Perhaps if people see the effect of using ambiguous topics then
they'll be more specific next time. On my neighborhood group a
topic of "Lost dog" may or may not be a brand new topic.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I do support Mark's change to make the web and email interfaces
behave the same. Regardless of whether it's a new topic or threaded
to an old topic, it's less confusing when the two routes give the
On 12/18/18 3:41 PM, Barbara Byers
I think it's fine the way it was.
I know it's happened a few different times that folks in my
group may have used the same topic name as a previous post
unintentionally, where you would NOT want it threaded on to the
previous posts. Something like "Action Alert" or "Meeting
tomorrow". Yes it's sloppy naming because it isn't very
specific, but I would agree with you, if someone posted it as a
NEW Topic post, then I would also assume they did it
intentionally. I guess I always assumed I would use a reply
function if I wanted the post to be in the same thread. But
On 2018-12-18 12:23 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Currently, members can start an
infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this
be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an
already existing topic be threaded into that topic?
If you're referring to messages posted via the website,
then this was by design. The thought process being that
someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely
wanted a new topic. This was different than messages
received via email, where we did try to merge them into
I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic
via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received
an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent
topic of the same name.