|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2004 04:47:45 PM · #26 |
While I agree most could go without being missed, how would you know who you were talking to without the usernames?
David
|
|
|
|
08/30/2004 05:20:19 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
The code to implement each of them is just slightly more complex than 'trivial' (meaning it would take more than one pass through the code, but less than ten, to 'get it right'). As you said, the most difficult, but not by much, would be the similar threads list. |
While that one would be complicated, to me, the most difficult would be one to keep track of whether each individual thread has actually been "read".
If there are 10,000 users and 100,000 threads, that is 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) booleans that you need to track the state of (thread read or not read). Now I'm sure there are some clever ways to do it without actually using booleans, but still, it is a huge amount of data that does not scale with an increase in users or forum activity. And keeping track of the last reply that each user read in each thread would require an enormous amount of resources, since now instead of a boolean for each thread, you need to store an integer with the ID of the last FORUM_POST_ID.
I think the way it works now is quite usable. The folder colors on the home page actually "make sense" since Drew fixed them a few months ago. As long as you realize that you need to read all the threads you are interested in during your current session, the folder coloring behaves "as expected". Once your session expires, all posts are considered to have been "read", and their folder color becomes gray. Next time you come back to the home page, new threads/replies are highlighted with a pink folder, and as you read them, they individually turn gray so you know which ones you've read during "this session". Yes you still have to know where in the thread you left off, but with the "Reverse Replies" option set in your Preferences, newer replies are always listed first, which helps a lot with multi-page threads. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 05:24:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Britannica:
The code to implement each of them is just slightly more complex than 'trivial' (meaning it would take more than one pass through the code, but less than ten, to 'get it right'). As you said, the most difficult, but not by much, would be the similar threads list. |
While that one would be complicated, to me, the most difficult would be one to keep track of whether each individual thread has actually been "read".
If there are 10,000 users and 100,000 threads, that is 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) booleans that you need to track the state of (thread read or not read). Now I'm sure there are some clever ways to do it without actually using booleans, but still, it is a huge amount of data that does not scale with an increase in users or forum activity. |
I'm sure the set of threads read by any given user is a whole lot smaller than the potential set of all threads that could be read by all users. I.e., it is much easier to track which threads someone has read than to track which threads any given user has read or not read. It scales pretty easily, as new users are unlikely to for example, go back and click on every thread ever posted.
Many other forums seem to manage it without much difficultly, but it doesn't matter a whole lot. It could even drop back to showing read threads on a different page if you were concerned about the minor overheads on the front page. Another alternative would be some way of doing 'new since you last logged in' that also exists on a lot of forums.
Message edited by author 2004-08-30 17:27:48. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 05:32:06 PM · #29 |
Also, I'm fairly sure this comes up and gets ignored every time we have a nude challenge or nude winners, but the default for a non-logged in account is to show nudity on the front page.
Might be more friendly to new users to have that switched off by default. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 05:47:32 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
it is much easier to track which threads someone has read than to track which threads any given user has read or not read. It scales pretty easily, as new users are unlikely to for example, go back and click on every thread ever posted. |
Still, this site has over 25,000 registered members. Assuming that each one reads only 100 threads and then never reads another one, that is 2.5 million "user has read this thread" data points to keep track of.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Many other forums seem to manage it without much difficultly |
I'd be curious to know of other BB systems that actually track the state of whether or not a thread has actually been read on a per-user basis, such that you can read a few posts at work, log out, then log in from home and have the "read or not read" data be "accurate" (i.e., not stored on the local machine in session data). |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 05:52:02 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Still, this site has over 25,000 registered members. Assuming that each one reads only 100 threads and then never reads another one, that is 2.5 million "user has read this thread" data points to keep track of.
|
Nope, its just 100 threads per user. Just store it on their machine. Scales really easily.
There are currently 102 users on line. I doubt it ever gets much beyond 200. Say at the outside it reaches 1000. That isn't much data at all to track or manage.
You will never need to access the data for 25,000 users, on 100 threads, all at once if you design it in any way intelligently.
Any tracking on how many of those 25,000 users actually use their accounts, given the largest challenge entry ever was maybe 400 ?
But anyway, as I said earlier this isn't really that interesting. Listing your unread posts would actually be more useful than ones you've read. Or unanswered posts. phpBB for example supports those sorts of features, listing threads you haven't participated in, or only ones that you have and that sort of thing.
Actually, just moving the 'ignore' option from thread to particular forums would be a great help. There is so many pointless threads popping up that anything vaguely to do with photography flies off the front page in around an hour or so.
Message edited by author 2004-08-30 18:11:47. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 06:18:34 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
There are currently 102 users on line. I doubt it ever gets much beyond 200. Say at the outside it reaches 1000. That isn't much data at all to track or manage. |
I fail to see how the number of people online has any bearing. There could be 10 people online, but if throughout the day 1000 people read a thread or two, you still have to keep track that user 12345 just read thread 123456, so when they come back tomorrow, or in 5 days, thread 123456 (assuming there haven't been any new posts) is shown as being "read".
