Possible (unfortunately likely!) OVERlooked Posts !

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ I expect to delete this thread in about a week, so ya -(the reader) may-not care to bother with placing any additional posts to this particular thread, unless ya think ya possibly have something pertinent to add to the jest of this temp.thread's topic-matter (concerning "overlooked posts", [or something rather somewhat directly related to such] ).

____ Since about late 2010, I've been aware of an occurrence that I then thought was just a natural row-of-the-dice type of happenstance that likely wouldn't often occur on a regular basis. _ But I've since kept track and have since made note that indeed it DOES continue to happen, and not merely on just a regularly-occurring basis either, but rather somewhat CONSTANTLY & nearly without exception !
Here now follows the particular concern.....
__ While new-readers of the forum may not initially realize that the topic-list page's individually listed threads are each divided-up into separate pages containing 10-posts each, most thread-readers soon-later smartly realize that instead of clicking on the 'thread-title' and then paging-through all the thread's pages to get to the very-last page (with the latest-post), they can instead simply click on the page-number boxes which show-up just to the right of the thread-title, (once there's been more than 10-posts accumulated in the thread). _ HOWEVER, (rather UNsmartly),, it seems that most-everyone takes advantage of that convenient ability to jump directly over to the very last page of a thread (so as to then see the NEWest post), but don't also bother to check-out the PREVIOUS-page as well.
__ Until this past year, I simply assumed that most thread-hoppers just didn't care about the thread's topic enough to also bother to try & see if they might've missed any posts which could've ended-up being placed on the previous-page,, BUT I've since determined that even some of the thread's directly involved post-writers as well, must also be overlooking the fact that they may be missing new-posts placed on the previous-page ! _ Cuz I've definitely determined that very nearly 100% of the time, after a new post or two get placed onto a newly-created thread-page, then MOST-all thread-readers tend to jump directly to that freshest new-page, and yet, skip-by without bothering to also look for any other recently-fresh new-posts that they've likely possibly missed, which happened to be placed near the bottom-half of the PREVIOUS-page !
__ I can't believe that so very many of us would care to look-up just the LATEST-postings on the newest-page without also caring to also see any posts which they've also never seen before (that happen to be placed on the then SECOND-newest page). _ So that's why I'm bothering to inform everyone what's been happening,
(because most of ya have been doing such jump-by over-passing of thread-pages which contain posts that just-happened to unfortunately end-up at the bottom of a page that's been forced to become the page just-prior to the newest -[most freshly created] thread-page),
so that ya can now be fully aware, just in case ya (likely) weren't already.
____ I've been meaning to post something about this thread-page/post skip-by/pass-over phenomenon, most every-time I've noticed such to occur, for at least the past year,, so it's past time that I've finally brought it up here !
__ If I'm wrong that ya-are somebody who (likely) needed to be made aware of this quite common occurrence, THEN I have to say that it's somewhat of a shame that ya thus-then seemingly don't much care to read EVERY thread-post.


Enlightening-Cheers,
-Bob

[graeme]

Hi Bob,
I look for the red mark next to a topic that lets me know that there is a new post ( I'm sure everyone does this).
I then look down the last page I was reading and if for instance it's page 1 of 2 and therefore something new at the top of the second page I'll go back to page 1 to see if there's a post I missed, then go to page 2.

What does catch me out is when a post on a topic I have read is added to it doesn't get the red mark alerting me there's something new.
You do this a lot and I have to read your post again to see if you've added some more.
I know you add dct bob when you finish but its hard to find sometimes.

Can a post addition get a red mark?

Graeme

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Well Graeme, I hadn't expected that anybody-else would actually come-up with anything that's possibly of actual pertinent related interest here, but it's now looking as if it could be fairly important that you've bothered to step-forth with your particular contribution here (thus far). ...



" I look for the red mark next to a topic that lets me know that there is a new post ( I'm sure everyone does this). "

