[Admin PC]

Could I suggest having a 'split thread' request, for when discussion has veered away from the original topic in/over multiple posts. Maybe as one of the options on the report to mod drop-down. Sometimes whilst the posts may be little to do with the original subject they can still be worthy of discussion.

Thanks for the suggestion.

The 'Report' option is sometimes used to request that a thread be split. We've now added an option specifically for that purpose.

[Humphrey Hacker]

Thanks for the suggestion.

The 'Report' option is sometimes used to request that a thread be split. We've now added an option specifically for that purpose.

A good idea. Threads regularly get overloaded with some good views which don't belong in the initial thread such as the BSB one.


I'd like to make a request.  Could a mini-encyclopaedia be created like a mini-wiki of acronyms, abbreviations etc and a brief history of various companies etc?

[Neil Jones]

A good idea. Threads regularly get overloaded with some good views which don't belong in the initial thread such as the BSB one.


I'd like to make a request.  Could a mini-encyclopaedia be created like a mini-wiki of acronyms, abbreviations etc and a brief history of various companies etc?

Why?
Just do what everybody else does and Google something you don't get Or ask.

Company histories (by this I presume you mean the ITV companies and the indies and what not) are already documented elsewhere and are usually only a Google away.

[Humphrey Hacker]

Why?
Just do what everybody else does and Google something you don't get   Or ask.

Company histories (by this I presume you mean the ITV companies and the indies and what not) are already documented elsewhere and are usually only a Google away.

What I was thinking was that many users may not understand some of the technical terminology. The history of the companies is well known. I was thinking of the forum becoming something of a reference site as well.

[TIGHazard]

Why?
Just do what everybody else does and Google something you don't get   Or ask.

Company histories (by this I presume you mean the ITV companies and the indies and what not) are already documented elsewhere and are usually only a Google away.

Didn't TVF have a feature where some acronyms were underlined, and if you put the mouse over them, it explained what they meant?

Granted of course that place was custom coded so probably can't be done here.

[Neil Jones]

It did but IIRC it went out of date for some reason I can't remember why, and by the end still had a tooltip saying a programme or strand or whatever it was came from a studio/arrangement that hadn't existed for quite some time.

[Humphrey Hacker]

It did but IIRC it went out of date for some reason I can't remember why, and by the end still had a tooltip saying a programme or strand or whatever it was came from a studio/arrangement that hadn't existed for quite some time.

Yes, something like that. Obviously it wouldn't need to be the Encyclopaedia Britannica but just a quick explainer.

[Frappé]

Just a friendly request back for posters at the moment to help, which is why it's only mentioned here in the feedback thread for now. But when posting links to a tweet which is itself just a link to a fuller article, we'd really appreciate it if people look to post the link to the article directly if possible, obviously still making sure to follow the forum rule around always providing some context/discussion around any link being posted. For example rather than:-

BBC Press release:-
twitter.com 

This same thing would be better using the linked article from inside the tweet and shared on the forum as:-

It's been announced by BBC Press Office that the biggest broadcasters are developing a new free TV service:-
www.bbc.co.uk 

The UK's leading public service broadcasters set to evolve free TV for the s…
New service from UK PSBs will deliver live free TV via IP
  Source: www.bbc.co.uk

This is not something we're actively enforcing anything on, however given the ongoing ambiguity over how much longer Twitter/X could last or whether they may even start breaking things like tweet embedding, whenever it's easy enough to skip that intermediate tweet which adds little and send people directly to their main article it will mean the links to the information should be safer longer term helping everyone. This of course only works on tweets which include a link to an article, usually the case with big news and press release accounts, and not anything without a link or more general social media posts.

Many thanks

[SuperSajuuk]

While I appreciate that the edit limits were brought in to deal with abuse by users who presumably are no longer members of this site, they now impact on actual users in various ways. For example, I posted something in a thread and now want to redact its contents by striking it out [as I was informed that I was incorrect in what I wrote], however I cannot do so because the post is several hours old and the edit limit is apparently tiny. Could the admins please review this policy, and perhaps add in a role or user group that grants unlimited access to editing messages to trusted users that haven't abused the feature?

[bilky asko]

While I appreciate that the edit limits were brought in to deal with abuse by users who presumably are no longer members of this site, they now impact on actual users in various ways. For example, I posted something in a thread and now want to redact its contents by striking it out [as I was informed that I was incorrect in what I wrote], however I cannot do so because the post is several hours old and the edit limit is apparently tiny. Could the admins please review this policy, and perhaps add in a role or user group that grants unlimited access to editing messages to trusted users that haven't abused the feature?

It's a factual error that was corrected in discussion, so what's the need to edit the original post?