Sunday, April 28th, 2024
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Spittoon
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

'new'

Posted by Erica 
'new'
Posted by: Erica (---)
Date: November 15, 2002 10:56AM

What happened to the red "new" signs next to the topics with new posts in the "show topics" page? It only appears when you first download the page. Once you go back to the show topics page after having left it once, the new tags are no longer there. I am sad. I liked that because it indicated to me which topics had new posts. I preferred that over the show new posts button. Can you make it come back, Age?
 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: CowbellGuy (---)
Date: November 15, 2002 11:01AM

I didn't change anything. Still works here.

 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---)
Date: November 15, 2002 11:02AM

Mine works as Erica describes.

 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: CowbellGuy (---)
Date: November 15, 2002 11:06AM

Try clicking "Mark All Read" on the main page once in a while.

 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: ugarte (63.94.240.---)
Date: November 15, 2002 11:58AM

i sometimes lose the "new" designation on the main page on all threads older than a thread that I have checked. "Show New Posts" keeps accurate info on what I have seen, though.

 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: jeh25 (130.132.105.---)
Date: November 15, 2002 12:01PM

Same here. just forgot to say anything...

 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: pfibiger (---)
Date: November 15, 2002 12:06PM

Yeah, I'm having this problem too..it's new, although it could be related to my switch to moz 1.1 from IE6.

I come to the site, all threads w/ new posts are shown w/ the 'new' flag. Once I visit one of those threads, all the rest of the new flags on the topics page is gone...however, if I go into one of the threads, individual posts still have new flags. I have used 'mark all read' a few times, which doesn't seem to do anything.

Phil
 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: Erica (---)
Date: November 15, 2002 12:30PM

all "mark all read" does is exactly that. It marks everything as if it's been read already, in which case all the new tags disappear. I was always bewildered by that. It does that to me even if I haven't read them all. Weird...
 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: Erica (---)
Date: November 15, 2002 12:31PM

Ya musta done something. Because now it seems to work again. nut

d'oh. I take that back.
 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: cquinn (4.19.176.---)
Date: November 15, 2002 01:37PM

Same here. The new tags are disappearing on unread threads. They sometimes still stick around even after I've read them, too, but not as often as before.
 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: jason (---)
Date: November 16, 2002 01:11AM

Add me to th list of those suffering from the mysterious disappearing "new"'s problem.
 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: CowbellGuy (---)
Date: November 18, 2002 09:24AM

The thing is, if you click "Mark all read" the database just gets the newest message and knows all previous messages have been read. Otherwise, it actually stores the numbers of each individual messsage you've read. Eventually that list could get pretty large and might cause problems. Haven't confirmed that, but it's a possibility. Anyway, I undid the thing I did for the last problem with messages showing up as new after they'd been read. I don't know if that's what caused this problem. Let me know.

EDIT: That just reintroduced the old problem and did nothing to fix this one. Guess I'll keep poking.

 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: nshapiro (146.145.226.---)
Date: November 19, 2002 09:57AM

Try reading the threads "bottom up" - starting with the oldest thread that has a new tag. This seems to prevent the undesirable removal of the new tag from unread threads.

 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---)
Date: November 19, 2002 11:50AM

Exactly right. This is a "bottoms-up" system.

 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: CowbellGuy (---)
Date: November 19, 2002 11:57AM

Well, it shouldn't have to be that way. There's a problem, but I haven't had time to ferret it out yet

 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: CowbellGuy (---)
Date: November 20, 2002 10:03AM

Should be fixed now.

 
Re: 'new'
Posted by: jeh25 (130.132.105.---)
Date: November 20, 2002 10:09AM

Yup. Bunch of old new's that i never read just popped up.

 

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login