____ Well, if after all the months & years I-myself have ignored the red-circle, I'd certainly imagine that I'M not the ONLY-one to do so !
__ How did YOU learn of it's supposed function, Graeme ?
I-myself have yet to figure-out exactly how that particular red-function works and exactly what causes it to show-up when it does, or doesn't (and remains blue instead) !
I'm just now (thanks to YOU), beginning to pay-attention to it's THUS-FAR SEEMINGLY random-reason for it's chosen-rules for existing or not. _ As so-far, I've now noted that (it seems to me) the red-circle is shown on most-all threads, or on NONE at all, depending on whether or not the thread-listing page has been refreshed before or after I've been logged-in ! _ Which is all I've learned about it's existence, thus-far !
And with such non-concerting (seemingly happen-chance) appearance, it's no wonder to ME (at least), that I've never noted such function as that which YOU (& perhaps maybe just yourself), have somehow determined (to possibly exist).
__ This red-circle, (possibly non-random function), display which you've brought-up, needs to be further investigated, so I can possibly determine why & when it chooses to exist or not !
That process may take me a relatively long time, unless Jim happens to already KNOW for-sure exactly what-all it's possibly meant to determine & indicate for forum-browser/readers.
Cuz as it's been working (or not working) FOR ME (at least), I can't yet conclude that it definitely works in the particular manor which you've suggested it does.



" I then look down the last page I was reading "

____ In the event when ya've been gone away from the w.site for a significant time, it can then sometimes be rather difficult for ya to recall exactly which thread-page ya had last left-off at (in such event that the thread has since grown several more pages in length).


" and if for instance it's page 1 of 2 and therefore something new at the top of the second page I'll go back to page 1 to see if there's a post I missed, then go to page 2. "

____ Yeah, right... that's what I've also (long ago) learned has to be done, in-order so as to NOT miss any of the posts, (many of which [over the past] I've determined that OTHERS have indeed been missing) !
__ So apparently you-yourself are not one of those who may need to be made aware of the fact -(the raised-issue & the way to deal with it) .
____ This red-circle, (possibly non-random function), display which you've brought-up, needs to be further investigated, so I can possibly determine why & when it chooses to exist or not !
That process may take me a relatively long time, unless Jim happens to already KNOW for-sure exactly what-all it's possibly meant to determine & indicate for forum-browser/readers.
Cuz as it's been working (or not working) FOR ME, I can't yet conclude that it definitely works in the particular manor which you've suggested it does.
____ But in whatever the case,, although you've definitely brought-up a very RELATED issue into this particular thread's specific topic-matter, that related-issue doesn't by itself solve the MAIN-issue of most-others still somehow completely overlooking entire posts left posted on thread-pages which have been succeeded by the newest-opened thread-page.



" What does catch me out is when a post on a topic I have read is added to it doesn't get the red mark alerting me there's something new.
You do this a lot and I have to read your post again to see if you've added some more. "

____ Yes, and I'm very sorry about that, (but I'll later tell of my explanations for why I so often leave my posts posted unfinished). _ But for now that concern has to be left-behind because it pretty-much has nothing directly to do with the raised-issue (here in this thread).



" I know you add dct bob when you finish but its hard to find sometimes. "

____ Actually, I consider my posts to be pretty-much finished when they have
'Xxxxxx-Cheers,
-Bob'
near the bottom.
The 'DCT-Bob' only means that I've finally gone-thru & corrected any unintended wording-errors and-also as well possibly added some extra stuff (which would be out-of-place posted anywhere else).



" Can a post addition get a red mark? "

____ I'm somewhat delightedly-surprised that we have a red-mark to signify anything at all, and while such a flag would be sort-of nice to have for externally alerting whenever a contained post has been edited in any significant way, it's fairly doubtful that the w.site's software has included provisions for such, (sorry to say).
__ But as far as my-own posts go, ya'd just likely miss-out on altered wording which better covers everything, (likely in an expanded & glamor-treated manor),, and anything relatively pertinent which happens to be missed is likely missed by somebody who doesn't actually much care to review a thread's particular subject-matter anyhow.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[graeme]

I've seen this "marked" (red on this forum) dot or star on other forums.
On the Ducati TT2/F1 forum the post or topic I haven't read has a red mark next to the title, like this forum, but also has a smaller red mark next to the individual post or answer that I haven't yet read.
This makes it easy to find the next post or answer or comment that I have yet to read. In an individual topic.
This will only work when you are logged in.
If you're not logged on there will be no red marks.

Graeme

[machten]

+1 on Graeme

He's got my post covered on all aspects he raises.

Kev

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" I've seen this "marked" (red on this forum) dot or star on other forums. "

____ I'm not really sure yet exactly what you mean by: "marked" ...
As far as things that become 'red' go, I've so far noted a 'red-star' (which I think makes note that ya-yourself have placed at least one post within THAT same thread),, and the circle which changes from blue to red, with the red-color apparently indicating that which you've suggested,, that being that the associated thread contains a yet unexposed/unread post, (which I'm somewhat surprised the w.site-software manages to keep separately track of for each & every registered-member).
Is there anything-else you see that gets marked red, besides those two things ?



