There are Times...
-
I'd agree that at times a system that 'bumps' based on new replies may be nice, but I think a better solution would be if the 'show unanswered questions' link could show questions that had not been marked as answered, instead of questions with no replies at all. The main problem, IMO, is that there's a constant flood of easy questions, and then a lot of those get tons of replies, all basically saying the same thing, which fills the forum. Perhaps we need a feature aside from post voting that says 'this was the right answer', which then disallows responses. Trouble is, no-one would use it, and a lot of the time, people get answers that work, but create bad code, I often respond to questions and have to fight to get the OP to listen to me because they are drawn to an option that seems easier than what I am saying, but results in bad code.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
...when I really hate the CP forum style. I'm having a running problem with loading the web.config file, and every time I want to post additional info (in the asp.net forum), I have to scroll five or more pages to get back to my original message. That's not the worst part, though... The problem is that nobody will know that a new reply has been posted because message threads with new entries don't bubble back to the top. Therefore, it's a complete waste of time to update a thread that's not still in the latest 25 new threads because nobody will see it. Starting a new thread is a) redundant, and b) even more time consuming because you have to start all over again with all of the info from the old thread. THIS is the primary reason I've started searching google for answers long before asking on CP. I've spent three days in google, and posted two messages here on CP (for the reasons cited above), and I still don't have an answer, so I'm just a bit annoyed - nay - pissed off - about CP's completely useless forum threading model. I know Chris et al are working on something new, and I truly appreciate the effort they put into CP, but that doesn't help me *now*. I keep saying it, but a number of the regulars here keep poo-pooing it, but we need a forum module that provides features similar to phpBB. I'm seriously considering creating an article that describes the problem and request feedback via the article's forum, even though I consider that to be an abuse of the article submission system.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
but we need a forum module that provides features similar to phpBB.
*glances around to be sure no one is watching* I agree with John.
“If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”-Alfred P. Sloan
-
I understand the concept, I just think that idiots will abuse it. That's not to say I don't think it has merit, just that it would need to be monitored carefully. Possibly an administrator might need to be able to mark a thread as "none-bumpable".
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
You mean as opposed to the same idiots that create new and meaningless threads now?
“If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”-Alfred P. Sloan
-
...when I really hate the CP forum style. I'm having a running problem with loading the web.config file, and every time I want to post additional info (in the asp.net forum), I have to scroll five or more pages to get back to my original message. That's not the worst part, though... The problem is that nobody will know that a new reply has been posted because message threads with new entries don't bubble back to the top. Therefore, it's a complete waste of time to update a thread that's not still in the latest 25 new threads because nobody will see it. Starting a new thread is a) redundant, and b) even more time consuming because you have to start all over again with all of the info from the old thread. THIS is the primary reason I've started searching google for answers long before asking on CP. I've spent three days in google, and posted two messages here on CP (for the reasons cited above), and I still don't have an answer, so I'm just a bit annoyed - nay - pissed off - about CP's completely useless forum threading model. I know Chris et al are working on something new, and I truly appreciate the effort they put into CP, but that doesn't help me *now*. I keep saying it, but a number of the regulars here keep poo-pooing it, but we need a forum module that provides features similar to phpBB. I'm seriously considering creating an article that describes the problem and request feedback via the article's forum, even though I consider that to be an abuse of the article submission system.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I really couldn't disagree more I'm afraid. The system that you described is used in many other websites, and aside from the "odious practice of bumping threads to the top" (not my own words, but I share the sentiment!), in my view it's just silly. I want to see new threads - not that someone has answered something (potentially) posted months earlier. If you need to find a thread that you've started, just look under your name and messages posted, et voila.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
THIS is the primary reason I've started searching google for answers long before asking on CP
Surely that's how you SHOULD be doing it anyway - how many times has a silly question been put up (not saying yours is!) that could easilly have been answered by the OP with a quick google?
Si je meurs ce soir. F**k la Terre - Solaar
-
In http://forums.asp.net/[^], I think, when a new thread is posted to a discussion, it automatically bubbles up to the top. Perhaps something similar to that should be addressing this problem. Isn't it? But can a CP Admin move these discussion threads ("
There are Times...") to Suggestions/Bug Reports forum? That way, it would be easier for Chris and Co. also to keep track of the reports.Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips
I would really like to see a threads view that is ordered by the date and time of the last post on each thread. Clicking on a thread would then reveal that thread's posts. That way, active threads would "bubble" to the top. This seems to be the way most forum software behaves.
