What Angus said.

I still haven't found out how to turn caching on, is the problem -- anyone else know how?

Nou, with your extra interface scenario, we also need errorchecking on the "add user" side, which I was trying to avoid by only allowing you to delete a user from that page. Would that have a negative impact on the usefulness, if you had to see someone's post to block them?

My read had been that you could block a poster from a link in the psot header, and unblock them there too. Which would mean there'd need to be another link to just unhide the post. And there'd be no hiding of individual posts -- just everything by that poster -- the word "hide" is ambiguous to me that way.

This was what I was talking about. We tried it before. It worked fine for me. I think it would have been just a matter of changing a couple of browser settings for others, and it was working exactly like WX.

ita "Buffistas Building a Better Board" Dec 7, 2002 9:13:10 pm EST

through

ita "Buffistas Building a Better Board" Dec 7, 2002 9:52:12 pm EST

I never untried that, DX.

I never untried that, DX.

I'm not following you. You changed a setting, the board started caching pages, but people were complaining about the Message Center not updating, so you changed it back about an hour later. Am I wrong?

Sorry -- I crossed my tries. There were a number of attempts.

If we have an attempt that breaks everyones message centre and everyone has to change browser settings, it's not the right solution.

There *is* one for PHP pages that doesn't require the entire IE user base changing stuff (which may break other sites -- I have no idea). 90% of PHP sites work like this. The other 10% know something. I just don't know what it is.

Would that have a negative impact on the usefulness, if you had to see someone's post to block them?

IMO, no. I mean, that's how bookmarking currently works, right? (You can mark or unmark a post in-thread, but only delete from the bookmarks page?)

My read had been that you could block a poster from a link in the psot header, and unblock them there too. Which would mean there'd need to be another link to just unhide the post.

That was my read too. But I wasn't imagining that unhiding a post would only unhide one post. I assumed that viewing an annoying poster's posts would be an all-or-nothing choice. If you want to read a blocked poster's post, you click unhide. All the poster's posts become unblinvisible. When you're done, you click hide again, and go on your merry way.

If we have an attempt that breaks everyones message centre and everyone has to change browser settings, it's not the right solution.

I'm not sure it was everyone (there were five people who mentioned having a problem), but point taken.

It's a tough trade off though. More people might be affected by the Message Center not refreshing right away, but when you lose a long post because you didn't compose it in a separate program, that's a much nastier problem.

But I wasn't imagining that unhiding a post would only unhide one post.

Ah -- TT worked that way, right? That's what I'm remembering. Personally, I'd like to do it on a post by post basis. Not that I will, but I imagine.

More people might be affected by the Message Center not refreshing right away, but when you lose a long post because you didn't compose it in a separate program, that's a much nastier problem.

Until I/we find the *right* way, I think the lost posts, while irritating (happens to me too, on my work computer), are more work-aroundable.