The discussion centers on a perceived flaw in Discourse’s topic merge feature, specifically regarding the “merge topics chronologically” option. mattdm argues that when merging replies into a new topic where a moderator has written an introductory first post, enabling chronological order causes the earliest post (the reply) to become the new top post, effectively replacing the intended introduction. They propose adding a “keep existing topic’s first post” option, asserting that the first post of a topic should never be replaced by a merge.
Jonathan5 counters that chronological arrangement is the expected behavior for all posts, suggesting alternatives like backdating posts or adding staff notices. mattdm clarifies that they expect only replies to be arranged chronologically, arguing that users select the “existing topic” as the primary container; if a newer topic is chosen, it implies a desire to preserve its introduction. Stephen asks whether the original post (OP) of either topic is inherently correct and questions whether chronology or merge order makes more sense. mattdm responds that while merging two complete topics sequentially makes sense, chronological order generally makes the most sense for merging replies into a new thread. The discussion concludes with satonotdead inquiring about the behavior when merging nested topics.
This is a great feature, but I discovered what to me seems like a horrible flaw. Often, when moving replies to a new topic, there is no existing ideal first post for that topic. So, the moderator writes one. However, if “preserve chronological order after merging” is checked, the earliest post becomes the new top post and your newly-written post introducing the topic/thread gets shoved unceremoniously to the bottom.
I don’t think there’s ever a case where the first post of a topic should be replaced by a merge. Maybe I’m missing something, though, so please at least add a “keep existing topic’s first post” option.
Can you show me an example of where you might want the first post to be replaced?
When merging two topics, I would expect the person doing the merging to select the one they want as “primary” as the target “existing topic”. If it happens that the older topic is that one, chronological order will naturally be preserved. If you choose the newer topic, it seems logical that you’d do that because you want to preserve the topic introduction. Does that… make sense?
I would assume that I would choose the “right one” by using that one as the “existing topic”. If it happens that the topic I’m selecting posts from is older, I’d expect its first post to end up as the first reply to that target topic.
If a merge is done to two basically-complete existing topics, merging so one is after the other makes sense. But that’s kind of a special case. I think chronologically generally makes the most sense.