-
I really couldn't disagree more I'm afraid. The system that you described is used in many other websites, and aside from the "odious practice of bumping threads to the top" (not my own words, but I share the sentiment!), in my view it's just silly. I want to see new threads - not that someone has answered something (potentially) posted months earlier. If you need to find a thread that you've started, just look under your name and messages posted, et voila.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
THIS is the primary reason I've started searching google for answers long before asking on CP
Surely that's how you SHOULD be doing it anyway - how many times has a silly question been put up (not saying yours is!) that could easilly have been answered by the OP with a quick google?
Si je meurs ce soir. F**k la Terre - Solaar
RichardGrimmer wrote:
Surely that's how you SHOULD be doing it anyway - how many times has a silly question been put up (not saying yours is!) that could easilly have been answered by the OP with a quick google?
I have always looked for an answer before asking here, but lately, I've been doing anything to AVOID asking here. See the difference? It seems to me that this should be the first place I want to look for an answer, but it simply isn't anymore. Of course, my latest question mirrors what I've found after days searching google - nobody has an answer. With over 4 million users, assuming *anything* isn't going to be abused indicates an amount of cluelessness that surmounts our first-post Indian contingent, but personally, I'm willing to put up with some abuse to gain significant usability. (Sorry, I'm editing this post and can't quote you directly) Saying that you don't want to see posts where someone has responded indicates that you don't understand that that's exactly what I want to happen. Other people who didn't respond before may have interest in the question to see what the resolution is, or may even see something in a later response that triggers a repressed memory concerning the original question. More eyes that read the thread means more chances of getting an answer faster. That's my entire point about the flaw in the way the forums work now.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
You mean as opposed to the same idiots that create new and meaningless threads now?
“If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”-Alfred P. Sloan
Jerry Hammond wrote:
You mean as opposed to the same idiots that create new and meaningless threads now?
I'm more worried about them having the ability to keep their drivel at the top of the pile.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Maybe something better would be a feature like "My threads..." which only shows all threads that I have participated in?
ChandraRam wrote:
Maybe something better would be a feature like "My threads..." which only shows all threads that I have participated in?
While that's a fine idea, it does NOT address the problem where threads get buried so that more people don't even see them. I don't post programming question so that I can bask in the shining omnipotence that is my literary style (except for the Lounge of course). I want OTHER people to see it so that they can provide an answer to the question. If it's the 200th post from the top after only 12 hours, it becomes more and more likely that ain't gonna happen, especially for other posts to the thread.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
...when I really hate the CP forum style. I'm having a running problem with loading the web.config file, and every time I want to post additional info (in the asp.net forum), I have to scroll five or more pages to get back to my original message. That's not the worst part, though... The problem is that nobody will know that a new reply has been posted because message threads with new entries don't bubble back to the top. Therefore, it's a complete waste of time to update a thread that's not still in the latest 25 new threads because nobody will see it. Starting a new thread is a) redundant, and b) even more time consuming because you have to start all over again with all of the info from the old thread. THIS is the primary reason I've started searching google for answers long before asking on CP. I've spent three days in google, and posted two messages here on CP (for the reasons cited above), and I still don't have an answer, so I'm just a bit annoyed - nay - pissed off - about CP's completely useless forum threading model. I know Chris et al are working on something new, and I truly appreciate the effort they put into CP, but that doesn't help me *now*. I keep saying it, but a number of the regulars here keep poo-pooing it, but we need a forum module that provides features similar to phpBB. I'm seriously considering creating an article that describes the problem and request feedback via the article's forum, even though I consider that to be an abuse of the article submission system.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I dislike the bubble up method. I would prefer more messages per page though, as well as a parent thread always being on the same page as its children. I am just a big fan of Matt's www board. It is old and it works :p
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway -
I really couldn't disagree more I'm afraid. The system that you described is used in many other websites, and aside from the "odious practice of bumping threads to the top" (not my own words, but I share the sentiment!), in my view it's just silly. I want to see new threads - not that someone has answered something (potentially) posted months earlier. If you need to find a thread that you've started, just look under your name and messages posted, et voila.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
THIS is the primary reason I've started searching google for answers long before asking on CP
Surely that's how you SHOULD be doing it anyway - how many times has a silly question been put up (not saying yours is!) that could easilly have been answered by the OP with a quick google?
