Shown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 16, 2001, at 23:05:10
Hi, everyone,
Any comments on the new thread listing format? Which leaves out posts when threads get long (except with the first post of each thread).
The idea is to save some space, but still to provide some context (links to preceeding and following posts). Smaller pages should also load faster. And there shouldn't be any more dead links, either...
Bob
Posted by Cam W. on May 16, 2001, at 23:40:37
In reply to New thread listing format, posted by Dr. Bob on May 16, 2001, at 23:05:10
Dr.B - Go for it; we'll figure it out, eventually.
;^) - Cam
> Hi, everyone,
>
> Any comments on the new thread listing format? Which leaves out posts when threads get long (except with the first post of each thread).
>
> The idea is to save some space, but still to provide some context (links to preceeding and following posts). Smaller pages should also load faster. And there shouldn't be any more dead links, either...
>
> Bob
Posted by shelliR on May 17, 2001, at 10:59:13
In reply to Re: New thread listing format » Dr. Bob, posted by Cam W. on May 16, 2001, at 23:40:37
> Dr.B - Go for it; we'll figure it out, eventually.
>
> ;^) - Cam
>
I just see one major problem, Dr. Bob. Sometimes you are at the end of the thread (well you think it's the end of the thread because there are no ........s), but you have knowledge there are more posts. Then if you hit reload, the bottom of the thread actually comes up. But if you don't suspect that you're not seeing the end of the thread, there is no indication that there is more and you might never read some of the posts. I have noticed this a lot since the change went into effect and I think it's a bug in the system. shelli
Posted by JahL on May 17, 2001, at 13:55:18
In reply to New thread listing format, posted by Dr. Bob on May 16, 2001, at 23:05:10
> Any comments on the new thread listing format? Which leaves out posts when threads get long (except with the first post of each thread).
> The idea is to save some space, but still to provide some context (links to preceeding and following posts). Smaller pages should also load faster. And there shouldn't be any more dead links, either...The new system helps in all the ways you describe.
One suggestion (which may be hard to put into practice) would be to add an EITHER/OR dimension involving a time variable. The no. of posts displayed would comprise EITHER the last (say) 10 posted, OR those posted within the last (say) week.
I'm thinking of the 'Methadone' thread where there has been such a deluge of posts, recent, relevant posts are getting pushed into oblivion. It can be hard to locate messages to which responses (displayed on the main board) are posted.
Possible?
J.
Posted by JahL on May 17, 2001, at 18:30:06
In reply to Re: New thread listing format » Dr. Bob, posted by JahL on May 17, 2001, at 13:55:18
> One suggestion (which may be hard to put into practice) would be to add an EITHER/OR dimension involving a time variable. The no. of posts displayed would comprise EITHER the last (say) 10 posted, OR those posted within the last (say) week.A simpler way of saying it is: list last 10 posts (+original post) *unless* more than 10 have been posted in the last week (?), in which case list these also.
As usual my brain is stuck in first gear & it takes a couple of attempts to get my thoughts straight. :-(
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2001, at 15:11:10
In reply to Re: New thread listing format, posted by shelliR on May 17, 2001, at 10:59:13
> Sometimes you are at the end of the thread, but you have knowledge there are more posts. Then if you hit reload, the bottom of the thread actually comes up. But if you don't suspect that you're not seeing the end of the thread, there is no indication that there is more and you might never read some of the posts.
Hmm, I think that should only happen if the thread were posted to after you loaded your post. Might that cover the times you have in mind?
There's no way to keep updating a page after you've loaded it, at least no very easy way. How do you have knowledge there are more posts? Since you do, maybe it's not such a bad problem? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2001, at 15:15:59
In reply to Re: New thread listing format » Dr. Bob, posted by JahL on May 17, 2001, at 13:55:18
> One suggestion (which may be hard to put into practice) would be to add an EITHER/OR dimension involving a time variable. The no. of posts displayed would comprise EITHER the last (say) 10 posted, OR those posted within the last (say) week.
Hmm, interesting idea. I think it would take some doing to put into practice, though, since it would involve *introducing* a time variable. Right now, time actually doesn't matter, it just goes by number of posts...
Bob
Posted by shelliR on May 18, 2001, at 15:57:02
In reply to Re: end of the thread, posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2001, at 15:11:10
> > Sometimes you are at the end of the thread, but you have knowledge there are more posts. Then if you hit reload, the bottom of the thread actually comes up. But if you don't suspect that you're not seeing the end of the thread, there is no indication that there is more and you might never read some of the posts.
>
> Hmm, I think that should only happen if the thread were posted to after you loaded your post. Might that cover the times you have in mind?
>
No, it was happening when I had gotten an e-mail saying that a post was there, and also at other times. Maybe it's a time thing (a lapse between someone submitting, and it becoming visible on the thread?), because I was just bringing up pb, hadn't been there so I shouldn't have to refresh and last post not visible. I just checked the board and I don't notice the problem now.Maybe it was an illusion........
Shelli
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 18, 2001, at 17:46:41
In reply to Re: end of the thread » Dr. Bob, posted by shelliR on May 18, 2001, at 15:57:02
> > Hmm, I think that should only happen if the thread were posted to after you loaded your post.
> >
> No, it was happening when I had gotten an e-mail saying that a post was there, and also at other times. Maybe it's a time thing (a lapse between someone submitting, and it becoming visible on the thread?)I suppose it could also have to do with your cache...
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.