as obsolete thread ).

A good example is [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/729287?page=2 firefox crashes constantly regardless of webpage] the page has >4k votes and is a year old. There is nothing wrong or abusive in the thread to report, and some tips may be useful, however for instance long lists of crash IDs posted by others months later have no value. Is it worth locking such threads,and if so what is the recommended procedure, PM a random mod, post in this forum, (you could make a sticky thread) or report as abuse (if so maybe a new category is needed such as'' obsolete thread '').

Michael Verdi 1755 posts

January 25, 2012, 9:50:50 PM PST

Yeah I've wondered this myself while answering questions. I'm thinking we should lock these or maybe better, get rid of them.

Hasan 106 posts

January 26, 2012, 12:36:38 AM PST

^+1 to Micheal

Modified by Hasan on January 26, 2012, 12:37:28 AM PST

Kadir Topal 1215 posts

January 26, 2012, 1:24:21 AM PST

Hmm, it's hard to form a policy around this. Obsolete threads should certainly be closed as to not attract any more comments that won't ever be answered anyway. The difficulty is in deciding when something is obsolete.

I guess this should be part of a bigger discussion, where we discuss what threads are obsolete and how we want to handle them (archiving, excluding from search, adding to robots.txt, closing for anyone, but the original author, etc)

So, here is my first stab at it, please give feedback:

The objectives:

Reduce the noise in the forums, so contributors can focus on questions that have a chance of being solved.
Don't get peoples hope up by letting them comment on a thread that will not be read by any contributor.
Increase the visibility for useful threads, by decreasing the visibility for threads that are of no use anymore.

First, the definition of obsolete:
We should play it safe at first and start calling obsolete anything that has not seen a new comment in 3 month. At 3 month, it's highly likely that either the original author solved the issue or moved on, and any solution posted won't be useful to the original author anymore. Also, the likelihood of a contributor picking up a thread that is 3 month old is very, very low.

And what we want to do with obsolete threads:

Close the thread for anything, but posts from the original author
If the thread is not marked as solved, move to archive
If the thread is not marked as solved, omit it from search results
Assign every obsolete thread that is marked solved a value that counts down every night. If the value reaches zero, it is moved to the archive and omitted from search results.
Every time we mark something as a duplicate of a thread the original threads value goes up, it lives longer. If we stop marking threads as duplicates of that thread it eventually reaches zero and is moved to the archive.

What do you guys think? Do the objectives make sense, is there a simpler way of achieving the objectives?

Hmm, it's hard to form a policy around this. Obsolete threads should certainly be closed as to not attract any more comments that won't ever be answered anyway. The difficulty is in deciding when something is obsolete. I guess this should be part of a bigger discussion, where we discuss what threads are obsolete and how we want to handle them (archiving, excluding from search, adding to robots.txt, closing for anyone, but the original author, etc) So, here is my first stab at it, please give feedback: The objectives: * Reduce the noise in the forums, so contributors can focus on questions that have a chance of being solved. * Don't get peoples hope up by letting them comment on a thread that will not be read by any contributor. * Increase the visibility for useful threads, by decreasing the visibility for threads that are of no use anymore. First, the definition of obsolete: We should play it safe at first and start calling obsolete anything that has not seen a new comment in 3 month. At 3 month, it's highly likely that either the original author solved the issue or moved on, and any solution posted won't be useful to the original author anymore. Also, the likelihood of a contributor picking up a thread that is 3 month old is very, very low. And what we want to do with obsolete threads: * Close the thread for anything, but posts from the original author * If the thread is not marked as solved, move to archive * If the thread is not marked as solved, omit it from search results * Assign every obsolete thread that is marked solved a value that counts down every night. If the value reaches zero, it is moved to the archive and omitted from search results. * Every time we mark something as a duplicate of a thread the original threads value goes up, it lives longer. If we stop marking threads as duplicates of that thread it eventually reaches zero and is moved to the archive. What do you guys think? Do the objectives make sense, is there a simpler way of achieving the objectives?

