# Satisfied thread opener



## Talant

Hi,

I would like to suggest a new feature. Sometimes I open a thread and, quickly, my question is perfectly answered. Other times, it takes longer and the answers never fully satisfy my needs. It's clear that every user has the same problem.

So, people looking at threads can see some where their contribution is not so needed, and other where it would be greatly appreciated. But they just can't tell which is which.

Is it possible to let the thread opener put a flag, mark or something to say "This thread is no longer urgent/necessary/..." I don't mean closing it, as someone might want to ask something about the same words or question, but to help the users to discriminate between active questions and answered ones.

Thanks


----------



## kittykate

Sounds very good to me. Great idea 

caterina


----------



## TrentinaNE

This suggestion has been raised -- and declined -- before.  Searching the C&S archives for threads with the word "answered" in the title will take you to a few of the relevant discussions, including this one.  

Elisabetta


----------



## kittykate

It’s got to have something to do with me: whatever I think is a good idea, someone else has already discussed – and rejected... 

In fact, I went through Talant’s post quite carelessly and now having read it again I have to admit that I don’t like the idea of ticking a thread that’s been “satisfactorily” answered. 
However, I would certainly like it if there were a way for a thread starter to advertise that his/her thread hasn’t been answered at all, like this one, which sits on page 12 of the IE forum. 

You can’t bump it, you can’t ask the same question again and those of us who browse previous pages to check for any unanswered thread will not consider this one as it already has 2 replies – but, in fact, no answer.

caterina


----------



## TrentinaNE

Actually, kittykate, the poster can "bump" a thread after a reasonable amount of time without an answer (like more than 24 hours). Or you or I can "bump it" -- I've done that a few times recently for threads that have gone unanswered. Or the poster can use "report a post" to bring it to the moderators' attention. 

One thing is for sure: "regular" posters need to get over the idea that a thread with 2 responses isn't worth looking at. Too many threads in IT-EN are not getting adequate attention these days.  

Elisabetta


----------



## cuchuflete

There is some discussion going on about ways thread starters might tag their threads to indicate that additional help is needed and invited.  For now, just add background and context, and specify exactly what further help is needed.


----------



## kittykate

TrentinaNE said:


> Or you or I can "bump it" -- I've done that a few times recently for threads that have gone unanswered. Or the poster can use "report a post" to bring it to the moderators' attention.


 
Yes, Elisabetta, I do that too. However I don't know how many, especially new members, know about the 24-hour+ chance or can think of using the report-a-post feature for further attention 



cuchuflete said:


> There is some discussion going on about ways thread starters might tag their threads to indicate that additional help is needed and invited.


 
Wow, that would be nice. 
Thank you both.

caterina


----------



## TimLA

TrentinaNE said:


> One thing is for sure: "regular" posters need to get over the idea that a thread with 2 responses isn't worth looking at. Too many threads in IT-EN are not getting adequate attention these days.


 
This is a tough one.
I get up in the morning and spend most of my time just answering "zeros" (as I call them) in IE
(just to bump them, even though I may have a lame answer)
I usually start back on page 5, and on busy days, even page 8.
Then I look at titles for interesting ones, then I look at the posters' names to help "friends",
then one after another...VERY time consuming.

But I'm not sure I agree with adding a tag that says "stop" or "not done yet".
Many threads I see are clearly NOT done, yet the primary poster seems satisfied.
Other threads are CLEARLY answered, and yet the primary poster is asking for "native" opinions or "other" opinions
(they get added to my 'ignore' list - it's quite long...)

Being fundamentally stodgy, I'd vote for no change...


----------



## danielfranco

And there's always the possibility that a thread opener might be completely satisfied with a wrong answer, or a localism, or a neologism, or some other -ism, and further contributions might actually be beneficial for "natives" (both those who actually know the language, and those who only speak it) and for learners (beginner through advanced) alike.

D


----------



## Kelly B

You can find zero reply threads quickly by changing the Display Options on the language forum main page to Sorted by: Number of Replies; Sort order: Ascending; From the: Last Day (or whatever time frame interests you.) That isn't a general answer to the problem, by any means, but at least you can find the ones that haven't received any replies at all.


----------



## Nanon

Another problem is that when the starter of a topic says _"thanks for your replies but it's not exactly what I need -- anything else please?"_ or _"this was great but are there any other suggestions?"_ his/her name will appear last so people who don't open the thread will believe the question has been fully answered.

So... should we refrain from thanking?


----------



## Moon Palace

Nanon said:


> Another problem is that when the starter of a topic says _"thanks for your replies but it's not exactly what I need -- anything else please?"_ or _"this was great but are there any other suggestions?"_ his/her name will appear last so people who don't open the thread will believe the question has been fully answered.
> 
> So... should we refrain from thanking?



I fully agree with Nanon, and to such an extent that I sometimes refrain from thanking people too early so as to let others take part in the discussion, and I believe this is a main flaw since people who have answered may feel I am not very grateful, whereas if I do, then I fall in the trap and sort of close the thread myself, whereas I would have liked more input maybe. 

It would be really interesting to find a way of signalling that the thread can be the focus of more interest on the part of other foreros.


----------



## TimLA

I posted this comment in the wrong thread, now it's right. (Thanks Cuchu!)

I originally wasn't strongly supportive of this concept, but I may have had a change of mind based on another forum.

I recently installed Windows 7, and had some problems.
Microsoft referred me to a Windows 7 forum HERE. (Microscoft TechNet)

They have an option of the thread originator being able to check a box that posts a green check where our "letters" are,
indicating that the person feels that the question has been adequately answered.

You can still make posts after the green check (in case it really hasn't been answered adequately.

But it may be a moot point if vBulletin doesn't have that feature.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks TimLA,

I had a look at that forum, and it is not vB.  Given the numbers next to the icons, it appears that all users can "vote", rather than just the thread starter.







Unanswered Thread





Answered Thread


Here is an example from the index page:



> 243 Threads1072 Messages
> 
> 
> 165
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 39
> 
> 
> Windows 7 Networking
> Use this forum to discuss networking in Windows 7.
> last reply by thumper001 6 minutes ago


----------



## jonquiliser

Nanon said:


> Another problem is that when the starter of a topic says _"thanks for your replies but it's not exactly what I need -- anything else please?"_ or _"this was great but are there any other suggestions?"_ his/her name will appear last so people who don't open the thread will believe the question has been fully answered.
> 
> So... should we refrain from thanking?



A suggestion: right now, when moving the pointer over a thread title, you see part of the message. On the right, there's the little arrow enabling you to go straight to the last message. Would it be possible to program this so that the text of the last message would appear? Like that, you'd know without opening the thread whether the person said "thanks" only, or asked something more.


----------

