X's and checks

[agibson]

So, where did these red X's and green check marks come from?

I guess the green check means I've contributed to the thread,
and the red X means I haven't.

Can I get rid of them?

[valpo04]

I implemented the code, but I haven't seen it in my browsers so I thought it was broke.

Yes, it shows which threads you've replied in.

[valpo04]

BTW...

What browser are you using?

I've tried IE, Firefox and Chrome and haven't seen them.

[agibson]

For sure I see them under IE7 and Firefox 3, both under Vista.

[agibson]

Also under "SeaMonkey", a derivative of Mozilla 5.0 I gather, on a Linux platform.

[valpo04]

Interesting...

I have IE 6 and XP/OS X.

I will remove the code.

[agibson]

Who knows - maybe others would like it.

For me it's a bit cluttered, and doesn't really give me information that I value.

I want to know if I've _read_ every thread, sure. But, not necessarily if I've posted.

[valpo04]

I think the point of it is to allow users to quickly find threads they have posted in, to easier keep track of topics they are interested in.

Until I can figure out a better cross-browser solution, I will leave it out. If I figure it out, I will implement and see what others think.

Thanks for your opinion.

[vuweathernerd]

i think it's interesting, now that i know what it means. i'm using firefox and they showed up for me.

[stlvufan]

They showed up for me too. I was wondering what they meant, but your explanation, 04, is kind of the ballpark my guess was in, though I couldn't really put my finger on it.

I've never been interested in such flags, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be useful. All I've ever looked for is the "new" flag. I still wish I could traverse directly from one thread to the next newest one, but I understand why that non-implementation decision was made, and I'm at peace with it

[valpo04]

Jan 26, 2009 13:49:13 GMT -5 stlvufan said:

I still wish I could traverse directly from one thread to the next newest one, but I understand why that non-implementation decision was made, and I'm at peace with it

I don't remember what the reason was, other than I wasn't sure if it could be done??

[stlvufan]

Jan 26, 2009 13:56:40 GMT -5 valpo04 said:

Jan 26, 2009 13:49:13 GMT -5 stlvufan said:

I still wish I could traverse directly from one thread to the next newest one, but I understand why that non-implementation decision was made, and I'm at peace with it

I don't remember what the reason was, other than I wasn't sure if it could be done??

Actually, to implement that was thought to introduce confusion during periods of great activity on the board. One could be reading one thread on which new posts were contained, and go to the next newest link only to find that that thread had advanced in the sorted list and you could easily lose track of where you were. If that one was the most recently updated, clicking on next newest again would report there were no new threads, which would be incorrect.

I mentioned at the time that the ORU message board implemented the next newest thread button. I think they still have it. What I noticed on their board is that if you add a reply, you then have to reload the main page anyway.

Certainly, it is a feature that can be poorly implemented without trying to do so, it calls for such care and sophistication. For instance, the next newest and prev newest buttons should really be implemented to query the database all over again and recalculate which thread to go to, but now that I think about it, those buttons on the ORU board were just "Next" and "Prev" and they should work "right" whether one is looking at new threads or all threads....

I suspect what you said was that it was a big can of worms and most people are happy with the current format, so...

... and I eventually caved in No biggie, didn't mean to bring the whole mess back up again

[rlh]

i get them too...but would prefer to do without

[valpo04]

Jan 26, 2009 21:28:49 GMT -5 rlh said:

i get them too...but would prefer to do without

still?

[agibson]

They're gone for me.

Thanks!