Modified by Kadir Topal on January 26, 2012, 1:25:26 AM PST

AliceWyman 6327 posts

January 26, 2012, 1:45:37 AM PST

If you choose to move old support forum threads to an archive, please make sure that links to those threads aren't broken ... and for heaven sakes, don't get rid of them! Support threads have value beyond solving the original user's question. I often use specific threads as reference links, for example, when editing or discussing a KB article. I also notice that answers to current support questions include links to previous threads that contain an answer.

If you choose to move old support forum threads to an archive, please make sure that links to those threads aren't broken ... and for heaven sakes, don't ''get rid of them''! Support threads have value beyond solving the original user's question. I often use specific threads as reference links, for example, when editing or discussing a KB article. I also notice that answers to current support questions include links to previous threads that contain an answer.

Modified by AliceWyman on January 26, 2012, 1:50:31 AM PST

Kadir Topal 1215 posts

January 26, 2012, 1:50:10 AM PST

Alice, moving questions to the archive would be very similar to how we do it with articles.

AliceWyman 6327 posts

January 26, 2012, 1:54:41 AM PST

Archiving is OK, then, as long as links are not broken. I just don't want to see you get rid of them, which was Michael Verdi's suggestion.

Archiving is OK, then, as long as links are not broken. I just don't want to see you ''get rid of them'', which was Michael Verdi's suggestion.

mluna 253 posts

January 26, 2012, 2:35:20 AM PST

Hi,

I agree that we shouldn't get rid of them, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the idea. I'm also not sure why we would omit solved threads from search results? These are answers users need to find. Maybe you made a typo in your proposal above, Kadir? Four months ago seems like a long time, but with so many users still on 3.6 and 4, it is not such a long time for a solution to be helpful in my opinion.

Thanks, Michelle

Hi, I agree that we shouldn't get rid of them, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the idea. I'm also not sure why we would omit solved threads from search results? These are answers users need to find. Maybe you made a typo in your proposal above, Kadir? Four months ago seems like a long time, but with so many users still on 3.6 and 4, it is not such a long time for a solution to be helpful in my opinion. Thanks, Michelle

Kadir Topal 1215 posts

January 26, 2012, 2:44:45 AM PST

Michelle, just to clear this up: I'm suggesting that we omit threads from search results that don't have a answer, and have not been touched in 3 month. In those cases the user is better off asking a new question.

I'm also suggesting that solved threads get a life expectancy. I didn't suggest a value for that. It might be 365. So those solved threads would never be archived before one full year, and in fact would never be archived as long as we still dupe against them.

However it's a bit complicated, so please let me know if there are still questions, or ways to get to the objectives in an easier way.

Michelle, just to clear this up: I'm suggesting that we omit threads from search results that don't have a answer, and have not been touched in 3 month. In those cases the user is better off asking a new question. I'm also suggesting that solved threads get a life expectancy. I didn't suggest a value for that. It might be 365. So those solved threads would never be archived before one full year, and in fact would never be archived as long as we still dupe against them. However it's a bit complicated, so please let me know if there are still questions, or ways to get to the objectives in an easier way.

John99 3665 posts

January 26, 2012, 4:20:59 AM PST

Hi everyone,

obvously something many of us think about, and probably have similar ideas of what would be helpful, but need to sort out the details of how it is to be implemented. I thought I would throw in a few other factors that may be worthy of consideration. Whatever happens mods of course will remain essential for making common sense decision wheter for or against anything implemented automatically.

Votes
I wonder if they need to be factored in to any calculation. Or maybe they are redundant because of the duplicate marking that is being discussed. An example may be something simple like how do I set the home page, it may be answered in a few lines and a link to a kb. It probably will see little else posted in the thread, but remain a good answer.

