# Links to merged threads



## Outsider

I've noticed that if a link to a thread is made, and the thread is later merged with another one, the link sometimes stops working. (Recent example: the thread linked here was merged with the one linked here yesterday. Now, only the second link works.)

It would be nice if something could be done to prevent this.


----------



## Nunty

I agree, Outsider, and it drives me crazy. As far as I know (which isn't very far at all) this has something to do with the IDs of the threads in the data base. The last time I asked about it there didn't seem to be anything that could be done.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Outsider said:


> I've noticed that if a link to a thread is made, and the thread is later merged with another one, the link sometimes stops working. (Recent example: the thread linked here was merged with the one linked here yesterday. Now, only the second link works.)
> 
> It would be nice if something could be done to prevent this.


I'm not too sure I get what you mean, but if I do I believe there's no bug or malfunction, as each thread has its progressive number.

If I merge the thread A (# 5000) with the thread B (#556433) the resulting thread's number will be 5000, that is to say the thread B no longer exists.
If you follow that logic, how could a link to a thread (thread B) which doesn't exist any more still be valid?


----------



## fenixpollo

Outsider is suggesting that somebody come up with a creative solution to this problem, Paul. For example, the url that ends with /showthread.php?t=556433 currently says "invalid link", because that thread no longer exists. But instead, that url could be instructed to redirect to the url of the merged thread (the one that ends with t=5000).


----------



## Paulfromitaly

fenixpollo said:


> Outsider is suggesting that somebody come up with a creative solution to this problem, Paul. For example, the url that ends with /showthread.php?t=556433 currently says "invalid link", because that thread no longer exists. But instead, that url could be instructed to redirect to the url of the merged thread (the one that ends with t=5000).


It doesn't sound like something doable to me, but let's see if Wonder Mike K. can blow us all away one more time


----------



## Outsider

Thank you for all the replies. I acknowledge that this may not be feasible given the software currently in use in the forums, but even so it might be a feature to look for in future updates.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

I believe it's very hard to implement a procedure which should be able to:
- Detect that there's a link in a post;
- Update it, once the threads are merged.

Easier said than done


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Paulfromitaly said:


> I believe it's very hard to implement a procedure which should be able to:
> - Detect that there's a link in a post;
> - Update it, once the threads are merged.
> 
> Easier said than done


I agree, but a redirect feature wouldn't need to know if there were any links to a deleted thread, it would simply need a 'pointer' (presumably in the database) from the deleted thread to the merged one. Thus, any links pointing to the deleted thread would get redirected to the merged one. If a merged thread can have double ID numbers in the database, then maybe an automatic redirect should be possible, but if each thread and post must have a unique ID #, it doesn't look feasible. 

In any case, asking moderators to consider any existing links to deleted or merged threads seems asking a bit too much, in my opinion... While threads are active, any dead links will soon be discovered, and the OP will simply have to amend or delete the dead link. After all, every poster is responsible for their own posts, right? This includes any links you include in your posts, be it external or to other threads in this forum. Since this site builds on collaboration, why not collaborate by reporting dead links to the posters themselves by PM and let them deal with it? If the thread is active, I imagine the poster should respond fairly quickly. If they don't, then use the reporting feature to get moderator attention.

Alternatively, if you link to individual posts rather than complete threads, the link should still work even if the post is moved from one thread to another...

/Wilma


----------



## fenixpollo

Wilma_Sweden said:


> While threads are active, any dead links will soon be discovered, and the OP will simply have to amend or delete the dead link. After all, every poster is responsible for their own posts, right?


Great idea, but the forum software is set so that you can only edit your posts for a limited time frame.  After a few hours, the "edit" button disappears and only a moderator can remove/change a dead link.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

fenixpollo said:


> Great idea, but the forum software is set so that you can only edit your posts for a limited time frame.  After a few hours, the "edit" button disappears and only a moderator can remove/change a dead link.


How many are 'a few hours'? 24 hours? less? (my oldest editable post is around 21 hours old). If the thread is currently active, posters are likely to monitor responses frequently. New and active threads are more likely to get merged with old threads than the other way around, so chances are that any merging takes place while it's still active and everyone participating are still able to edit. If not, then sure, yes, you'd have to see a mod about it.

I guess my point is that users should be aware that links are not permanent, so 'this thread' + link is perhaps not the most exact reference to another post on the forum... http://dummy.com/Would it be possible to have the 'add link' button suggest a text for the link in addition to the link itself, i.e. popping up a second dialogue box asking for a descriptive text for the link? It may get users to stop and think, if nothing else...?

/Wilma


----------

