New Posts to Old Threads Buried on My Chow
Hi Chow techs,
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but there is a problem with the way new posts to old threads appear on the My Chow page. I'm involved in a discussion on Not About Food in a thread from two years ago that recently rekindled, and when something new gets written to it, instead of showing up at the top of the first My Chow page as I would expect, it shows up at the top of page 29 or thereabouts.
If I go to the All Activity screen my latest post will appear near the top, but I have no way of knowing when someone else has posted a reply without going to the Not About Food board, where the thread correctly appears at the top if there a new post to it.
Is this a known bug? Is it one that's being worked on?
Thanks,
Bob
By BobB
on Jul 16, 2008 02:30 PM
View »
Video
It's a known issue, yes, and Engineering has a problem ticket for it. If you scroll back through past pages, you'll see those posts have floated to the top of the page they're on, just not the top of the first page.
Permalink | Reply
I have noticed that, but it doesn't help much to have them at the top of a page that's dozens of pages away.
Permalink | Reply
And, I mentioned this on another thread, but you get an application error more often than not when clicking on the page numbers. I got stuck on 22 for a while and no matter how many times I tried, I kept getting the application error. I finally just skipped to page 25, but then I got the application error again on page 28, and so on and so on. Really was looking forward to being lazy and going through all my pages today, but it was a no go and very frustrating!
Permalink | Reply
Not that this helps with older replies on older threads that you've missed, but I usually keep the boards sorted by "last post" rather than "date started", which helps in "catching" replies to older threads.
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, I've always sorted the boards that way, but I still seem to miss a lot, somehow. I probably tend to stay on the first page more often than not, just because I'm usually checking it quickly in between work and stuff.
Permalink | Reply
Yep, I get an error starting on page 6 of mine!
Permalink | Reply
Just had the same problem - after about page 7 or 8, every single page brought up an error page the first time, then (usually) loaded correctly the second time. Frustrating indeed!
Permalink | Reply
Hey, congratulations - looked like you finally got this one fixed! Thanks, tech team!
Permalink | Reply
Wow, fantastic! Thanks, tech team!
Permalink | Reply
For a long time, myCHOW had been sorting the posts first by the date of your first reply to the post, splitting them into pages, and then sorting within each page by the date of the most recent reply from anyone. Currently, the sort is believed to have changed slightly.
It now sorts by the date of your most recent reply, splits into pages and then sorts within each page by the date of the most recent reply from anyone. So, if you make a new post to a thread, it will float to the front of your myCHOW page, and stay there until you make 25 other posts to push it off the page, after that, it won't appear on your front page again unless you personally make another post to the thread.
As near as I can tell, this hasn't changed in the last couple of days -- if I scroll back through the pages on myCHOW, and compare the last update date of the post at the end of one page to the last update date of the post at the beginning of the next, the further back page almost always has a later last update date, signaling that there are newer posts in that thread, but it wasn't moved up a page.
Permalink | Reply
Oh. Well that's no fun. Ah well.
Permalink | Reply
Thanks for the clarification, Jacquilynne. If I understand you correctly, at least that's some improvement over what it was before: if I jump back into an old thread for a while, I will see it on the front page of MyChow as long as I stay active in it, but if someone else posts to an old thread I was active in, it stays back on Page 29 or wherever it was and I won't know about it unless I search all the back pages. Correct?
If so, is that intentional? Or do you still (as I do) consider it a bug and have it on the list to be fixed?
Permalink | Reply
It's still on the buglist to be fixed.
Permalink | Reply