Rants
if for instance someone wishes to point out browser x is better than Firefox or that Firefox has long standing unresolved issues, then it may not harm to have these posts in a long ramblimng thread. It may be better than disrupting other threads. Some or those issues may even turn into breaking issues, as it is shown that say hangs, memory usage, video problems; or whatever are genuine problems that need adressing.

Improving Presentation of Solutions
Especially on long threads a solution chosen by the poster plus the first two other repiles chosen by anyone is far from optimal. I realise this is not the original topic, but the point is if a thread is remaining open for a long time and getting a lot of other posts, then the majority of the posts are not seen by the average thread visitor, and the three highlighted posts presented at the top may not be the best answers, or may need updating, or may be plain wrong. This is something that really does ned sorting out especially if those threads that are going to gain prominence (as others are archived, otherwise deactivated or removed from standard searches.

Only showing solved posts in searches
I certainly see the advantage of this as a default. However it does mean breaking issues may not show as easily. An obvious example is with crashes. I note for instance crash stats offers to search sumo, but only search for solved threads. That imo is totaly wrong. By the time the thread with a particular signature is solved there is likely to be a bug filed and resolved, with few cases of the crash still occuring. Most contributors will realise a manual search has an advantage, but if trying to promote self help then it aught to in this situation search fro unsolve threads, any result with the same crash signature is likly to be highly relavant.

Marking as duplicates see /forums/contributors/707664
I have not noticed any recent uprdate on this,i do have a few reservations, and wonderif many forum helpers will participate, and if they do,wheter in fact that will be the best use of their time. I suppose it will depend partly on how this new workflow is organised.

Hi everyone, obvously something many of us think about, and probably have similar ideas of what would be helpful, but need to sort out the details of how it is to be implemented. I thought I would throw in a few other factors that may be worthy of consideration. Whatever happens mods of course will remain essential for making common sense decision wheter for or against anything implemented automatically. Votes I wonder if they need to be factored in to any calculation. Or maybe they are redundant because of the duplicate marking that is being discussed. An example may be something simple like how do I set the home page, it may be answered in a few lines and a link to a kb. It probably will see little else posted in the thread, but remain a good answer. Rants if for instance someone wishes to point out browser x is better than Firefox or that Firefox has long standing unresolved issues, then it may not harm to have these posts in a long ramblimng thread. It may be better than disrupting other threads. Some or those issues may even turn into breaking issues, as it is shown that say hangs, memory usage, video problems; or whatever are genuine problems that need adressing. Improving Presentation of Solutions Especially on long threads '''a solution chosen by the poster plus the first two other repiles chosen by anyone is far from optimal.''' I realise this is not the original topic, but the point is if a thread is remaining open for a long time and getting a lot of other posts, then the majority of the posts are not seen by the average thread visitor, and the three highlighted posts presented at the top may not be the best answers, or may need updating, or may be plain wrong. This is something that really does ned sorting out especially if those threads that are going to gain prominence (as others are archived, otherwise deactivated or removed from standard searches. Only showing solved posts in searches I certainly see the advantage of this as a default. However it does mean breaking issues may not show as easily. An obvious example is with crashes. I note for instance crash stats offers to search sumo, but only search for solved threads. That imo is totaly wrong. By the time the thread with a particular signature is solved there is likely to be a bug filed and resolved, with few cases of the crash still occuring. Most contributors will realise a manual search has an advantage, but if trying to promote self help then it aught to in this situation search fro unsolve threads, any result with the same crash signature is likly to be highly relavant. Marking as duplicates see [/forums/contributors/707664] I have not noticed any recent uprdate on this,i do have a few reservations, and wonderif many forum helpers will participate, and if they do,wheter in fact that will be the best use of their time. I suppose it will depend partly on how this new workflow is organised.

the-edmeister 603 posts

January 26, 2012, 3:38:58 PM PST

IMO - Helpful Votes seem to be virtually useless measure of relevance in too many support threads, more like a popularity contest where people are agreeing with what the poster is saying. If a thread is negative, where users spend more time complaining about Firefox (commiserating their misery) than actually trying to help the Owner of the thread, those "rants' all too often get voted as being "helpful". And the real "helpful" postings go un-marked or get marked as "unhelpful", and the "real contributor help" is drowned out or ignored. KadirTopal is going to disagree with me (again), but I view threads like that as users who don't really want help and would rather "trash talk" Firefox & the contributors who are trying to help the "owner" solve his problems or fix their own problems.

As far as Duplicate threads go - all contributors and all moderators need to look for duplicates threads on the first page or two of the main "answers" pages, because once one of the dupes is answered they get split up and are a lot harder to spot and lock. When support contributors come across duplicates postings they should hyperlink the dupe back to the original thread with something like duplicate of and maybe post something like "moderator please lock this thread as a duplicate" and PM a link to me of the duplicate thread so I can lock it.

I usually go by the thread number and lock the older of the duplicates, unless the 2nd thread provided more appropriate information than the original thread had.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/search?a=2&q= - can be used to search for duplicate threads if, as you're going thru the forum pages, you think you just saw that question posted earlier on that page or on a prior page.
Use Support Questions at the top and then Asked by for search parameters.

Improving Presentation of Solutions - IMO - a thread marked as Solved where the "Owner" never provided their own response = the question and only the "solution", with no "thank you" or "that solved it" - is very suspect to me as truly being solved.
Also, there are threads that stay active by the "Owner" after a response was marked as the "solution" - like here:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/912990

Also, on Tuesday or Wednesday I had a thread open in a Tab that I never closed because I wanted to follow the "discussion" - cor-el and the "owner" were both posting within an hour of each other and every one of cor-els answers was marked as the "solution" until he posted another answer in that thread. One by one each of cor-els answers was marked as the "solution" until cor-el posted another answer - all the way to the conclusion of that discussion, which was pretty long, but not long enough to trigger a 2nd page. Could the "owner" have been returning to his thread by using the "solved" hyperlink in the most recent email he received?

That feature is too damn convenient for the user and IMO it screws up the continuity of too many threads. Like "I got my problem fixed and I don't care if someone else can use my issue to help them solve the same problem on the their PC". Selfish attitude and disruptive to the "community of Firefox users". = Sure that probably isn't their real attitude, but the net result is the same. Is the marked "solution" to be trusted or not?

I try to monitor "Solved" threads to make sure the "solution" was marked correctly, so that other users who might use the thread to help with their Firefox problem aren't led astray by a wrong answer being marked as the "solution". I fix it where necessary or if there isn't a correct solution (in my judgment) the thread goes back to being not solved, yet.

Also, I am seeing older threads with a new comment being marked as the "solution" pop up all of a sudden after sitting idle for any months with no apparent real solution -- is it fixed? Or did the "owner" selected the "solved" hyperlink to turn off future emails that a response was posted to their 6 month old (or older) support question?

