multiple solution

[Vaibhav]

Hi!

Posting my first idea/suggestion, after knowing that this is possible.

Wrote this query and then found out this forum (feedback on NI discussion forum), and I was forced to find this out because the LabVIEW suggestions category just won't accept my "NI Discussion Forums" tag. And when arrived here, I found that Laura has already started a thread to declare the new feature of "marking solutions" and the thread already has the point that I am raising here. 

The situation is exactly as Mathan has explained in that thread. Today, I started a thread and within minutes I got replies. The first reply I got, had an answer I wanted to know. But that wasn't enough. Actually, at that moment, I didn't realize that this is not enough, and I clicked on "Accept Solution" and minutes later I found that I wanted something more too. Not that the first answer was not the solution, it WAS a solution, but for one of the issues. And for another aspect of my question, there was another answer after few hours.

I would like to give "solution" credits to both the posts, since they solved two different aspects of my questions.

I am not talking about giving multiple "solution" credits to multiple responses that emerge after the original query is solved. 😉 I know, I have a habit to touch some old thread and start some fresh discussion with my similar query. I am not talking about this. But genuinely, if a query has 2 or more aspects and if they are handled in two different responses, then there should be two (or for that matter, more) "solution accepted" tags.

There is a "revoke solution tag" (or something similar) option, but it doesn't allow to give multiple "solution" credits.

[Vaibhav]

I started this thread anyways, because the thread in which it was originally discussed, is about the new feature of marking solutions and eventually turned to the tricks and tips of how to bring old thread starters back to the forum to mark solutions.

But this isssue, of multiple solutions, is genuine.

I would say, not only the beginners, but sometimes the Veterans can also get impressed with some bright new, more efficient idea that pops few weeks later.

If, in implementation of this feature, your problem is how to deal with the "rediraction," then probably you can just show "Multiple Solutions" (if there are multiple solutions), with orange background (like it's yellow for "solved") which will tell the reader that there is more to dig in this thread. And instead of the link "Go to solution" u can also put "Take me to the last solution" (which may sound interesting, since more readers would be interested in seeing the latest development).

Any comments?

PS: sorry for the not-so-nice subject of this thread. Actually I posted the first question in hurry, and missed to edit the subject. I wanted to call it "Marking Maultiple Solutions" (or something similar, in a proper case and with better English). I still don't know any other way to start a thread, except by finding something and then see the "Post this question" button. Any other way?

[Ben]

The frequent flyers handle that by starting anew thread when they relaize they are asking new question. If you look thru the action engine Nugget you will find Shane split-ff a discusion of buffer usage.

I want to urge you to do this in the future. It

keeps the threads shorter and therefore more focused.

helps with searching since the post topic is related the knowledge being shared.

makes it easy for those not following the thread to see the new subject and get their attention.

We don't force that on the normal questioners because they are often already frustrated and don't need another set of rules slapped on them.

And while I am at it... welcome to the forums!

We thrive on people that love to share knowledge.

Ben

[Vaibhav]

Ben wrote:

keeps the threads shorter and therefore more focused.

helps with searching since the post topic is related the knowledge being shared.

makes it easy for those not following the thread to see the new subject and get their attention.

Agreed with you on all the 3 points and other suggestions from you Ben, since I'm a strong believer and follower of clean write-up which gives more knowledge and no confusion, and more importantly keeps things more focused.

In the past I have done "similar" discussion on a thread, in order to gain attention on some issue quickly (after my earlier threads were without any attention), but now, I have found a better way to do things. I would just start a new thread as I should, and give link in the related existing discussion. I guess this is what you mean by split-up.

But, my point in this thread is not that. My point is about something that is going on here, in the thread where you have also contributed.

In that thread, my question had two different ways to handle. And I would rate two posts, message#2 (by Dennis Knutson) and message#22 (by Ben) especially this part - I could do the replace if the tab was not a type def but failed to replace it when it was a type def. Fom where I sit it looks like you will have to disconnect it from the type def to do the replacement, as "accepted solutions."

I still didn't mark any of them as Solution, with the hope that I would be shown a better way to give proper credits.

And I would say "it is not just a question of giving credit, but pointing to the right helpful pieces of knowledge. so that in future, if someone is looking for some answers, both of these solutions would be shown to him."

This is the main point of this thread. That's why I specifically said that Mathan has said the same thing in the previous thread where marking solutions was introduced by Laura.

I know, that I could have started another thread if I am looking for a different type of solution, but then it would be a redundancy, and people point out to me like "check that thread, it's similar" and then instead of starting a new thread, we are pointed to some existing thread (hence, disturbance and mix-up), a completely opposite situation. I know, the intention while pointing/guiding someone to an existing thread is to see if "that is what u're looking for" and it's useful. But in some case it is like a circle.

In short, I would say-

1. there are situations when a new thread is necessary (because of difference in topic)

2. there are situations when a new thread is not necessary (because things are already discussed)

and then there are unclear (rather gray) situations when-

3. two threads are talking about something "similar" but not the same, and are justly two different threads; this would keep the threads short and focused

4. a thread is responded in two different ways, and I would say it should be just one thread, a single point of reference to handle a single situation in more than one ways; this would keep the whole forum short and compact.

I hope I didn't write anything confusing.

PS: This is one of the most well maintained forums I have been in my short life. People are unusually supportive, that at first I even started thinking that all the Veterans are employed by NI, like dedicated customer care and always helping the LabVIEW developers to solve problems. I hope this would be considered as a compliment and not an offence. I would try to contribute as much as I can. And this thread is with the same intention.

Message Edited by Vaibhav on 09-06-2009 08:06 AM