A while ago (23sep) in 'Strange fish' http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/29818 Florin asked some questions on what to do about marking questions 'answered' etc,some of which I gave answers for,& I havent heard since.
It may have to do with my repeating that a point he made (which I'd already called rubbish) was rubbish, so I'd like to explain. His point was that he'd marked the Malawi thread 'assumed answered' as it already had 9 answers, etc. However I knew it was already 'assumed answered' before he got to it, indeed even before anyone had even replied, as I'd seen this & pointed this out on the Malawi thread the next day (30th, after Alastair answered) , & the questioner knows it as Ellie 5 sep admitted having "accidentally clicked it & can't find out how to undo it". Likewise Mike Hardman & Afterforty replied before Florin thinks he marked it so they must know it. Florin made that point in 'Strange fish' on 19sep answering my comment there on the 18th.In my answer I pointed out he hadn't [properly] read the Malawi thread, & also what I'd said & Ellie said there, (& ended with "what's all this 9 question business"). his reply was virtually "so what do you want" My reply included "I need to know you've actually read [the Malawi thread] through & the rubbish about 9 answers was rubbish"
In his he elaborated on why he marked the Malawi thread as 'assumed answered' & not 'answered'
In my final answer I said "on the 'rubbish' ie Malawi question it seems you still haven't read it properly,or even my comment about it above in this thread "
It's hard for me to understand how Florin could ignore so many pointers. Firstly it's hardly possible to imagine that when he came to the Malawi thread it'd somehow reverted to 'not answered'. So given it was already 'assumed answered' one can only assume he hadn't noticed it, & when he did assumed he must have marked it assumed by accident. Even then how could he have failed to notice the several pleas & explanation above. & if by some miracle the Malawi thread had reverted to 'not answered' he still should have noticed my pleas & comments. [Also possibly Florin didn't know that members could mark answers as 'assumed' (it was news to me)]
In the light of this (to me inexplicable) repeated failure I feel my comments were justified, & indeed an apology is in order.
As an impartial observer, I think that Florin has shown great patience in trying to understand and respond to your points, despite the increasingly aggressive way in which you try to make them. I think an apology should be in order ... but not by Florin.
I'm sorry rhossilian, I havne't got time to work on the Forum for a long time. AMC severely understaffed during busy periods last year. I'm not a manager of the forum, just one of the people who can do the marking of posts as 'answered' etc, and apparently the only one wo tries. Apologies for not being able to do everything to please all users. I'm trying now to mark those obviously answered either as 'correct' or just 'assumed answered'. Hope you will be happier then.
PS: How should I mark this one, rhossilian?
Not really Florin
It's great if you're giving more time to marking the obviously correct, & especially the common goose barnacle of July 2012at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/40181 ,as prior to that there were 4 obvious cases of them (one admittedly a discussion) but none properly recognised as such.
But I'm surprised you didn't at the same time mark the equally obvious (& venerable) common goose barnacle of march 2012 http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/40294 .
There are several more really obvious cases
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/40314 DEAD MAN'S FINGER Mar 2013
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/38533 The whole crab shell Portumnus latipes (link given) by Andy P (Nov 2011!). Andy P has already obtained 'correct answer' for this at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/15633 (which was just the carapace) & that answer was acknowledged by Bombuslucorum.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/40316 Necklace shell eggcase by John Apr 2013 a clear & obvious case
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/40312 Giant horntail july 2013This is a very distinctive species,& links clearly show the identity
Many thanks for pointing these out rhossilian - please continue to do so and we will mark them up as 'correct answers'. There are of course many other examples throughout the Forums and there is not an easy way to address these as those that are marked as 'useful reply' by the postee do not then show up as unanswered in our searches. I will talk with our technical team and see if there is a way that we can address this as we are as keen as you to give credit where credit is due and to get those that have been correctly answered marked as such.
Thanks again for your participation and expertise - marine 'creatures' are a particular weakness on our team here so we are eternally grateful for your knowledge .... you certainly know your onions!
This is a very encouraging answer. I had realised the lack of expertise in shore life. But I was a bit puzzled by the 'useful reply' (as eg "helpful answers" are often wrong & often not given even though the questioner's happy with the answer). I assume you mean those marked 'assumed answered'. I understood (from Florins comments on them) that till recently only staff members could mark 'assumed answered', but in August last year noticed a new thread with no answers yet marked 'assumed answered', http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/34399 (Ellie had accidentally pressed the assumed answer button).
I'd also realised the problem wasnt just the seashore from the failure of 2 clear cases of the same dragonfly failing to get marked even though one was agreed by Mike Hardman & Tipula & both "brought to the fore" more than once. I may be wrong but I assume staff use the same natureplus pages ("identification", "seashore" etc) as ordinary members; & in these lists the symbols for "answered" & "assumed answered" are the same, & I concluded this was probably the main reason why 'Assumed answered' questions failed to get answered. If that's what you meant then your answer has covered nearly all of my concerns (& adding a new motif for "assumed answered" would be a trivial modification in computer terms, as I said in http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/34399 ).
I'll be happy to continue with the occasional update list where needed.
Actually, as far as I can judge (not including bones or fossils) there aren't any unmarked clear cases remaining, except recent ones, though I may have missed some, & others, like Lisa's maerl http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/message/25585 might well prove sound.