IMO - Helpful '''Votes''' seem to be virtually useless measure of relevance in too many support threads, more like a popularity contest where people are agreeing with what the poster is saying. If a thread is negative, where users spend more time complaining about Firefox ''(commiserating their misery)'' than actually trying to help the Owner of the thread, those "rants' all too often get voted as being "helpful". And the real "helpful" postings go un-marked or get marked as "unhelpful", and the "real contributor help" is drowned out or ignored. KadirTopal is going to disagree with me ''(again)'', but I view threads like that as '''''users who don't really want help''''' and would rather "trash talk" Firefox & the contributors who are trying to help the "owner" solve his problems or fix their own problems. As far as '''Duplicate threads''' go - all contributors and all moderators need to look for duplicates threads on the first page or two of the main "answers" pages, because once one of the dupes is answered they get split up and are a lot harder to spot and lock. When support contributors come across duplicates postings they should hyperlink the dupe back to the original thread with something like '''duplicate of''' and maybe post something like '''"moderator please lock this thread as a duplicate"''' and PM a link to me of the duplicate thread so I can lock it. I usually go by the thread number and lock the older of the duplicates, unless the 2nd thread provided more appropriate information than the original thread had. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/search?a=2&q= - can be used to search for duplicate threads if, as you're going thru the forum pages, you think you just saw that question posted earlier on that page or on a prior page. Use '''Support Questions''' at the top and then '''Asked by''' for search parameters. '''Improving Presentation of Solutions''' - IMO - a thread marked as '''''Solved''''' where the "Owner" never provided their own response = the question and only the "solution", with no "thank you" or "that solved it" - is very suspect to me as truly being solved. Also, there are threads that stay active by the "Owner" after a response was marked as the "solution" - like here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/912990 Also, on Tuesday or Wednesday I had a thread open in a Tab that I never closed because I wanted to follow the "discussion" - '''cor-el''' and the "owner" were both posting within an hour of each other and every one of '''cor-els''' answers was marked as the "solution" until he posted another answer in that thread. One by one each of '''cor-els''' answers was marked as the "solution" until '''cor-el''' posted another answer - all the way to the conclusion of that discussion, which was pretty long, but not long enough to trigger a 2nd page. Could the "owner" have been returning to his thread by using the "solved" hyperlink in the most recent email he received? ''That feature is too damn convenient for the user and IMO it screws up the continuity of too many threads. Like "I got my problem fixed and I don't care if someone else can use my issue to help them solve the same problem on the their PC". Selfish attitude and disruptive to the "community of Firefox users". = Sure that probably isn't their real attitude, but the net result is the same. Is the marked "solution" to be trusted or not?'' I try to monitor '''"Solved"''' threads to make sure the "solution" was marked correctly, so that other users who might use the thread to help with their Firefox problem aren't led astray by a wrong answer being marked as the "solution". I fix it where necessary or if there isn't a correct solution ''(in my judgment)'' the thread goes back to being not solved, yet. Also, I am seeing older threads with a new comment being marked as the "solution" pop up all of a sudden after sitting idle for any months with no apparent real solution -- is it fixed? Or did the "owner" selected the "solved" hyperlink to turn off future emails that a response was posted to their 6 month old ''(or older)'' support question?

AliceWyman 6327 posts

January 26, 2012, 10:52:52 PM PST

the-edmeister said

Could the "owner" have been returning to his thread by using the "solved" hyperlink in the most recent email he received?

Very likely, since that's the first link in the notification e-mail. Same thing with the "If this answered your question, click this link and let others know it was helpful:" link that goes out to other people watching the thread.

You have to read carefully to figure out it's the SECOND link ("You can see the response on the website by using this link:") that you need to click to get back to the thread without marking it as solved or helpful.

This came up before, in another discussion. Is there a bug report on this? Is this something that Crystal (UX) should look at?

the-edmeister said

Or did the "owner" selected the "solved" hyperlink to turn off future emails that a response was posted to their 6 month old (or older) support question?

That's possible, too, or maybe he didn't see or understand that the LAST link in the e-mail notification lets you stop future notifications ("Unsubscribe from these emails:" link).

''the-edmeister [[#post-44833|said]]'' <blockquote> Could the "owner" have been returning to his thread by using the "solved" hyperlink in the most recent email he received? </blockquote> Very likely, since that's the first link in the notification e-mail. Same thing with the "If this answered your question, click this link and let others know it was helpful:" link that goes out to other people watching the thread. You have to read carefully to figure out it's the SECOND link ("You can see the response on the website by using this link:") that you need to click to get back to the thread without marking it as solved or helpful. This came up before, in [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/708028 another discussion]. Is there a bug report on this? Is this something that Crystal (UX) should look at? ''the-edmeister [[#post-44833|said]]'' <blockquote> Or did the "owner" selected the "solved" hyperlink to turn off future emails that a response was posted to their 6 month old (or older) support question? </blockquote> That's possible, too, or maybe he didn't see or understand that the LAST link in the e-mail notification lets you stop future notifications ("Unsubscribe from these emails:" link).

Modified by AliceWyman on January 26, 2012, 10:53:51 PM PST

AliceWyman 6327 posts

January 27, 2012, 2:14:03 AM PST

the-edmeister said

Also, on Tuesday or Wednesday I had a thread open in a Tab that I never closed because I wanted to follow the "discussion" - cor-el and the "owner" were both posting within an hour of each other and every one of cor-els answers was marked as the "solution" until he posted another answer in that thread. One by one each of cor-els answers was marked as the "solution" until cor-el posted another answer - all the way to the conclusion of that discussion, which was pretty long, but not long enough to trigger a 2nd page. Could the "owner" have been returning to his thread by using the "solved" hyperlink in the most recent email he received?

There is something really weird going on. I just added a post to a solved thread, here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/911379 using the link in this article: Fixing Yahoo! Chat & Firefox language

Well after posting additional info and after locking it, I noticed that my reply was marked as the solution! I then "undid" it and went back and marked the correct post as the solution.

''the-edmeister [[#post-44833|said]]'' <blockquote> Also, on Tuesday or Wednesday I had a thread open in a Tab that I never closed because I wanted to follow the "discussion" - '''cor-el''' and the "owner" were both posting within an hour of each other and every one of '''cor-els''' answers was marked as the "solution" until he posted another answer in that thread. One by one each of '''cor-els''' answers was marked as the "solution" until '''cor-el''' posted another answer - all the way to the conclusion of that discussion, which was pretty long, but not long enough to trigger a 2nd page. Could the "owner" have been returning to his thread by using the "solved" hyperlink in the most recent email he received? </blockquote> There is something really weird going on. I just added a post to a solved thread, here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/911379 using the link in this article: [[Fixing Yahoo! chat, Bookmark icons & language]] Well after posting additional info and after locking it, I noticed that my reply was marked as the solution! I then "undid" it and went back and marked the correct post as the solution.

John99 3665 posts

January 27, 2012, 3:07:03 AM PST

the-edmeister said

... As far as Duplicate threads go - all contributors and all moderators need to look for duplicates threads on the first page or two of the main "answers" pages, because once one of the dupes is answered they get split up and are a lot harder to spot and lock. When support contributors come across duplicates postings they should hyperlink ....

DUPLICATE POSTS I suspect ed is addressing the problem where someone - an individual Original Poster - inadvertently or otherwise posts twice, either as an exact duplicate, or a very similar question. (I do try to remember to link/pm when I see such duplicates)

There is a 2nd scenario. I think there are ideas to mark duplicated questions where the duplication is the merely duplication of subject matter (a nightmare to define I suspect) it is this second situation where I have reservations and was wondering what is planned ( I posted a link above, relevant to that proposal https://support.mozilla.org/forums/contributors/707664 ).

''the-edmeister [[#post-44833|said]]'' <blockquote> ... As far as '''Duplicate threads''' go - all contributors and all moderators need to look for duplicates threads on the first page or two of the main "answers" pages, because once one of the dupes is answered they get split up and are a lot harder to spot and lock. When support contributors come across duplicates postings they should hyperlink .... </blockquote> DUPLICATE POSTS I suspect''' ed''' is addressing the problem where someone - an individual Original Poster - inadvertently or otherwise posts twice, either as an exact duplicate, or a very similar question. (I do try to remember to link/pm when I see such duplicates) There is a 2nd scenario. I think there are ideas to mark duplicated questions where the duplication is the merely duplication of subject matter (a nightmare to define I suspect) it is this second situation where I have reservations and was wondering what is planned ( I posted a link above, relevant to that proposal https://support.mozilla.org/forums/contributors/707664 ).

