|
||
|
Title: How am I supposed to read this? Post by Roy on Today at 22:11 How do I read this forum in order? The new threading ought to be great, but I don't seem to be getting the hang of it. I pick a subsection (or whatever it's called), open the first thread, read down it (OK so far). Then I pick 'Next Thread' and read that. I continue until I get 'No Thread'. At which point, I imagine I've read the whole shebang. But I go back in to check, and (a) there are still threads there I haven't opened and (b) the threads that I *was* offered weren't in the same sequence as the display I now see. What's happening? How is 'Next Thread' defined? Why isn't it the same sequence as the summary of the threads? Or can I choose an option to make it so? Oh, and (c) when I choose 'Next Thread' after one of the ones it missed the first time, it gives me a thread I've already read. It knows I've already read it, but it gives it to me again :huh: |
||
|
Title: Re: How am I supposed to read this? Post by S J Birkill on 14.09.04 at 00:56 Roy It was quite busy here in the 45-minute period up to your posting. Possibly someone else posted to the board you were reading, bringing their thread to the top of the list and upsetting your sequence? If that happened twice you might swear you'd found a bug (or just swear?) Steve |
||
|
Title: Re: How am I supposed to read this? Post by Roy on 14.09.04 at 12:14 Hi Steve - thanks for the hypothesis. But that isn't it, I'm afraid. Try this recipe: Go into the Category/Sub-Category Pete Atkin - News. Observe the sequence of the threads - 10 of them, none updated yesterday. (And I've already read all of these, as no doubt you have). Open the first one. Choose Next Thread. Note which thread you get Repeat until you get 'No Thread'. Returning to the Sub-Category, nothing has moved, and there have been no new postings. From Thread 1, I get to Threads 9, 10, and 2. Presented in that sequence. Why don't I get the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10? What happened to threads 3 - 8, anyway? |
||
|
Title: Re: How am I supposed to read this? Post by Jan on 14.09.04 at 13:21 Roy, If you start at the bottom of the list you do a bit better getting: 10,9,1,8,7,6,3,5,4 missing only no 2 To get them all you have to go to the end of the list and come back again giving you: 1,9,10,2,10,9,1,8,7,6,3,5,4 I can't believe I actually checked that ! Jan |
||
|
Title: Re: How am I supposed to read this? Post by S J Birkill on 14.09.04 at 13:39 Roy What's happening here is that the previous/next list is ordered reverse chronologically by the most recently updated thread (newest first). The thread index is also ordered this way (newest at the top), except that, when a thread is made "sticky" it holds its place at the head of the list. So when you dig into the topmost thread ("Alerts") you're actually part-way through the sequence; in fact you're on thread 7 out of 10: you have options to step back as well as forward. When you hit 'next' you're taken to what is in fact the previous thread in the chronological sequence, irrespective of its stickyness, which is "Moderators chosen"; and so on all the way to "Announcements". If at this stage you'd gone back through the list to your starting point and continued hitting 'previous', you'd have seen "The 'new' MV: accept it", "Old MV Postings" and so on, right back to "The 'new' MV: love it", which happens at the time of writing to be the most recently updated (2 days ago). Hope this makes sense... Steve |
||
|
Title: Re: How am I supposed to read this? Post by Roy on 14.09.04 at 14:48 Hi Steve Yup, I get it now. The thread order *is* what I expected, except where there are one or more sticky threads. So (assuming that sticky threads are themselves shown in chain order within stickiness)then if I open the first thread and it has a 'Previous Thread' link, I need the chase this chain ackwards until I hit 'No Thread'. [1] I can then read forward via 'Next Thread', and be sure of hitting every one [2]. [1] Or I could exit it, and pick the first *non-sticky* thread instead, which (IIUC) would always be the first thread, and so eliminate the need for backtracking. [2] Unless somebody popped a new message into a thread in that Sub-Category. And to allow for this, before leaving a SubCategory, I should quite naturally review it again, looking for any 'New'markers. I might then indeed find a whole pre-existing thread I still hadn't read yet, as per your initial conjecture above. But now I would know how and why. Isn't online threading and multi-tasking a wonderful thing, after the old, linear, sequential, mailing list? :) OK, this one's closed then, hopefully. Ta! Roy |
||
|
Midnight Voices » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |