Admins renaming topics?

Members have suggested there needs to be a way for admins to mark topics as completed, or found, or no longer apposite. This makes sense, but it suggests a very complicated feature.

Instead, here's my proposal:

1. Group admins can rename topics freely and completely. Presumably they'll use this to add "FOUND" or whatever is necessary.
2. The topic itself will have the original name listed in small type, or whatever, so members know the name was changed.

What do you think?

👍

>1 timspalding:

Excellent!

It can be very useful indeed.

Yes, please. I've already had a member in a group I'm now administering who asked if I could correct a typo he made in the title of his topic. Being able to do that would be helpful, even above and beyond the obvious usefulness of being able to indicate "FOUND" or "SOLVED" in the groups who generate those sorts of request threads.

In favour.

In case of abuse, can the thread title be reverted to the original by staff or by other admins?

I think this is useful, although possibly more prone to thoughtless overuse than the other added powers. (What is the reason for not also giving this power to whoever started a thread? I know we've had that discussion several times in RSI.)

It doesn't entirely replace the use case for closing threads, though - i.e. https://www.librarything.com/topic/95602#n7417790 and https://www.librarything.com/topic/329521#n7417596 - the problem is often that people already aren't following instructions - but being able to add a big CLOSED to thread topics will certainly help!

I'm not sure why it's complicated compared to the other powers? Most forum/messageboard systems have a way of closing a thread to new posts (And you already do that, on a technical level, with threads in archived groups.) I don't think there needs to be a complicated set of options, just an ability for an admin to stop people from continuing to post on a thread; they can explain why in a mod post before they close it, or in a thread title edit, if they want to.

>7 melannen: Suppose someone starts a thread titled List Your Favorite Books and after several people respond changes it to List Your Most Despised Books. I guess the idea is that a group admin can be trusted not to pull a dirty trick like that.

>8 jjwilson61: I guess that makes sense! Although an admin could do that too, and I'm not sure it'd really be that much of a problem, since people can also edit their posts.

>9 melannen: Not the thread titles though once the first 10 minutes pass. :) Which is why this will be useful - so admins can assist members who need renames (among other good reasons to have it).

>6 Petroglyph: Yes, although this would be an admin decision. Unless it's REALLY abused, we're not going to interfere.

I think this is useful, although possibly more prone to thoughtless overuse than the other added powers. (What is the reason for not also giving this power to whoever started a thread? I know we've had that discussion several times in RSI.)

You can change the title in the first hour, I think. Anyway, it's a time period. We could up that. Or we could drop it entirely. I'm just worried, because people get used to topic titles, so it's disruptive if they change, or change too much.

This is a useful addition. I can't tell you how many times people forget to change the thread number on continuations in some groups and wish they could change it themselves! To be able to have an administrator do it is a great compromise. There's a misspelling in one topic name that's been driving me crazy in one of my groups!

>11 timspalding: Titles can be changed for the first 10 minutes. As admin of the 75 Book Challenge group, I get on order half a dozen requests a year for help changing a title due to misspelling or forgetting to update a sequence number. More happen, but most know I can’t help. Upping the time allotted would help, but most of these get discovered after folks re-visit a thread after hours or days. This would really helpful.

Yeah, I'm really really leery of letting thread-starters change titles once someone else has posted. There's too much possibility for mischief.

>14 lorax:

Right now it's timed. Someone corrected me--it's 10m. I could make it longer. But I don't think that solves the problem here, and I don't want to make it infinite.

The important thing is not the length of time, but whether or not it has been answered. Once others are participating in the topic they will expect it to be labelled as they first saw it. An admin correcting spelling or adding (found!) is one thing. Someone else - OP or not - changing the subject line after several messages have been added is very questionable.

timspalding (#15):

Right now it's timed. Someone corrected me--it's 10m. I could make it longer.

Honestly, I think 10 minutes is too long and would be happier with five. All you need is an ohnosecond to catch a typo, and beyond that it just creates confusion at best.

>17 lorax: And that's especially true now that you can ask the admin to fix a typo that you didn't see immediately.

>17 lorax:

Meh. People type slowly. 10 is enough time to start a thread, go get a cup of coffee and then realize it's wrong :)

>19 timspalding: I agree. Five minutes is too fast, especially for members with slow internet, AD(H)D, young children, a cat whose additions might not be noticed until a few clicks after a petting session, etc.