Anderton

WDI
Personally I think only the person that created the thread should change the title. Unless it's inappropriate.

I really don't see it as trying to help the forum but rather trying to make everything look hunky dory.

I think you missed my point. I don't read every thread in this forum, BUT I do read every thread that says "solved/resolved/answered" so that I am aware of how to fix a problem should I encounter it in my own work. This saves a huge amount of time. Also, if a problem is NOT marked as solved, of course I want to help find a solution. But then it will sometimes take me several pages of reading what people have done, only to find that at the end of page 3, someone already solved it...another waste of time.
 
These forums are designed to provide a peer-to-peer service. Part of that service is alerting people of problems and solving problems. If people can find out quickly that a problem has been solved, that provides a higher level of service - especially if they have encountered that problem, or they encounter that problem in the future and remember that a solution was already presented in the forum.
 
I also think there should be another flag - "workaround" for when the problem mentioned in the thread has not been solved, but there's a way to work around it.

Kalle Rantaaho
I wish the OPs would more actively report on the success of their queries, but I don't like the idea of moderators marking threads solved. It's not a matter of "who owns the forum", it's a matter of common courtesy and putting words in my mouth. If the OP clearly writes:"I got it, problem solved", then the moderators can add the comment, even though it's unnecessary, then.

Guitarmech111
yeah, but at least I feel better having said my piece. I was simply asking to not mark the threads as solved. Let the users do it. You, as a cakewalk rep, are not even guaranteed to be on this user supported forum.

Guitarmech111
Before recently, I have not seen the moderators or admins edit thread titles.

Guitarmech111
If not for everyone, then please allow mine to go unedited. Is that really too much to ask?

Guitarmech111
I saw nothing wrong with requestiong to not have threads marked with SOLVED if they were not.

sharke
The problem could (theoretically) be solved if admins had a way of privately marking a post as solved, which would show up for them and not for normal users.

sharke
I'm in two minds about the issue - on the one hand, it's good forum etiquette to mark problems as solved (especially the ones which have titles which reflect badly on Sonar but which turn out to be user error). On the other, there are going to be instances in which the question of whether or not a problem has been solved is subjective.

John
An observation. I don't normally start threads. I tend to respond to threads already started. On the few occasions I have started threads they tend to be informative. Meant to convey something. I'm not therefore in the position of asking for information very often. I think this has me viewing the forum more as a data base. A repository of information that can be searched or browsed. This would have me coming to it from perhaps a different perspective from Conley.  Because a title post from his perspective may be from a wish to receive something that is both critical and timely. The need for the post to not be tampered with in any way is part of the nature of making sure that he is giving accurate information and can count on receiving as accurate information in return. He isn't looking at the forum as a large repository of data but rather discrete, independent conversations that have at their core, accuracy. That becomes paramount. Where for me its ease of retrieval that is more important. 
 
I don't know how one can reconcile these two views. But I do believe Conley has a legitimate fear that I should not be so dismissive of.
 
At the same time I honestly don't believe that appending a single word to a title is anything less then helpful for the vast majority of forum users. The rationale seems solid to me and I have used it to skip by completed threads. Ones I know do not need me to post an answer. 
 
So I see it as a way for admins to mark threads as "taken care of" thus leaving more time for other threads. This also has the added bonus of advertising a completed problem and its resolution for those that wish to read about it.  The originator may feel put off because no permission was given for changing the title.   
 
The only thing to say is no real harm is done by the change. It is to me very beneficial. 

Paul P

Andrew Rossa [Cakewalk]
 
I guess you can't win. You want us to be more heavily involved but at the same time a benign action like marking a post solved (when prob 99% of the time it is) seems to bother you. The time it takes to mark a post solved is far less than re-reading the same threads over and over again only to realize the issue is solved. Honestly, I don't see big deal at all.

I really don't like the tone of this statement.  Meddling in poster's titles was one thing, but this is a whole next level of control.  I'm flabbergasted.
 
I suggest you lock threads the minute they don't interest you any more.
 

lawp
and, again, publishing a maintained known issues list stickied at the top of the forum - keep all the reproducible/known issues in one place - easier for everyone :-)

John

One can start a thread but it does not belong to them.