And I made it non-sticky, and added this post.
And it reappeared in my list of active threads.
That’s OK then, yes?
Ref my post #33 above, I suspect a lot of people have hidden threads because some poster on them annoyed them, and then forgotten about them. I can’t check this because I don’t have a “login as user” functionality, and anyway we have over 3000 users who have created a login at some stage. Only “you” can check this.
There were two specific people who I had complaints about and both have moved on.
What happens when a thread you marked invisible is merged into one which you didn’t mark invisible, don’t ask
Peter wrote:
That’s OK then, yes?
Yes, that means you can safely hide stickies to clean up, which is a welcome means of improving the usability.
Peter wrote:
There were two specific people who I had complaints about and both have moved on.
I suppose one of them moved on to COPA and has become a bit of a legend, before getting kicked off there…
Quoting myself, as per my original mention of hiding on this thread:
David wrote:
Y’all know you can hide sticky threads, right? In fact you can hide any thread, but a sticky thread will re-appear when a new post is made on it, whereas a normal thread won’t.
What if I hide a sticky thread that later gets unstickied, before a new post is made?
tmo wrote:
What if I hide a sticky thread that later gets unstickied, before a new post is made?
If it’s not sticky when the new post gets made it won’t be unhidden.
Not possible to get an “active only” where there is no priority on sorting of stickies?
Noe wrote:
Not possible to get an “active only” where there is no priority on sorting of stickies?
Do you mean an Active Threads display which ignores sticky status?
Yes. Posts that are normally sticky would not behave like sticky with that link. They would just be sorted like any other post.