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.

Technology Stocks : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (9864)	12/1/1997 9:40:00 AM
From: Jeffery E. Forrest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

AHHHH, I see. Two steps forward two steps back.<G>

To: jhild who wrote (9864)	12/1/1997 11:07:00 AM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

I think it's a step forward. There has been a longstanding problem with copied URLs that used the ordinal (within the subject) numbering reference because they would wind up pointing to the wrong message if a prior message was deleted due to its being blank or some other reason. I sent an email to Brad a few months ago, and that's when he added the form at the bottom of each message that contained the unique database reference to the message, which would be unaffected by deleted messages. Now, all of the URL's use the unique reference identifier, with the exception of the ordinal message number hotlink that appears next to the sender's name. If you click on that, you will for the URL to still be subject/message style. But, there is no reason that couldn't change to the unique reference, either.