There are Times...
-
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 -
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.
dan neely wrote:
*tapity* *tapity* Thread closed anyone restarting will be baned. *clickity* post *clickity* lock thread.
perhaps that takes care of the deliberate one, but what about the dozens of "beating the dead horse with a stick" threads that I am sure you have seen. Where the discussion goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, but doesn't actually get anywhere. They happen here already, but die in the midst of the past as eventually the people give up in that none of the arguments are seen. If they were seen every time they are popped to the top, they would get answered more often, and more dead horses would be beat. :) just imagine a Linux vs Windows thread under a pop-to the top forum, along with a C++ vs. C#, along with a "I hate Gateway" (and defense thereof), add Java madness and big screen arguments and pretty soon this place isn't much better than the soapbox. At least with the current systems, the energetic threads are eventually forgotten.
_________________________ 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 an acceptable alternative to my suggestion. :)
"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 -
That would be an acceptable alternative to my suggestion. :)
"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, 10/26/2001within a few days every idiot will start posting "urgnt plz hlp vbClistCtrl" in reply to your latest thread instead of starting one of it's own to make their question more visible. :doh: Do you really want your inbox drowned in stupidity like that? :rolleyes:
-- 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, 10/26/2001I think it would be ok if * the original poster could nominate a thread as "solved" * we could filter to see only "unsolved" threads * trained doves would hunt down and shit on everyone who abandons threads
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist
