Add feature request

[Crypto-DesignService]

I want to suggest if we can have an option 'Add user' where the added person can edit the content of a thread. Make a limit of 2-3 persons maybe?
-solves the problem where useful threads gets buried and duplicated.
-helps to sort similar guidelines without making a duplicated thread just to update the old one.
I also like to suggests a mandatory monthly bump for useful threads to make it visible for newcomers and give it a better publicity to inform beginners around the forum.Once implemented, make one thread consists of all the guidelines which can be updated to it's latest information. Pin the thread.


Staff should also have the power to add users if the person who created the thread is no longer around the forum so they can just add the name of the person who request to update the old thread.

One problem that may exist whenever this is implemented is the distribution of merit. It gets a bit complicated when the thread is merited but I think my suggestion is more beneficial than the problem that may occur. I would like to know your suggestions on how are we going to distribute the merits.

Also a 'View Edit History' on top-right of the OP(beside Merit), to solve threads that may possibly go exit-scam and removes any possible evidence/proofs about their crime.

[FleurTunisienne]

Thanks for your initiative OP.

I think it's a very good feature.
I don't know if it's technically possible, but we can simply add the merit received to the main creator or disabling the merit reward for multi-editors threads.
After all, this should be queued as priority task in Theymos task-list.
I don't expect anybody to disagree with this feature as it really solves some important issues.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

It's a great suggestion. There are some threads i have seen that are good but the topics have never been updated due to the unavailability of the author.

Staff should also have the power to add users if the person who created the thread is no longer around the forum so they can just add the name of the person who request to update the old thread.

There is a problem with this part. I don't think adding another person without permission from the original author would be wise. This could only be done if the original author gives green light.

[Jet Cash]

It's an interesting concept. I'd like to make a couple of preliminary points - too much emphasis is being given to merits. Obtaining merits is not the main purpose of membership of the Bitcoin Talk forum. They have been around long enough now to have become just a part of the normal flow of the forum, and I think this is best. I'm not a fan of necro-bumping,and I think new threads with links should be created, rather than bumping an old topic. A change that some may consider warrants a bump, should be significant enough to warrant a new thread of ots own.

The suggestion in the OP would be ideal for forum projects. Very often worthwhile projects die because they are dependent on one member. Allowing a small group to maintain the project would enable it to be kept within the forum. My Fit to Talk project is one example of this.

[Crypto-DesignService]

Staff should also have the power to add users if the person who created the thread is no longer around the forum so they can just add the name of the person who request to update the old thread.

There is a problem with this part. I don't think adding another person without permission from the original author would be wise. This could only be done if the original author gives green light.

I think you missed the bold part. That power is only limited when OP is no longer around the forum and someone wants to modify the old thread to update it.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Staff should also have the power to add users if the person who created the thread is no longer around the forum so they can just add the name of the person who request to update the old thread.

There is a problem with this part. I don't think adding another person without permission from the original author would be wise. This could only be done if the original author gives green light.

I think you missed the bold part. That power is only limited when OP is no longer around the forum and someone wants to modify the old thread to update it.

I was referring to circumstances where someone leaves the forum for say 2 years abruptly but left behind some good posts and then comes back only to find that his posts have been edited/updated by someone he didn't approve who was added by staff. Don't you think it can create collisions?

In my opinion, staff should only add someone if the original author gives green light that in the event he is away for some time... staff can add person X or person Y to update his/her posts

[LoyceV]

One problem that may exist whenever this is implemented is the distribution of merit.

A much bigger problem will be the distribution of bans if one of the users commits plagiarism. If you want to share posts with several users, you can just create a shared account which you all have access to.

Staff should also have the power to add users if the person who created the thread is no longer around the forum so they can just add the name of the person who request to update the old thread.

If I ever leave this forum, I wouldn't want other users to gain edit-access to my topics. I would suggest to lock the topic and create a new one (with proper references).

[DdmrDdmr]

On my local board I commented something of the kind with the moderator. It turns out that the forum rules translation post is outdated by a year, and the OP has been inactive for quite some time. There is no way to update the thread.

The case still bears no solution, and rather than a shared ownership of a thread, perhaps a transfer of a thread could be a solution (obviously with a trace). It should be delimited, and probably be something rather exceptional that would require the approval (or action) of a moderator.

In addition, recently, our local board moderator translated the account recovery procedure. I had already translated it months ago myself, but of course, it was not turned into a sticky. The moderator and I talked about it, and eventually conveyed to lock mine, add a link to his, and make his a sticky. He could have pondered making mine a sticky, but I do think that important translations related to forum rules and announcements, should “belong” to the forum, being a moderator the closest you can get now to that concept.

[The Cryptovator]

I don't think this is necessary. If moderators/staff/user can add other user to edit thread then they can also edit thread. It's not fair option that you will able to edit my thread although I am inactive. I don't see any point why should allow third party to edit my post. So many questions will raise on future. That's why moderators are not able to moderate likely scam or conformed scam.

I am not supporting your idea.

[o_e_l_e_o]

On my local board I commented something of the kind with the moderator. It turns out that the forum rules translation post is outdated by a year, and the OP has been inactive for quite some time. There is no way to update the thread.

I think the best solution in that case would be to lock (if not already) and un-sticky the thread that exists, and re-sticky a brand new one from an active account who will keep it up to date, and include a short statement in the new thread providing credit to the old one/old OP.

We don't allow users to delete their threads, because that gives them power over content which is not theirs, as all the comments on the thread would be deleted too. If we don't give users deleting power over other users, I don't think we should give them editing power either, which has the potential to be far more damaging.

[bones261]

Staff should also have the power to add users if the person who created the thread is no longer around the forum so they can just add the name of the person who request to update the old thread.

If I ever leave this forum, I wouldn't want other users to gain edit-access to my topics. I would suggest to lock the topic and create a new one (with proper references).

Theymos tried to do just that to the WO thread a couple of years back and the WO regulars were not happy about the situation.  Theymos ended up giving the WO thread a new OP to self moderate it. However, the Wo thread is somewhat of an outlier. I'm not certain staff should be stepping in and making this a habit.

[vit05]

It is important to say that Mods could edit any post in the sections they moderate. But they only do this if necessary. I think this options suggested by OP could be useful in some sections as altcoin announcement.

[UserU]

Would this affect Merits in any way? Say if there are 3 authors, 1 Merit would be given to all or the user gets to choose? Won't it be unfair if the OP only gets the credit while the others contributed their share?

[Crypto-DesignService]

A much bigger problem will be the distribution of bans if one of the users commits plagiarism. If you want to share posts with several users, you can just create a shared account which you all have access to.

Is it possible to add on 'View Edit History' the person who edited the thread along with the timestamp? To know who is responsible for a plagiarized content.

...transfer of a thread could be a solution (obviously with a trace).

Thread transfer is also a good thing to carry out useful comments/post.

Would this affect Merits in any way? Say if there are 3 authors, 1 Merit would be given to all or the user gets to choose? Won't it be unfair if the OP only gets the credit while the others contributed their share?

I am thinking if it should be 1author:1merit or 3 authors:merit. If we make it 1:1 there is a high chance that the feature gets abused. Since users can just add people who they know privately and use the feature as a front to obtain merit.
3:1, I don't think merit with decimals is accepted.

After reading your comments, I came to think that it is better to remove the power of the stuff to add users with the OP's thread and remain that power only for the OP. So only OP can add who's the user he want to share the thread with.