Si je meurs ce soir. F**k la Terre - Solaar
RichardGrimmer wrote:
I want to see new threads - not that someone has answered something (potentially) posted months earlier.
I'm sure that if designed properly, the site would allow you to configure the way you view the forums so that you could maintain your love affair with the "most-recent-new-thread" paradigm. :)
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar wrote:
But can a CP Admin move these discussion threads ("There are Times...") to Suggestions/Bug Reports forum? That way, it would be easier for Chris and Co. also to keep track of the reports.
I posted this in the lounge because I'm annoyed. It's not meant to be a suggestion thread, and I don't want it moved. Chris is already aware of my feelings regarding the forum structure and functionality. I see no need to harp on him about it - it would just annoy everyone involved. I'm just venting, mostly because there doesn't appear to be an answer to my problem, and secondly because it brings to the forefront the problems I have with CPs forum functionality.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
mostly because there doesn't appear to be an answer to my problem
The forums or the web.config?
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
ChandraRam wrote:
Maybe something better would be a feature like "My threads..." which only shows all threads that I have participated in?
While that's a fine idea, it does NOT address the problem where threads get buried so that more people don't even see them. I don't post programming question so that I can bask in the shining omnipotence that is my literary style (except for the Lounge of course). I want OTHER people to see it so that they can provide an answer to the question. If it's the 200th post from the top after only 12 hours, it becomes more and more likely that ain't gonna happen, especially for other posts to the thread.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Yes, I understand the issue better now... maybe something like what Hans Dietrich has put forth in the suggestions forum is what is needed.
-
Jerry Hammond wrote:
You mean as opposed to the same idiots that create new and meaningless threads now?
I'm more worried about them having the ability to keep their drivel at the top of the pile.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
Pete O`Hanlon wrote:
Jerry Hammond wrote: You mean as opposed to the same idiots that create new and meaningless threads now? I'm more worried about them having the ability to keep their drivel at the top of the pile.
If a thread-starting message is marked as abuse/spam, it could also be automatically locked, preventing further responses, thus preventing it from staying on top. It would therefor die a "natural" death at that point and would soon be filtered out by newer messages. There could also be a configuration setting that lets you filter out spam/abuse threads so that no matter what happens in them, you never see them bubble to the top.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
mostly because there doesn't appear to be an answer to my problem
The forums or the web.config?
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Yes. :) Seriously though, the web.config thing. I would like to blame Vista, but I can't since we have at least one other developer here who doesn't have the problem and who is running Vista as well.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
but we need a forum module that provides features similar to phpBB.
*glances around to be sure no one is watching* I agree with John.
“If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”-Alfred P. Sloan
Jerry Hammond wrote:
I agree with John.
You agree with me more often than you want to admit. :)
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
RichardGrimmer wrote:
Surely that's how you SHOULD be doing it anyway - how many times has a silly question been put up (not saying yours is!) that could easilly have been answered by the OP with a quick google?
I have always looked for an answer before asking here, but lately, I've been doing anything to AVOID asking here. See the difference? It seems to me that this should be the first place I want to look for an answer, but it simply isn't anymore. Of course, my latest question mirrors what I've found after days searching google - nobody has an answer. With over 4 million users, assuming *anything* isn't going to be abused indicates an amount of cluelessness that surmounts our first-post Indian contingent, but personally, I'm willing to put up with some abuse to gain significant usability. (Sorry, I'm editing this post and can't quote you directly) Saying that you don't want to see posts where someone has responded indicates that you don't understand that that's exactly what I want to happen. Other people who didn't respond before may have interest in the question to see what the resolution is, or may even see something in a later response that triggers a repressed memory concerning the original question. More eyes that read the thread means more chances of getting an answer faster. That's my entire point about the flaw in the way the forums work now.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Seems to me that it is that fact that there are >4million users that is the problem. Maybe a couple, 10 or 20 thousand people will have experience with your problem at best - getting those people to view your thread is not going to be easy since they will be spread over 24 time zones (so it could be up to 24 hours before a chance of a possible reply) and there are the best part of 4 million other users who are not in the least bit interested in your problem (or maybe just don't have an answer) but in posting their own problems. The only way is to filter the messages or to filter the users, allowing users to bump their posts won't help however much you restrict the ability to bump because there will always be more users bumping their posts over yours, you'll still end up at the bottom of the pile since any one user will deem his message more important than yours and bump.
Apathy Rules - I suppose...
