When do new threads become old? A better "new posts" button

My impression is that the forum software begins counting threads as new after my session times out. This means that there is a time window from when I last clicked "new posts" and when the forum decides my session has ended in which new posts are ignored. Call it the Ignore Posts Window.

I occasionally notice that my "Subscribed Threads" are marked as not containing new posts even when they actually do. I've gotten into the habit of always checking my subscribed threads after new posts just so I don't miss anything. Also, the "Go to first new post" link will sometimes send me past posts I haven't read.

It would be cool if we could have a "new posts since the last time I clicked this" button/link: that would eliminate the Ignore Posts Window.

Hi there,

Originally Posted by ntubski My impression is that the forum software begins counting threads as new after my session times out. This means that there is a time window from when I last clicked "new posts" and when the forum decides my session has ended in which new posts are ignored. Call it the Ignore Posts Window.

though I haven't experienced your particular problem yet, I observe something very similar when I open the "Zero Reply Threads" window. Sometimes the new threads are marked with bold print, sometimes they're not. Maybe the reason is the same.

And there's another annoyance, IMO a bug: Very often I see threads that seem to have a new timestamp and therefore appear as "new", even though they haven't been edited or re-posted. That is, old stuff is sold as "new" again, just like the electronics discounters do on their CD/DVD shelves.

[X] Doc CPU

Originally Posted by Doc CPU And there's another annoyance, IMO a bug: Very often I see threads that seem to have a new timestamp and therefore appear as "new", even though they haven't been edited or re-posted. That is, old stuff is sold as "new" again, just like the electronics discounters do on their CD/DVD shelves.

That may be a feature not a bug . Posts with no replies are "autobumped", to get more attention.

Hi there,

Originally Posted by ntubski That may be a feature not a bug . Posts with no replies are "autobumped", to get more attention.

if you're right, that *is* a bug in my view. A design bug. It makes orientation more difficult, because old stuff that I've read already is mixed between new posts again, and so it distracts attention from really new posts. Besides, posts don't get more attention just because they're new - they get attention mainly because of their title.

Just my 2 cents.

[X] Doc CPU.

Originally Posted by ntubski I occasionally notice that my "Subscribed Threads" are marked as not containing new posts even when they actually do. I've gotten into the habit of always checking my subscribed threads after new posts just so I don't miss anything. Also, the "Go to first new post" link will sometimes send me past posts I haven't read.

^ this

It is annoying. How does LQ flag a post as read by me? Is the flag stored on the server or in my browser somewhere?

edit
Even more annoying. After this post, this thread is now flagged (bolded) for me. This thread was listed when I clicked the View new posts link. Because of my own post!

I haven't observed an "ignore posts window" - the way it's supposed to work is that when vbulletin decides you have a new session, it marks as read all posts since you were last active - not since it timed you out. Lots of vbulletin servers run this way. There are other ways to manage unread-post markers, like expiring them after a certain number of days, but not too many because apparently the server is affected badly if it has to keep too much history.

I & others have argued that it would be much better to have say a 7 day expiry rather than expiring everything on a new session - if only because occasional visits, such as if you find an LQ thread in a web search, would not wipe out your history of unread posts. But my understanding is that Jeremy is delaying any changes like this until the next code update.

The other issue, with some thread switching to 'unread' even though they have nothing new, is because of the thread-bumping. See e.g. Some posts remain marked unread and have mismatched time stamps

Originally Posted by SecretCode I haven't observed an "ignore posts window" - the way it's supposed to work is that when vbulletin decides you have a new session, it marks as read all posts since you were last active - not since it timed you out. Lots of vbulletin servers run this way.

Ah, that makes sense. This would still result in an "ignore posts window" but it would be smaller: the time between checking for new posts and your last action (eg opening one of the new posts). Probably most of the time it's too small to matter, except when the last action is responding to a post (I often take quite a while to write a post).

if only because occasional visits, such as if you find an LQ thread in a web search, would not wipe out your history of unread posts.

Right, I forgot to mention that one.

Originally Posted by Doc CPU if you're right, that *is* a bug in my view. A design bug. It makes orientation more difficult, because old stuff that I've read already is mixed between new posts again, and so it distracts attention from really new posts. Besides, posts don't get more attention just because they're new - they get attention mainly because of their title. Just my 2 cents. [X] Doc CPU.

I believe this feature was built to bump zero-reply posts to the top of the forum they were posted in: for busy forums this allows them to be seen by people who are in different time zones*- but I can see how this would be annoying in the dedicated zero-reply view.

*obviously replied-to posts slip down the page in busy forums, but hopefully they have been responded to well- and of course replies bump threads up.

Hi there,

Originally Posted by titanium_geek I believe this feature was built to bump zero-reply posts to the top of the forum they were posted in

very probably that *is* the reason. Yet it's a "feature" I strongly disapprove of.

Originally Posted by titanium_geek for busy forums this allows them to be seen by people who are in different time zones

You seem to assume that people only read a few of the most recent posts on top. That may be true for some, but is it typical? I can't imagine. I come here irregularly: Sometimes I'm online all day long, and the next day again (I don't mind a quiet browser window somewhere in the background that reloads every hour or so), and then I don't visit the forum for several days. And then I look into two or three categories that I consider interesting, plus the zero-reply-threads, and quickly scan the topics of the new posts - usually that's between a dozen and a hundred. A matter of a few minutes, anyway.
However, when I remember that there was an interesting thread two days ago, I hardly have a chance to find it again because the thread order may be totally different now. That's what makes it difficult to keep track.

Originally Posted by titanium_geek but I can see how this would be annoying in the dedicated zero-reply view.

Not only there; that's true for any other category too, except the unspecific "new threads" view.

I'm also very active in a German forum, where registered users can choose how they want threads ot be ordered - strictly be the timestamp of the initial post (which is what I prefer), or by the timestamp of the most recent post in the thread, which is effectively bumping the thread. But not for all users, just for those who want so. Too bad I can't choose so freely here.

[X] Doc CPU

Originally Posted by Doc CPU However, when I remember that there was an interesting thread two days ago, I hardly have a chance to find it again because the thread order may be totally different now. That's what makes it difficult to keep track.

Simple solution, just subscribe to the thread using the thread tools.

Another bit of wierdness I encountered just now: the second page of new posts were all marked as read. It seems like my session timed out in the time it took me to get to the second page!?

Originally Posted by ntubski My impression is that the forum software begins counting threads as new after my session times out. This means that there is a time window from when I last clicked "new posts" and when the forum decides my session has ended in which new posts are ignored. Call it the Ignore Posts Window.

Once a member has been inactive for 900 seconds, all threads and forums are considered read. Individual threads are marked as read within a session via cookies.

Originally Posted by ntubski I occasionally notice that my "Subscribed Threads" are marked as not containing new posts even when they actually do. I've gotten into the habit of always checking my subscribed threads after new posts just so I don't miss anything. Also, the "Go to first new post" link will sometimes send me past posts I haven't read.

This should never happen, and would be a bug if it did happen. I haven't ever experienced it myself - are you able to reproduce it?

Originally Posted by ntubski It would be cool if we could have a "new posts since the last time I clicked this" button/link: that would eliminate the Ignore Posts Window.

The "View Latest Posts" functionality let's you get new threads for some arbitrary amounts of time:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ew&daysprune=7 <- in the last 7 days
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ew&daysprune=1 <- in the last 24 hours

--jeremy

Originally Posted by Doc CPU if you're right, that *is* a bug in my view. A design bug. It makes orientation more difficult, because old stuff that I've read already is mixed between new posts again, and so it distracts attention from really new posts. Besides, posts don't get more attention just because they're new - they get attention mainly because of their title.

It is indeed by design and due to the Zero Reply auto-bump. New threads do definitively get more attention FWIW.

--jeremy

It should be noted that there are two additional options for Thread/Forum Read Marking.

Database (no automatic forum marking) - this option uses the database to store thread and forum read times. This allows accurate read markers to be kept indefinitely. However, in order for a forum to be marked read when all threads are read, the user must view the list of threads for that forum.

and

Database (automatic forum marking) - this option is the same as a previous option, but forums are automatically marked as read when the last new thread is read.

The last one is probably the most usable option for members, but is by far the most resource intensive. If there is enough demand, I'd certainly consider enabling it on a test basis to see if it's a viable option given our current infrastructure.

--jeremy

Sorry, but I don't understand this:

However, in order for a forum to be marked read when all threads are read, the user must view the list of threads for that forum.

Would you mind to explain in more detail or give an example.