| 3:18 pm on Mar 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
because everyone has different settings for "posts per thread" therefore making it ridiculously intensive to get everyone's settings to send the email, which would then be a unique email per user that has notification for any given thread, and fix a link
we opt for the extra click
| 3:48 pm on Mar 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Because everyone has different settings for "posts per thread" therefore making it ridiculously intensive to get everyone's settings to send the email. |
I'll second the motion! I'm not sure I understand the challenge. Each reply has a unique number associated with it, why can't there be a "fragement identifier" attached that takes you to that post? Just like when you are returned to your reply?
I would think that the user settings don't affect this? The message is always going to be at that number no matter what the user preferences are, yes?
| 3:50 pm on Mar 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
try that same on a multi page thread, it works as long as you are below the multi page threshold, then it becomes an issue
| 4:14 pm on Mar 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I will admit that I have no idea of the technicalities involved. All I know is that most other forums work this way, even those that allow multi page settings.
| 4:17 pm on Mar 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I will admit that I have no idea of the technicalities involved. |
Me too. I still don't understand how the multi thread affects the fragment identifier. Its a client side function and no matter where that post is, the user should end up there. I'm sure Adam has been mulling this one over as it has been this way as long as I can remember. I do believe there was a time where it was implemented but only briefly, yes?
| 4:25 pm on Mar 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
A lot of BBS software allows a link to a post, as well as to a thread (the post is an extra variable in the URL).
The problem with the fragment identifier on this site is that it must point to an anchor on the page you're viewing. So 3602975.htm#msg3603003 might work, but 3602975-2-30.htm#msg3603003 may well not. At a minimum it would need the post ID to passed to the server.
[edited by: Receptional_Andy at 4:26 pm (utc) on Mar. 17, 2008]
| 12:02 am on Mar 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
why is this not also a problem for the reported posts function?
| 12:06 am on Mar 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Reported posts include the post ID in the link. Perhaps the overhead is considered acceptable in those instances.
[edited by: Receptional_Andy at 12:08 am (utc) on Mar. 18, 2008]