'Serenity'
Do you have problems, concerns, or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
I'm curious about something-- why are Film and TV discussions "filed" differently when it comes to closed threads?
Every other thread is Closed Threads/Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer, but closed tv threads are filed Film and TV Discussions/Closed Film and TV Threads/Buffy 4: Grr. Arrgh.
I notice it because I will unsub to a thread sometimes when I haven't had a chance to watch a show, and it makes it harder to find the thread when I want to resubscribe.
Fixed.
Yay! Thanks.
why are Film and TV discussions "filed" differently when it comes to closed threads?
Film and TV Discussion closed threads are a subfolder of the Film and TV Folder. Main folder closed threads are put into a subfolder of the main folder.
I'm not sure how it makes the thread harder to find--shouldn't it make it easier?
Film and TV Discussion closed threads are a subfolder of the Film and TV Folder. Main folder closed threads are put into a subfolder of the main folder.
I get that, I was just wondering why the Film and TV folders were set up differently
I'm not sure how it makes the thread harder to find--shouldn't it make it easier?
no, because I can skim immediately past any line that starts with "closed", whereas, I have to read into the line for Film and TV. Not a huge deal, just vaguely annoying.
Is it possible that there is something wonky with the Threadsuck option around post 15,000?
I was trying to threadsuck Natter (in order to pretend to at least skim, and not downright skip). I was behind (um, *way* behind) post 15,000, and it threadsucked only until post # 15,000.
I manually (clicking "Next") went past post 15,000, and when I tried to threadsuck then, it sucked from post 15,000 *until* the post that the threadsuck was supposed to begin with.
I repeated it several times, each at a different post # (larger than 15,000), and it happened each time. The first post sucked was 15,000, and the last post sucked was the one which was supposed to be the first.
I have no idea if this is my browser, Natter sticking out its tongue to me for skipping so much, or matzah crumbs creating bugs, though. So I turn to you for help.
15000 was hard coded into the program as a default ending post number if the user left that field blank. I just changed it to 99999 so it should work now. Thanks for discovering that!
I feel like I'm seeing the random quotes be not so random. It's possible that I just spend too much time on the site and am imagining it, but didn't we have a randomizing problem before?
Random functions standard programming and scripting languages are not in fact random - but algorithms that yield pseudo random results So not an easy problem to solve. One thing that might help is we could maintain a counter while the user is logged, so the first time we generate a quote for a particular use, the seed is date/time, the second date/time X 2 the third date/time X 3. Or find some other way to make seeds for the random function differ more than they do. The problem is that while coming up with algorithms is not tough, testing them to see whether they actually work is pretty time consuming. Because it takes a lot of trials to determine whether the randomization is improved or not.
In the links area, I tried clicking "Buffista Swag from CafePress" and got a
Oops! We're Sorry! We've been busy housecleaning and the page you're looking for could not be found. It may have been renamed, moved, or deleted. Please check the URL for spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors.Dunno if it's a link thing on our end or theirs, but thought I'd mention it.
Sail, do you have this post: Tom Scola "Buffista Movies 5: Development Hell" Apr 11, 2007 3:35:51 pm PDT bookmarked? Do you mean to? Can you try unmarking it and tell me if Hil R. "Spike's Bitches 44: It's about the rules having changed." Apr 28, 2009 3:34:32 pm PDT stays marked?