Personally, I would check if the user was blocked before you check the specific post. I guess it's just a question of how much you think people are going to be using the blocking feature - if you think they'll be using it a lot, then check that first, because if the user is unblocked, it doesn't matter about the specific post, and, in fact, I think it will be impossible to have a post unblocked unless the user is blocked.

Personally, I would check if the user was blocked before you check the specific post.

Yeah, I was just trying to make the logic as simple as possible to explain what I meant. If there are performance gains by doing it the other way, then it's just as easy to code.

If there are performance gains by doing it the other way, then it's just as easy to code.

Probably would be, but I'm just guessing, not knowing anything about how the rest of it is coded, or, again, what the assumptions are as far as how frequently it will be used.

Also, just a thought, but you could put in a "Block my post" option when posting - this would be better than whitefont for spoilers. Then, you would, obviously, have to check the post before the user.

you could put in a "Block my post" option when posting

Eek! Then we'd be blocking by post instead of by user, and that would interweave a whole different set of logic and database structure to track that.

My envisioned DB structure was simple:

user_id, blocked_poster

And for every post display loop, you check to see if the user's blocked, and then if this post has been requested explicitly.

I am thinking that the display of a post from a blocked user should look different from the display of a normal user. But I have no further ideas.

Then we'd be blocking by post instead of by user, and that would interweave a whole different set of logic and database structure to track that.

Structurally speaking, how is "unblocking by post" different from "blocking by post"?

From TT, I don't think the post stayed unblocked. It was just that the page reloaded with that post showing. Next time through, invisible again. So no need to record anything in the database.

That's how I was interpreting it here too.

It was just that the page reloaded with that post showing. Next time through, invisible again.

Aha! innerestin'....

Actually, I think I was thinking that each post would have a value for "View" (or block, depending on your viewpoint). However, as I think about it more, each USER will have a value of "Block" FOR EVERY OTHER USER, and, additionally, for each post. That's going to be big, but I can't see any way around it unless you don't allow them to unblock by post, which I think was what was being discussed up above.

It was just that the page reloaded with that post showing. Next time through, invisible again.

On edit, I found this. This would be easier, yes.

That's going to be big, but I can't see any way around it unless you don't allow them to unblock by post, which I think was what was being discussed up above.

The big? And the overhead? Not a fan. Is there objection to my interpretation?

Is there objection to my interpretation?

Nope. I like your idea. Much more elegant.