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.
Weird. I unmarked that old Tom post and Hil's post unmarked itself, too.
Sidenote: are bookmarks supposed to be listed chronologically, because mine are all jumbled?
They should be ordered by the date you bookmarked them, Sail. Is that not happening for you?
Also--if you re-mark Tom's post, does Hil's come up marked again?
It doesn't look like it, ita. I thought I saw a couple of 2009 posts cheek by jowl with 2006 and 2007 and other older posts. Could just be my eyes playing tricks on me.
I went back and re-marked Tom's post and it also marked Hil's, again.
