OzBargain Duplicate Rules Need Changing

c0balt on 23/12/2014 - 17:41
Last edited 17/02/2015 - 23:37 by 1 other user

2 weeks ago there was a post that due to the time it was posted or other factors only got 7 upvotes.

Just 30 minutes ago it was re-posted and this time got 22+ upvotes and had many comment chains going on with helpful advice. The last 20 poster hit the report button and within 30 seconds it was as although the deal never existed. All those comments and upvotes vanished into the ether.

So the community missed something on the first listing 2 weeks ago, and then brought it to the front page just 30 minutes ago with a flood of comments coming in.

I find it pretty disgusting that a mod would look at the report filed by that last posted and then just go "DUPLICATE@$#", and then hit the remove button without actually looking at the individual case.

I believe that the mods should show a bit of critical thinking, rather than being literal rule interpretation robots that don't care about the community.

The original link.
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/174305

Sadly the frontpage link with all the comments has been wiped from the internet forever.

Update 17 Feb 2015: Merge function has been added, see here

Poll Options

• 118
  1) The system should be changed.
• 17
  2) The system should not be changed.
• 23
  3) Where the starburst sour snakes at?

• 1
• 2

• • 

    Moderatorneil on 28/12/2014 - 20:14

    The link from the original deal is http://www.computeralliance.com.au/nas/!manufacturer/netgear (pointing to Netgear products).

    The link from the duplicated deal was http://www.computeralliance.com.au/2-bay-netgear-readynas-102-gigabit-nas-unit-pn-rn10200-save-$100-off-rrp (pointing to the exact product).

    The URL was different. If they were the same, the system would flash up a warning that this was a duplicate and you would have to check a box to confirm it is not a duplicate.

    However, since the title was similar to the original deal as well as the domain, the following warning would have come up:

    Please make sure that you are not trying to post a duplicate of any of these previous posts:

    NetGear RN102 Two Bay NAS $99 Four Bay $199 Pick-up (or +Shipping) @ Computer Alliance

    You can test it yourself, go to Submit Deal

    Enter the title as "NetGear READYNAS 102 2 Bay Gigabit NAS $99 (Plus Postage or Free Pickup)"
    and URL as "http://www.computeralliance.com.au/2-bay-netgear-readynas-102-gigabit-nas-unit-pn-rn10200-save-$100-off-rrp"

    Obviously don't submit the deal. ;)

    For clarity, the OP of this thread is not the OP of the duplicated deal.

    • 

      Freighter on 28/12/2014 - 20:54

      Okay excellent. I thought it may just be a stupid oversight by the admins

• 

  Moderatorhamza23 on 17/02/2015 - 23:36

  Just to update this, Scotty rolled out the merge function this morning. Should a duplicate post be made that contains helpful/important comments, moderators now have the ability to merge that new thread into the existing/original thread before unpublishing it. This function can also be used in forum posts where a user has created a topic on something that already exists.

  You can see an example of this function here

  A duplicate post was made on the 11/2/15 of that thread, both the original post and the 4 comments below the original post were merged into the original before that duplicate post was unpublished. This isn't something that will be used everytime a duplicate is posted with comments, only duplicate posts with relevant comments will be merged. If the duplicate post contains relevant/useful information then a moderator will simply update the original post, no need to merge unless comments are wanting to be preserved.

  Of course the main aim as always is not to submit duplicate posts and we'll continue to try to reduce these from being posted with warnings and automated checks.

  Thanks to all who provided feedback on this matter.

  • 

    tightarse on 17/02/2015 - 23:47

    Very nice. Thanks scotty & hamza.

    Just a thought… would it help to have the newly merged thread in different font colour?

• 1
• 2