Messageboard
Notes and Queries permalink
Discussion lists
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Tiferet (U11543134) on Friday, 11th July 2008
On the right-hand side of the individual Discussion Lists is an item which says, 'New posts: 0'. This looks to me like a programming error, because presumably the original plan was to tell the poster or anyone else who was interested how many posts have been added to the discussion since the individual's latest contribution.
Otherwise I can't see what it means. It can't possibly mean the number of posts since the latest post of all. -
Message 2
Posted by racheinderbys (U2394705) on Friday, 11th July 2008
I think it means the number of posts since you last viewed that thread. Of course it can't know which posts you actually _read_, and I'm not sure it even notices which pages you've viewed...
-
Message 3
Posted by Almond_Aire (U2259917) on Friday, 11th July 2008
It's the number of posts since you last accessed the thread, whether or not you posted anything last time you read it.
It goes back to 0 when you go back to the discussion list after reading the thread.
HTH
Alma. -
Message 4
Posted by Tiferet (U11543134) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Thanks - but in that case it's not working. On my account, anyway, and I have checked one or two others where I know people have not posted or lurked recently, either because they are away or have no internet connection at the moment or something similar, and it's the same for them.
I have only just logged on, and haven't viewed a fraction of the threads which say people have made postings since I was last online, but the number throughout is zero. -
Message 5
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:03 GMT, in reply to Tiferet in message 4
"I have only just logged on, and haven't viewed a fraction of the threads which say people have made postings since I was last online, but the number throughout is zero."
I don't understand. If it says the number of new posts is "0" then it is saying that people haven't made postings since you were last online. I've always found it to be accurate. -
Message 6
Posted by Tiferet (U11543134) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
I don't understand. If it says the number of new posts is "0" then it is saying that people haven't made postings since you were last online. I've always found it to be accurate. Â
No, I don't understand, either.
The funny thing is that now mine is showing an accurate figure, rather than zero, but when I first logged on all the figures were zero. And I have checked someone else's, someone who I know has been offline for a week because he has no internet connection at the moment, and his list shows zero as well, although plenty of people have posted since he was last online.
I wonder whether it resets itself to zero every time we log off, and then takes half an hour to wake up when we log on again? -
Message 7
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:56 GMT, in reply to Tiferet in message 6
Never has with me. But maybe nobody had contributed to the threads to which you were subscribed? It's possible. -
Message 8
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:20 GMT, in reply to Tiferet in message 4
in that case it's not working. On my account, anyway,Â
If it works the way I /think/ it works, you may have told your browser to reject cookies. That would screw it up. -
Message 9
Posted by Tiferet (U11543134) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Ah. Thank you.
Would that apply to our friend who has just moved flats, too? I doubt if he would have told it to reject cookies, would he? 'Cos the same applies to his, afaics. -
Message 10
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:41 GMT, in reply to Tiferet in message 9
Some of these "simplified security" packages will reject cookies if you set them to "High security", and, let's face it, who would use a package like that and set it to anything less than "High"...? -
Message 11
Posted by Tiferet (U11543134) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Mine is medium-high (the ordinary Windows package); I thought if I put it on High I wouldn't be able to see any of the interesting websites!
Was I wrong? Should I put it on high? Or should I use a different package, and if so, which? -
Message 12
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:50 GMT, in reply to Tiferet in message 11
I put some suggestions over here: A5985075
If you're using Vista, though, all bets are off. My experience only extends to Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP. -
Message 13
Posted by studioj (U1600165) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:08 GMT, in reply to Tiferet in message 6
You will only ever see non-zero values if you are looking at the discussion list for the account you are currently logged in to. In all other cases(*) the value shown will be zero (* eg: anyone else's discussion list or your own discussion list while you are *not* logged into the system).
I rather think that this is by design. It's bad enough that you are allowed to monitor other people's posting habits.. worse still to give you extra information about their reading habits too.