Originally posted by Gordon:
You will never need to access the data for 25,000 users, on 100 threads, all at once if you design it in any way intelligently. |
It isn't a matter of accessing all at once. It is simply the enormous amount of data involved in tracking each user's thread read/not read status. In your case, Gordon, you've posted 6,997 times. Let's assume you read 5 times as many threads as you participate in. That's 34,985 thread ID's that would have to be stored and associated with your user ID so that they were properly marked as having been "read". And as soon as somebody replied to one of those threads, every person who previously had it read would now have to have that thread ID purged from the list so it showed up as "new" again.
I'm not aware of any BB system (phpBB or otherwise) that actually tracks thread read/unread status like that, which is why I asked for examples, because I'd be interested to see how they are doing it. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 06:39:10 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Gordon:
There are currently 102 users on line. I doubt it ever gets much beyond 200. Say at the outside it reaches 1000. That isn't much data at all to track or manage. |
I fail to see how the number of people online has any bearing. There could be 10 people online, but if throughout the day 1000 people read a thread or two, you still have to keep track that user 12345 just read thread 123456, so when they come back tomorrow, or in 5 days, thread 123456 (assuming there haven't been any new posts) is shown as being "read".
Originally posted by Gordon:
You will never need to access the data for 25,000 users, on 100 threads, all at once if you design it in any way intelligently. |
It isn't a matter of accessing all at once. It is simply the enormous amount of data involved in tracking each user's thread read/not read status. In your case, Gordon, you've posted 6,997 times. Let's assume you read 5 times as many threads as you participate in. That's 34,985 thread ID's that would have to be stored and associated with your user ID so that they were properly marked as having been "read". And as soon as somebody replied to one of those threads, every person who previously had it read would now have to have that thread ID purged from the list so it showed up as "new" again.
I'm not aware of any BB system (phpBB or otherwise) that actually tracks thread read/unread status like that, which is why I asked for examples, because I'd be interested to see how they are doing it. |
You seem to have ignored the meat of the last two posts, which both times stated that this feature isn't very interesting. But as you asked again, lenswork's forum, which is based on phpBB does track threads you haven't contributed to and new threads that you haven't read - and it isn't much data, as your examples actually prove. Of course its a lot of work if you would implement it as a constantly updated set of data for every user who ever has registered an account - but that would be about the silliest way to implement it possible - again given that at any one time, only about 100 or so people actually pay any attention to about 30 visible threads. Pretty much every usenet reader ever written managed to track this sort of data too. There are certainly a lot more interesting things that could be implemented before another forum feature like this, to re-invigorate the challenge formats, but it isn't a very huge data management task.
76 active users now, out of about 25,000 registered accounts and what - maybe 2000 actually active in the last 3 months ? Given the average number of challenges entered per user is 1.5 I doubt many of those accounts are actually in use.
Message edited by author 2004-08-30 18:52:24. |
|
|
|
08/30/2004 08:43:35 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
... There are certainly a lot more interesting things that could be implemented before another forum feature like this, to re-invigorate the challenge formats ... |
The best way I can see to bring more interest to the challenges is to concentrate more on the intention of learning instead of winning ribbons or displaying work. I has suggested in the past that a third challenge be added that fits nicely into the long dry period between the open and member challenges. Just adding another challenge would not provide much however, but if this new challenge is second chance (so to speak) for those who have entered a previous challenge it would become more interesting.
The biggest problem I see are the challenges being isolated activities, each complete within itself; while the only way to measure improvement is to compare your work to the work done in the past. With that in mind, having this new challenge be a chance to show what has been learned by participating in a previous challenge, there is a way to put what is learned from the first into practice and find out what has been learned. I wouldn't mind seeing this new challenge only open to those who participated in the previous challenge (on the same subject, in case I haven't made that clear). The tricky part would be to find the right length of time between the original and the retry to keep interest; too soon and everyone is tired of it, too long and any lessons learned are forgotten. A year or more between revisists, as we current have at times, is way too long.
David
thanks for fielding Eddy's concerns to my suggestions while I was away.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2004 02:01:08 AM · #35 |
//forums.cosplay.com/
This forum (where I post on and off) has many of the features being discussed.
All of these features seem relatively small, but I honestly can't say because I have never even tried to code a forum.
You can also attach images to your posts so that you don't have to upload them to your photo gallery (which for those who are non-members and those of us who don't want to upload "okay" photos to our portoflios, would be nice). Granted it may take up server space, but it could be set to delete files after either a certain amount of time in existence or inactivity.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that they have:
Threads: 36,599, Posts: 576,690, Members: 22,445
And an average of I'd say about 100-150 online during peak hours (unless it's right after a convention and then it can triple).
Message edited by author 2004-08-31 02:03:14.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2004 09:23:52 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Ami Yuy:
This forum (where I post on and off) has many of the features being discussed.