David (satdav) 188 posts

January 28, 2012, 1:15:10 AM PST

get rid of old posts before a year old at times

the-edmeister 603 posts

January 28, 2012, 2:26:55 PM PST

AliceWyman said:

Very likely, since that's the first link in the notification e-mail.

Well, that answers that. The link to mark the thread as Solved It! should be moved down a few notches, the first hyperlink should be for the "owner" to return to the thread they started.

John99,

Sorry about projecting my Duplicate threads rant as a comment for what you were talking - the same subject matter discussed in a different thread or discussed repeatedly in the forum.

My thoughts are that is probably an issue with a Search not being done at all, the user not using the correct words or terms for the search, or the search returning too many irrelevant results which might lead to the user just asking a duplicate question out of frustration.

Searches are one of my weakest skills, but I was able to get the "hang" of searching MozillaZine within a couple of years - first registered there in Nov 2002. But here at SUMO, I still have a weak grasp of doing searches after more than 3 1/2 years; then again, I am almost 10 years older than when I "mastered" MZ searches.

''AliceWyman said:'' <blockquote> Very likely, since that's the first link in the notification e-mail. </blockquote> Well, that answers that. The link to mark the thread as '''Solved It!''' should be moved down a few notches, the first hyperlink should be for the "owner" to return to the thread they started. ------- John99, Sorry about projecting my '''Duplicate threads''' rant as a comment for what you were talking - the '''''same subject matter''''' discussed in a different thread or discussed repeatedly in the forum. My thoughts are that is probably an issue with a Search not being done at all, the user not using the correct words or terms for the search, or the search returning too many irrelevant results which might lead to the user just asking a duplicate question out of frustration. ''Searches are one of my weakest skills, but I was able to get the "hang" of searching MozillaZine within a couple of years - first registered there in Nov 2002. But here at SUMO, I still have a weak grasp of doing searches after more than 3 1/2 years; then again, I am almost 10 years older than when I "mastered" MZ searches.''

John99 3665 posts

January 28, 2012, 8:46:44 PM PST

Ed, perfectly valid comments relavant to this discussion,
those types of duplication you mention are fairly clearcut and an obvious target for locking. As a mod and one of the most prolific posters you will see more of the forum than most & your comments must be highly respected, so thanks for adding to the discussion.

Ed, perfectly valid comments relavant to this discussion, those types of duplication you mention are fairly clearcut and an obvious target for locking. As a mod and one of the most prolific posters you will see more of the forum than most & your comments must be highly respected, so thanks for adding to the discussion.

AliceWyman 6327 posts

January 28, 2012, 8:57:06 PM PST

the-edmeister said

AliceWyman said:
Very likely, since that's the first link in the notification e-mail.

Well, that answers that. The link to mark the thread as Solved It! should be moved down a few notches, the first hyperlink should be for the "owner" to return to the thread they started.

I filed a bug: Bug 722145 - The first link in an email notification should take you to the forum thread without marking the reply as solving the question or being helpful

''the-edmeister [[#post-44869|said]]'' <blockquote> ''AliceWyman said:'' <blockquote> Very likely, since that's the first link in the notification e-mail. </blockquote> Well, that answers that. The link to mark the thread as '''Solved It!''' should be moved down a few notches, the first hyperlink should be for the "owner" to return to the thread they started. </blockquote> I filed a bug: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=722145 Bug 722145 - The first link in an email notification should take you to the forum thread without marking the reply as solving the question or being helpful]

the-edmeister 603 posts

January 29, 2012, 6:10:44 AM PST

Thank you, Alice.

JayGarcia 21 posts

January 30, 2012, 11:17:34 PM PST

On my UFAQ, as long as a thread contains useful information and has run it's course, I always lock rather than eliminate as there is always a user out there that can benefit.

Explore by product

Explore by topic

Browse by product

Browse all forum threads by topic

Get help with

Search Support