Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Silicon Investor ThinkTank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Larsen who wrote (1188)	5/3/2000 9:07:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 3372

The current solution works pretty well for most threads and users. If this is a big problem for you, please let this thread know, and it can be considered for change. I would rather see efforts go towards the SubjectMark page design. I would like to have several SubjectMark pages..ie a page with priority threads and another with less frequently read threads. Then I would be more inclined to use the SubjectMark page instead of trying to avoid it. My collection of threads is rather large and the SubjectMark page takes a long time to load. If I could prioritize threads on separate pages then perhaps they would load more quickly. Over time threads gain or lose significance. It would be helpful if one could move a thread from one SubjectMark page to another. Also, the SubjectMark page gathers threads I don't read anymore. Removing threads is a bit of a pain. Clicking on the remove (and trying to figure out which remove lines up with which thread without guide lines) is a slow process. Check off boxes would be helpful if one could mark several threads for removal and then remove them all at the same time. Regards Zeupaul

To: Bill Larsen who wrote (1188)	5/4/2000 8:02:00 AM
From: wlcnyc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3372

"Consider thread X with 150 messages. The last message you've read is 129. When you click the link from the subjectmarks page, the bookmark pointer is now pointing to 150....." I think that explains an annoyance which I find even more disconcerting than seeing previously read messages listed as unread. Using your scenario as above, it is when I have read only message 130 and I am "interrupted" - go to PM, get disconnected, SI error, etc. - and then when I return, the pointer is at 151....leaving all in between unread. Perhaps no big deal in your scenario, but when there are perhaps 200 unread messages (it happens!) and one is interrupted, it can be difficult to find your way back to the "true" unread messages! Correct me if I am wrong, but what the current code is "doing" is "marking" all 200 as read, even though one can only "read"(view) 10 at a time. I think what you are saying is that it would be too much "overhead" to just update the subject marks 10 at a time. Is that right? Bill