I doubt if cookies have anything to do with it (barring the fact that you probably can't be deemed "logged in" without having cookies enabled).
jont {;¬· >···{ -
Message 14
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:29 GMT, in reply to studioj in message 13
Jont, I think they store the thread ID and the last time you looked at it in a local cookie. I know I see different results depending on which of my machines I log in with... -
Message 15
Posted by studioj (U1600165) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:41 GMT, in reply to P114) in message 14
You can "think" as much as you like, Peet, it doesn't change how things actually work.
If you applied some of your thinking to the practicality and outcome of your scheme you would realise that it would be
a: utterly unwieldy
b: wholly impractical
Apart from the impossibility of the scheme, you'd only have to take a quick peek at your cookies to see that the cookies such as you describe do not actually exist, just one or two session ids.
But still, don't let reality stop you posting advice based on wholly imagined schemes (I do sometimes).
jont {;¬· >···{ -
Message 16
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:57 GMT, in reply to studioj in message 15
While I freely admit that I haven't investigated the way the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú have implemented this, I *know* that's how PHPBB implements the "unviewed threads" function. The reason for this is that all comparisons take place locally and you don't need to write to the database every time you look at a thread. So, hardly "impractical". -
Message 17
Posted by studioj (U1600165) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:19 GMT, in reply to P114) in message 16
My "impractical" was based on my understanding that cookie size is limited to 4096 bytes - which would not be nearly enough to cater for the needs of these boards. I've no idea how the PHPBB copes with this limitation.
Of course my understanding maybe be incorrect. I have never found a clear and concise description which specifies whether that limit is for a single "cookie" (sometimes called a cookie-crumb) or for all cookies (sometimes called a cookie-jar) for the domain. If the former then maybe it /is/ possible - but it would be a shedload of data to be whizzing back and forth on every request/response.
jont {;¬· >···{ -
Message 18
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:15 GMT, in reply to studioj in message 17
it would be a shedload of data to be whizzing back and forth on every request/response.Â
PHPBB does this precisely to minimise the data being sent - a local javascript compares the time of the latest message on the thread when you view the list to the time of the latest message last time you actually looked at the thread and if they're different it flags the thread as having unread messages. (I assumed the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú were doing the same with the /number/ of the last message on the thread.)
Cookie length becomes an issue if, like me, you have told Firefox to restore the state of all tabs every time you log on. In those circumstances the cookie never expires so eventually you get threads that permanently show "new" because they have fallen off the end of the cookie string and PHPBB has no record that you have ever visited them. This can be repaired by clearing the site's cookies. It takes a while for this to happen, as I think* each thread ID is stored as a 16-bit number and each time is stored in 32-bit "packed" format, thus taking up 6 bytes for every thread you're keeping track of.
(*This time I /have/ looked into this, it was just three years ago so I have no clear memory of it...) -
Message 19
Posted by Tiferet (U11543134) on Monday, 14th July 2008
This is very interesting, and I wonder whether the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú techies can help us? I see no point in the field in question if it only works occasionally, without even the relevant occasions being specified.
When it comes to cookies, I have an item on my computer which was picked up a couple of days ago by one antivirus programme as an infection. It looked something like this:
C:\Documents and Settings\Tiferet\Cookies\tiferet@webtrends.telegraph.co[2].txt
The antivirus programme in question, macrovirus, refused to clean it without my paying for a new version. So, I went to Tiferet’s account, and looked for the folder called Cookies – which did not appear to exist, although I had enabled viewing of hidden folders.
I went to Search, and it couldn’t find that folder either.
Does this cookie represent a serious infection, or can I leave it without it doing any harm? -
Message 20
Posted by Tiferet (U11543134) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Peet, your /Hints and tips for configuring a new PC/ is really helpful; thank you very much. I use Windows XP.