...
All of these features seem relatively small, but I honestly can't say because I have never even tried to code a forum. |
Hi Ann. Thanks for the screen shot. I noticed from the screen shot that the features about tracking which reply has been read by you is for subscribed threads. (The "Last" button would be easy, and the equivalent on DPC in the mean time is to just set the "Reverse Replies" feature on in your preferences, so when you read a thread, the newest reply is always the first one on your screen.) But do the other two features exist for any thread, or just the ones you subscribed to? And if so, can you switch computers (i.e., home vs. work) and still have the read vs. not-read information be accurate for non-subscribed threads?
Message edited by author 2004-08-31 09:29:00. |
|
|
|
08/31/2004 10:53:43 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
... I noticed from the screen shot that the features about tracking which reply has been read by you is for subscribed threads. ... But do the other two features exist for any thread, or just the ones you subscribed to? And if so, can you switch computers (i.e., home vs. work) and still have the read vs. not-read information be accurate for non-subscribed threads? |
Unlike here on DPC, a thread remains unread unless you are browsing the site as a guest and then read some, but! once you sign in it goes back to being unread. It remembers what it was when you last signed on so that it doesn't matter what computer you're on, they're new for you until you check them. That goes for subscribed threads as well. Unless you're logged in, it won't become "read" and be taken off the "updated" list.
I have mine set to automatically subscribe me to all the threads where I post (which I miss here) so that I know when they're updated in that nice handy "User CP" section (which I guess is similar to the "Watched Threads" area here).
Oh, and I also forgot to mention that clicking on "New Subscribed Threads" lets you see all of the threads you're subscribed to.
Message edited by author 2004-08-31 10:54:50.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2004 04:16:32 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by AmiYuy:
It remembers what it was when you last signed on so that it doesn't matter what computer you're on, they're new for you until you check them. |
That seems surprising, because it looks like a typical vBulletin setup, and the vBulletin systems I've used work similarly to DPC, where as long as you keep your browser window open, it remembers what you've read, but if you close your browser and come back later, everything that is older than the last time you read a thread is marked as "read".
DPC also has a similar thing to what you described as "automatically subscribed threads"... by looking at the bottom of your profile, you'll see all of the threads that you have recently participated in.
Message edited by author 2004-08-31 16:17:30. |
|
|
|
08/31/2004 04:32:03 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by AmiYuy:
It remembers what it was when you last signed on so that it doesn't matter what computer you're on, they're new for you until you check them. |
That seems surprising, because it looks like a typical vBulletin setup, and the vBulletin systems I've used work similarly to DPC, where as long as you keep your browser window open, it remembers what you've read, but if you close your browser and come back later, everything that is older than the last time you read a thread is marked as "read". |
I think he actually used vBulletin or something similar when he first built the boards, but now he's moved towards customizing and/or re-writing the code and such, however, I have no idea what is his customizing and what came with the original coding.
Well, in general threads are marked as "read" as you say, but if it is a subscribed thread it will pop-up in your UserCP and stay there for that session, until you read it. Now if you close the window, but you went to your UserCP I'm not sure what happens. ^^;;
Mainly what I was saying is that if you're not logged in, the threads will still be there in your UserCP as unread when you log in, unlike here where if I'm on a random computer it will mark them as read when I come to the front page and then log-in, even if I haven't read them.
Originally posted by EddyG:
DPC also has a similar thing to what you described as "automatically subscribed threads"... by looking at the bottom of your profile, you'll see all of the threads that you have recently participated in. |
However, the bottom of your profile doesn't show all of the threads you've subscribed/posted in over your whole time as a member. If you're active in the forum a thread you may need later drops off the list fairly quickly. It also only shows the last time that you posted to it, not when it was last updated. Perhaps adding a column to show when and who posted most recently?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2004 06:33:36 PM · #40 |
| With the exception of making a click on a username open a new window, I don't see any real improvement, or gain, in these ideas. Let's keep it simple and clean the way it is; and spend our resources on things more closely related to improving our digital photography. |
|
|
|
08/31/2004 07:09:45 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Gordon:
it is much easier to track which threads someone has read than to track which threads any given user has read or not read. It scales pretty easily, as new users are unlikely to for example, go back and click on every thread ever posted. |
Still, this site has over 25,000 registered members. Assuming that each one reads only 100 threads and then never reads another one, that is 2.5 million "user has read this thread" data points to keep track of.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Many other forums seem to manage it without much difficultly |
I'd be curious to know of other BB systems that actually track the state of whether or not a thread has actually been read on a per-user basis, such that you can read a few posts at work, log out, then log in from home and have the "read or not read" data be "accurate" (i.e., not stored on the local machine in session data). |
and the inventor of the cookie rests east in his grave. this type of action is client side not server side, phpbb has such a feature in its stock format |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 08:00:23 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 08:00:23 AM EDT.
|