" This will only work when you are logged in.
If you're not logged on there will be no red marks. "

____ Unfortunately that does indeed seem to be the case, but that stands to reason, as the software-program certainly can't be also expected to provide such details to ALL the non-member wwweb/net.browsers who visit our w.site just to check-out whatever threads THEY choose to look-through.
__ So it's now clear to me as to why I-MYSELF have remained ignorant of the red-colored indicator-markings...
The stupid w.site software-program automatically logs me out after just one hour of page-turning inactivity, and since I most-ALWAYS keep my PC running (at least) one browser-page opened to this w.site, the red-indicators are most-often nonfunctional.
__ So it now occurs to me that our own registered-members possibly visit our w.site far less often than I had assumed, and-so it's thus-then possibly NON-members who are actually racking-up the majority of the recorded hit-total on the various threads, or else many of us register-members don't bother to log-in whenever merely skimming-though the latest thread-posts.
In either case,, whoever the majority are, they are definitely overlooking a fair number of posts, just in the manor I've initially suggested !
__ I've been able to determine that most-all (so it seems) thread-sifter/readers do as I've claimed because I always keep at least two browser-pages opened to the main forum page, and every coupe of hours or so, I refresh the oldest page and then re-compare all the quantities of the 'hits' on each individual thread, and note what the popularity is of each of the top ten (or so) threads are. _ And when I note that a new page has been created for any thread, I then note the number of newly-recent hits on the thread and also check to see whether an equal number of additional hits were also placed on the previous-page as well, (as ought to have been the case [at least for readers who really care to have not missed any posts]. _ Yet over the past years (since before I became a moderator), I've noticed that a high percentage of thread-hits -(as I've named them for myself), don't match-up in quantity (for both of the last two pages) as would be expected from those who care to read ALL the newest posts.
__ For example, I'll note that no recent hits will have compiled upon a particular thread (which happened to have nine [of the ten maximum per page] posts compiled on it's 2nd.page) for many hours in a row,, then just after two more posts happened to become added to the thread within about an hour of one another, (thusly creating a 3rd.page with just 1 post), the thread then soon-after picks-up about a dozen new hits, yet the 2nd.page only received just one or two additional hits ! _ Thus-therefore meaning that as many as ten thread-readers had overlooked the 20th.post, and only noticed the 21st.post on the more recently created page-3.
__ If the likes of this example had only happened once a month or so, then I'd never bother with bringing it up,, but it rather actually happens almost everyday, and the numbers are too often at an even greater ratio than my given-example (of 6:1) !
__ So, this is why I've gotten-around to finally mentioning that there are those who are overlooking posts, just in case they may-not've fully realized what they were letting themselves miss.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" +1 on Graeme
He's got my post covered on all aspects he raises. "

____ That's okay of-course but, I don't believe that he really brought-up anything which DIRECTLY addresses the particular issue which I originally meant to get all laid-out & understood.


Stay-Tuned,
-Bob

[machten]

To be clear, my previous post was not criticism of how the forum works. I understand it and I also understand DCT-bobs way of working. Viz posting a preliminary view and coming back later after consideration, research, checking. Not an issue for me, I always go back and look. That being said, it would be useful to have the red highlight come up if something was both new or MODIFIED.

Kevin

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" I also understand DCT-bobs way of working. Viz posting a preliminary view and coming back later after consideration, research, checking. "

____ I was somewhat afraid that readers of my posts might think that that's the type of reason for delay(s) of getting my posts finished, but that's not at all the case,, as I'm too disabled to simply get-up & go check on things (as I could easily do 2-decades ago), so as to be able to be sure of providing my best-possible reply-posts.
There are actually a number of varied things which seemingly conspire to keep me from placing posts in a normal timely manor. _ And I'd like to explain most of it but, it'll have to wait till later for now.



" it would be useful to have the red highlight come up if something was both new or MODIFIED. "

____ I don't at all disagree with that, but I don't see where it's too-awfully important.
__ (It's kind of like seeing a good movie,, if ya really liked seeing it once, then it's nice to go see it again, especially if the second time is to see an extended-version with added clips.)
____ Anyhow, I suggest that if there's any threads which were of specific interest to ya, that ya then double-check through them & make-sure ya didn't overpass-by & miss any posts which happened to become located near the bottom-half of each thread-page.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob