Ideas Keep getting Buried. Merge “Old Posts” into Newer Posts “If you Must continue the Practice “of merging.

  • 6
  • Idea
  • Updated 3 weeks ago
  • (Edited)

TechSmith merges feature requests quite often. It’s problematic
for a handful of reasons. I’m addressing 1 such reason today.

Newer posts are getting buried in ancient to semi-ancient posts. Nullifying the members input and the reason for their existence.

 I was looking for some feedback I read in the past. The topic? The Copy All button in SnagIt.

 When you click it, it does absolutely nothing. It just sits there laughing at you. Well, not really {:>)

You have no Idea if you copied all or not. The button doesn’t change color, shrink momentarily, nothing.

A new feature request regarding it was posted the other day. That’s what prompted my search. It seems the bulk of the feedback I read? Is now merged in a 4+ year old post.   https://feedback.techsmith.com/techsmith/topics/-copy-all-button-provides-no-visual-feedback

There were 3 such merged posts dating back just 1 year. You would have to scroll to the bottom of the page to see them. There’s others as well.

It required a deep dive to find it. It didn’t appear in the column of related conversations where it should be. The one that appears to the right of the feature request I was reading.



The title of a Merged Request? Should be simple and to the point. Re-worded if required.

 If a new request falls outside the bounds of the title in any respect. It should not be merged.



Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 9080 Posts
  • 4786 Reply Likes
  • Like this will fall on deaf ears

Posted 3 weeks ago

  • 6
Photo of LateralNw

LateralNw

  • 119 Posts
  • 32 Reply Likes
@Joe
Hi Joe you are still kicking the old bucket I see.
As you might have noticed I don't visit as often as new people asking for the same old stuff or complaining about the same old stuff.
I get notifications but I delete almost all of them as nothing seems to have changed.
I'm sure the staff on the ground try their best but while they insist on using this type of forum they are just creating headaches for themselves.

I suggested a different system but I guess there is some reason they stick with this one.

All the best.

(Edited)
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 9080 Posts
  • 4786 Reply Likes
Well, you can sit in silence.
Or, not.
Personally, I've never seen this topic addressed in the past.
Merging has come up, but not reversing the order date of merging.
(Edited)
Photo of rsporn1014

rsporn1014

  • 67 Posts
  • 28 Reply Likes
Joe, i am a fan of yours because you do kick the bucket!  the only way things on this forum will change is because of comments being placed on it keep coming in. i do agree that the method they use to log and categorize them makes no sense and difficult to follow if you are looking for a possible answer to something that has already been addressed.  It is becoming more obvious to me that this forum is a place to allow people to vent about issues and they occasionally take the issue and do something with it but you will never know because there is no system in place that will allow you to track whether the issue was taken up for action. or just allow to fall into the labyrinth with all the rest. 
Photo of Daniel Foster

Daniel Foster, Snagit strategy lead

  • 970 Posts
  • 233 Reply Likes
I won't defend the affordances of the platform; it stopped being actively developed years ago when Get Satisfaction was acquired and so has not evolved to be best in class, sadly. 

But merging posts is a practice I will continue to advocate for because it is pro-customer. Here's why: 90% of forum visitors arrive via a search (e.g., google); 5% enter direct; less than 3% of visitors ever visit the "front page." So it makes more sense to optimize the site content for search because that is the dominant information-seeking behavior. When a search turns up 5-10 duplicate threads that may or may not contain up-to-date information...that is not serving customers well, as they must wander through the "labyrinth" to try and find a reliable answer. Nobody has time for that.

Also worth noting that the original post date has no correlation to that post's visibility in the community. Search will turn up old posts and new posts. And for the 3% of visitors who do go to the front page of the community, old and new posts show up equally since the default view is sorted by recency of activity...not recency of original post. That's why you see "6 hours ago" next to "3 years ago" in the list.

Ideally, there would be 1 canonical thread per topic, re-titled for clarity (if the original title was unclear), updated with the latest help info/link to content/response/request for additional details from a volunteer moderator or a TechSmith employee.

Arguments could be made for merging older posts into newer ones. But the way the platform works is that comments and replies on the post that is "retained" are much more visible than comments and replies on the post that is "merged." So it has always felt more pro-customer to retain the old thread, as a general rule of thumb, because it tends to have a lot more replies and context. It feels wrong to bury that history of interaction. And it also feels wrong to potentially obscure the date of the original post/request/question since that can be a valuable marker for the visitor. 

During the periods in my 13 years at TechSmith that we've put the most investment into the community we've trained and reinforced norms among the rotating crew of TechSmith "volunteer" moderators to merge duplicate posts quickly before they generate a lot of replies that will get buried through merging. But doing that takes a lot of constant vigilance which has frankly not proven to be sustainable for us. So maybe we should re-think the approach and make it more of a norm to merge the old posts into the new one. Worth a conversation, for sure; thank you for raising the topic. I hope I've been able to shed some light on the data and reasoning that has informed our approach to date.
Photo of rsporn1014

rsporn1014

  • 67 Posts
  • 28 Reply Likes
Daniel, I do appreciate the enlightenment you've provided. For those of us that are in the 5%, it would be interesting to understand what % of visits are related to 1. Adding functionality that is not yet there, 2. Modifying functionality that already exists. Having a robust feedback/solutions center must provide some value that is worth investing in for Tech smith with continued new product development and current software issues that may not be realized in Beta testing. 

 As has been raised in previous posts, most long time "daily" users of Snag-it love the simplicity of the product and do not always need the new functionality that comes with each years upgrade as It usually brings unwanted changes to specific functionality that is in previous versions but, as years pass by and you avoid making the upgrade, you suffer with ongoing support of older versions.  (just one example of one issue)  Thanks:-)>