🚀 go-pugleaf

In the forum that I most frequently frequent (I think I could have expressed that better...) it happens pretty rarely - and as often as not it's a deliberate action by the originator of the thread, thinking that if he/she posts in several places a reply will be more likely.

As you say, if it can be caught in time, deletion of duplicates is the simple answer - if not, cross-referencing and locking is necessary. I can't think of a feasible way of automating that process after the event, although I know some forum software prevents more than one post being made within a certain time limit to help reduce accidental double-posts to a single thread (which is perhaps a different issue).

There is another possibility, Oz, and that is to move one of the topics into the other.

Dave

Oz, I am talking of double postings to a single forum, which I always understood is mainly accidental. These are fairly frequent in the forums I frequent -no intentional copying of your wording.

Dave, I would hate to be guilty of increasing the burden on the hosts; and in my ignorance, I think that your clever suggestion does.

It sounds like a double-post-preventing lockout might help, if this forum's software provides it. Actually I've done it myself a few times, when a reply gets through from here to there, but the redisplay of the topic doesn't, so it looks like the post hasn't happened. So I send again, this time it does redisplay, and voila, a double post. That problem is as likely to originate at this end as anywhere - but if say 30 seconds had to elapse between posts, then the problem might be reduced regardless of the original cause.

I suspect this subject must have arisen before.

Oz, I like your idea. Let's hope JC also likes it. And now that you mention it, I seem to remember that Tom Geschwender (anyone knows why we no longer appears in his usual forums?) arose the question, but from a different viewpoint, a couple of years ago -or maybe more.

The forum software is supposed to recognize exact duplicates and prevent the second one from posting. I'll test that here by posting this and immediately going back and posting it again.

John

That works. I posted. Hit the back button, clicked Post again and no duplicate. Tried it a third time, still no duplicate post.

I think this also works for topics (as opposed to replies).

The only situation I can think of right now for duplicates is if someone posts the message and walks away from their computer while on the results page from their post. Then they come back some time later and want to see if there are any replies and they hit Refresh. That might resend the post data. I'm not positive on that one, though.

John

Bad news. The filter that prevents two duplicate replies in a row doesn't seem to work for new topics.

John

Yes, it is bad news. Dupplicate topics are frequent in the forums I visit, and they tend to produce parallel threads.

Claudio, I always appreciate if the first person on the scene posts "duplicate topic, please delete this copy" or some such in one of them, so people don't post in both. Then it becomes pretty clear to hosts that it should go away, without a lot of time urgency.

Now that's a good idea. Regular contributors can often help the hosts in ways like that, and it's of course much appreciated.

Dorothy, in several cases I have posted in one of the threads a message saying "please continue this discussion in this other thread; don't post any more messages here", or something like that, and providing of course a link to the other thread. My messages have almost always been ignored.

On the occasions where I see duplicate topics, I trash the one with zero or the fewest posts, moving any replies into the other copy of the topic. But I do appreciate when someone spots this early on and posts something like "Duplicate topic. Please respond in other thread. Thanks!" For me (at least most of the time) that seems to work until I find and deal with the duplicate.

Neil

Neil, I know that hosts can manage double posts/parallel threads as you describe, and even said so in my opening message. I also said I find it unfair to ask hosts to accept this extra burden on their duties. It is to be commended that you have accepted it; but the number of double posts I see in the forums I frequent seems to indicate that you are in a minority. And I wouldn't dream of blaming any host who is in the majority.

My reason for opening this topic was to try to see if there were other ways, not involving hosts, of dealing with this problem. I think Ozpeter's suggestion in message #4 above could be a step in that direction, and wonder if there are others.

By the way, the message you suggest for us regulars to use is much better than the one I have used -I now find that mine is, amongst other things, much too long.

I never found the handling of duplicate threads to be an onerous task. It is one of the easiest chores a host might do. It takes only a minute; the time-consuming aspect of hosting is the reading of the great amount of content, not the moving of an occassional thread.

Of course, there was that time in LiveMotion when a post was accompanied by 16 clones...

I'm with Dirck.

I still remember the time I had to send an urgent e-mail to a user who was creating duplicate topics at a rate of about three a minute, but most of the time it's a flick of the wrist to manage.

It's the reading that takes the time. Not to mention writing the occasional helpful script.

Dave

      Tom Geschwender (anyone knows why we no longer appears in his usual forums?)




My guess is perhaps his persona was a little too.... salty at times; I remember him once telling someone (I paraphrase): "You had better hope that there is never a problem that only I know the answer to, because I'll tell you to pound salt in your... " (I will let you supply the word.) I confess that I do not much miss this sort of language in the forum. (Yes, the person to whom Mr. Geschwender was speaking had been obnoxious, but I still don't think Adobe approves this sort of language these days, even to rude questioners.)

Claudio,

As Dave and Dirck have said, it hasn't been much of a problem do deal with dupes. Thanks for your concern.

Neil

Dave, Dirck, Neil,

Thanks for dealing with them. Unfortunately, not all hosts do, which at times can produce parallel threads, each with several messages. At least, that's the situation in at least some of the forums I frequent.

Claudio,

If the dupes are caught early, it's as simple as deleting them. But it could be that the hosts who frequent those forums missed the dupes until there were a number of responses to both. It happens to all of us. At that point, the decision to move posts from one to the other becomes more complicated, and the combined threads may produce confusing non sequiturs. If that is the case, then leaving the dupes in place might be the better solution.

Neil

Neil,

My idea was to free hosts from having to worry about double postings/threads. Several of you have said that it is very easy to do; unfortunately, it doesn't always work. So my question stands: is there a better way? What about Ozpeter's suggestion in message #4? Any better ways?

Multiple-posting check:
[EDIT: Nevermind]

"My guess is perhaps his persona was a little too.... salty at times"

Uh, I don't think so. Try guessing again. I decided to take a 6 month hiatus from my normal occupation to persue other interests, so I was no longer using the Adobe products and therefore not keeping up-to-date on the changes/improvements or using the latest versions.

I am currently contracting in my former occupation to restock the coffers while still persuing a different career, so I reference the forums here once in a while, and ask questions myself while attempting to get acquainted with the newer versions of both Acrobat and Framemaker.

BTW, I have never been "salty" unless I took a walk on the beach.

(Now you know, Claudio.)

mmm... I've known Tom to be salty. ;) Email me if you like, Tom.

Well, Fr., Tom's absence has been quite notorious. He showed to be a great helper, who seemed to know almost all the answers (if he reads this, he will resent that "almost"). And he was certainly not very polite when he was angry, a not very infrequent occurrence -not sure if that's what the word "salty" implies in the above messages. Here, at least, there is someone who misses him, although it was him who rebuked me on my first visit to these forums for not searching carefully enough if my question had been asked before (it had, and many times).

      not sure if that's what the word "salty" implies in the above messages.




I rather suspect that Dorothy and I might be using the word differently... You are close enough in your interpretation of my useage of the word.