Just one query - you say, ‘For the Hard Drive, assume 160GB as a working minimum.’ I have suggested to people that the machine’s internal Hard Drive is irrelevant, because imo they should have two external hard drives, up to 500 GB each depending on their usage, one to shadow the other, and that they should keep their data and the business end completely separate. That way, if the business end goes down they still have their data, and if one of their hard drives goes down they have still got the shadow and the business end, so life can continue. That’s what I do, anyway – except that I bought a couple of terragig external drives about 3 months ago, and they don’t work well for a number of reasons. One is that the defragger won’t do its business over 500 GB. Cont. p. 94. -
Message 21
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:13 GMT, in reply to Tiferet in message 19
"I see no point in the field in question if it only works occasionally, without even the relevant occasions being specified."
Well for me it works every time and I find it very useful to keep up with discussions I find particularly interesting.
Especially as I have finally successfully installed Jont & Achilles special script which takes one directly to the next post after the last one you read by a simple click. (Thanks guys!) -
Message 22
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:50 GMT, in reply to Tiferet in message 20
you say, ‘For the Hard Drive, assume 160GB as a working minimum.’ I have suggested to people that the machine’s internal Hard Drive is irrelevant, because imo they should have two external hard drives, up to 500 GB each depending on their usageÂ
I was simplifying. If you are using Windows would /recommend/ a small (*no* bigger than 8GB*) drive with Windows on it, and two big-as-you-can-afford (say 500GB) drives striped in RAID0 for Data**/swap space. If data security is important to you (i.e. you're too lazy to back up on a daily/weekly basis) then I'd add another 500GB drive and use RAID5. ;-D
(* In a Windows system based on Windows NT, i.e. NT, (Duh!) 2000, XP or Vista, if a defrag operation results in one of the files used to boot the system migrating beyond the 8GB boundary then the system will erroniously report the file to be "missing or faulty" and the system will stop booting. This is a little-publicised error that will hit *everybody* who puts Windows on a large drive, uses their system to a moderate degree and defragments regularly, usually within two or three years of installation. Simply replacing the file, or even deleting-and-replacing it, will not fix things because the new copy will generally end up on top of the old one.
)
(** It's a bit of a pain to move "Program Files" onto your Data partition, but it only takes about an hour at most if you do it at first installation and you'll reap performance and reliability benefits throughout the life of the system. It involves a lot of d*cking around (technical term) with "Regedit" and "Notepad", which I'm not going into here at the moment. I might do an "Advanced" page over on h2g2 when I get round to opening the bottle of Maly Whisky that arrived earlier... ;-D) -
Message 23
Posted by Tiferet (U11543134) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Brill. Thanks, Peet – or should I call you geek? Peek? Geet?
I don’t partition my hard drive, largely because I like to keep air space between my work and the doings. But when I am away, I take laptop and Freecom external hard drive, putting Freecom shadow onto c: drive. Problem with partitioning is that if/when the business end goes down you lose everything else while it’s in hospital, whereas if you have it all on an external drive you can use an internet café or what you will. Well, if one is mobile one can.
I copy Program Files onto all h/ds, but one can use the machine for other things at the same time as copying, ime.
500GB hard drives are vastly cheaper today than they were a year ago ( – and even then they were less than three figures. I know that I don’t need to tell you that, but lurkers might be interested. -
Message 24
Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Tuesday, 22nd July 2008
I haven't noticed this. If I view a thread on one machine and then refresh the 'My discussions' page for that account on another machine, the recent viewing will have been taken account of. I can only assume that the calculation for which threads have been viewed by whom is made and stored centrally - another reason why long threads overload the servers, I imagine...
'Ö' -
Message 25
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Tuesday, 22nd July 2008
Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:14 GMT, in reply to Leaping Badger in message 24
It's also possible that the few times I have noticed this the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's servers have been out of sync with each other. They're not terribly reliable, you know... ;->
But I have fired up two different machines, both of which came up side-by-side showing h2g2 with the discussions in the same order but the "statistics" for each discussion different. (This was about three years ago, before I started using the "Plain" skin by default...)
About this Board
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú links
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.