-
Pete O`Hanlon wrote:
Jerry Hammond wrote: You mean as opposed to the same idiots that create new and meaningless threads now? I'm more worried about them having the ability to keep their drivel at the top of the pile.
If a thread-starting message is marked as abuse/spam, it could also be automatically locked, preventing further responses, thus preventing it from staying on top. It would therefor die a "natural" death at that point and would soon be filtered out by newer messages. There could also be a configuration setting that lets you filter out spam/abuse threads so that no matter what happens in them, you never see them bubble to the top.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
...when I really hate the CP forum style. I'm having a running problem with loading the web.config file, and every time I want to post additional info (in the asp.net forum), I have to scroll five or more pages to get back to my original message. That's not the worst part, though... The problem is that nobody will know that a new reply has been posted because message threads with new entries don't bubble back to the top. Therefore, it's a complete waste of time to update a thread that's not still in the latest 25 new threads because nobody will see it. Starting a new thread is a) redundant, and b) even more time consuming because you have to start all over again with all of the info from the old thread. THIS is the primary reason I've started searching google for answers long before asking on CP. I've spent three days in google, and posted two messages here on CP (for the reasons cited above), and I still don't have an answer, so I'm just a bit annoyed - nay - pissed off - about CP's completely useless forum threading model. I know Chris et al are working on something new, and I truly appreciate the effort they put into CP, but that doesn't help me *now*. I keep saying it, but a number of the regulars here keep poo-pooing it, but we need a forum module that provides features similar to phpBB. I'm seriously considering creating an article that describes the problem and request feedback via the article's forum, even though I consider that to be an abuse of the article submission system.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The problem is that nobody will know that a new reply has been posted because message threads with new entries don't bubble back to the top. Therefore, it's a complete waste of time to update a thread that's not still in the latest 25 new threads because nobody will see it. Starting a new thread is a) redundant, and b) even more time consuming because you have to start all over again with all of the info from the old thread.
True, but there are advantages and disadvantages in each. In one particular forum, threads were pushed to the top similar to what you want. A group of regulars decided to keep a thread alive that was pretty much just a long conversation about life the universe and everything. And I do mean EVERYTHING. It became known as the undead thread, and no one could ignore it because it always popped to the top everytime someone posted to it. Now new posts get popped off the front page because of old and popular threads get priority. There is a distinct trade off there. I don't have a preference per se, as I realize the issues with each.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The problem is that nobody will know that a new reply has been posted because message threads with new entries don't bubble back to the top. Therefore, it's a complete waste of time to update a thread that's not still in the latest 25 new threads because nobody will see it. Starting a new thread is a) redundant, and b) even more time consuming because you have to start all over again with all of the info from the old thread.
True, but there are advantages and disadvantages in each. In one particular forum, threads were pushed to the top similar to what you want. A group of regulars decided to keep a thread alive that was pretty much just a long conversation about life the universe and everything. And I do mean EVERYTHING. It became known as the undead thread, and no one could ignore it because it always popped to the top everytime someone posted to it. Now new posts get popped off the front page because of old and popular threads get priority. There is a distinct trade off there. I don't have a preference per se, as I realize the issues with each.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
That would be easily fixable by the admins if actually a problem. *tapity* *tapity* Thread closed anyone restarting will be baned. *clickity* post *clickity* lock thread.
-- If you view money as inherently evil, I view it as my duty to assist in making you more virtuous.
-
...when I really hate the CP forum style. I'm having a running problem with loading the web.config file, and every time I want to post additional info (in the asp.net forum), I have to scroll five or more pages to get back to my original message. That's not the worst part, though... The problem is that nobody will know that a new reply has been posted because message threads with new entries don't bubble back to the top. Therefore, it's a complete waste of time to update a thread that's not still in the latest 25 new threads because nobody will see it. Starting a new thread is a) redundant, and b) even more time consuming because you have to start all over again with all of the info from the old thread. THIS is the primary reason I've started searching google for answers long before asking on CP. I've spent three days in google, and posted two messages here on CP (for the reasons cited above), and I still don't have an answer, so I'm just a bit annoyed - nay - pissed off - about CP's completely useless forum threading model. I know Chris et al are working on something new, and I truly appreciate the effort they put into CP, but that doesn't help me *now*. I keep saying it, but a number of the regulars here keep poo-pooing it, but we need a forum module that provides features similar to phpBB. I'm seriously considering creating an article that describes the problem and request feedback via the article's forum, even though I consider that to be an abuse of the article submission system.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
