New Posts time

[Zifnab]

Is there any chance the time of inactivty before new posts are reset could be increased? It's been a problem of mine (and so probably other people) for some time, where I'm reading a long thread and sometimes doing other tasks, and once I exit out of the thread and go to search new posts I find I've been idle too long.

[crono_logical]

I'ts currently 15 minutes. Do that many people think/want it to be longer? :p

[Yamaneko]

I've had this problem too. Thirty minutes would be good, I think.

EDIT: And no, I won't waste an extra tab by keeping the Who's Online list open. :p

[Baloki]

Why not tick that box that says keep me logged in?

[Flying Mullet]

Because it has nothing to do with being logged in. When we bring up EoFF for the first time all of the theads with new posts are marked with a red folder. What Jenova·Rebirth is talking about is that if they pull up a thread, perhaps read half of it, then go make a sandwich for lunch and finish up reading the thread, if it takes longer than 15 minutes when tehy go back to the forum index all of those threads that were marked with new content now show that there is not any new content as 15 minutes has passed.

And I agree that bumping it up to 30 minutes couldn't hurt, unless keeping that data longer chews up some system resources of the site that we aren't aware of.

[Loony BoB]

Sounds like a decent request, actually. *goes to fix*

EDIT: It's now set to 30 minutes. Or, to be specific, 1800 seconds. Hooray.

[Baloki]

Well how was I supposed to know, I'm english deficent ;_;

[Flying Mullet]

Well how was I supposed to know, I'm english deficent ;_;*offers English vitamins*

[Baloki]

*offers English vitamins*

*Takes and hands back gold pieces*

[Zifnab]

\0/

[escobert]

Sounds like a decent request, actually. *goes to fix*

EDIT: It's now set to 30 minutes. Or, to be specific, 1800 seconds. Hooray.
Yay BoB you saved my day :love:

[crono_logical]

Nice to see it also inflating the number of users currently online :D

[Loony BoB]

Hehe, yeah, I noticed that. :) Now we actually have a remote chance of possibly defeating that 212 that was brought about by the server move somehow.

[Dr Unne]

I think there was probably good reason not to have it set for so long. 30 minutes seems like too long to me.

[Flying Mullet]

Unless there was a good reason I would think that being able to see new posts for more than a few minutes far out-weighs showing that more people were online in the last half-hour.

[Baloki]

Also it makes people think mods are online when in fact they went offline 30 mins ago :P

[Del Murder]

30 sounds good.

Now let's see about fixing those load times....:)

[eestlinc]

i figure the more threads that get reset, the less time I'll waste reading threads. :D

[Yamaneko]

And the less threads I'll mod. :monster:

I kid, people. Really. :shifty:

[Citizen Bleys]

set it to 30 SECONDS, please.

[Peegee]

If we set it for 3 days, we can easily break our record huzzah asian pride!

[Cid]

I think there was probably good reason not to have it set for so long. 30 minutes seems like too long to me.

*agrees*

[Loony BoB]

Only typical that the two most powerful members of EoFF go against. >=o

If there was any good reason, it wouldn't have been adjustable in the Admin CP. It's just a matter of preference, and especially with the odd slow loading time lately, it's even more helpful because I kept getting logged out and couldn't keep track of what threads I needed to read.

We could of course compromise at 23 minutes. 23 is my favourite number.

[crono_logical]

I don't really think 30 minutes is a huge problem either, and can be convenient at times :p The inflating of members online just happens to be a nice side effect of it :p

[Cid]

But we're showing 300 members online.. that's ridiculous. Of course anyone with half a brain would know that was false. It looks like a cheap scheme to inflate numbers.

[eestlinc]

you could stop showing what members are online at the top of the forum. If you really need to know what staff members are online, click the forum leaders page and see who has a yellow chocobo.

edit: or just PM BoB with any questions or requests.

[Yamaneko]

Or tell people that the limit was raised to 30 minutes because it allows people to be away from their computers for longer time without resetting the read post indicator. And tell them that we don't need a scheme to show that a lot of people come here because a lot of people <i>do</i> come here.

[Loony BoB]

But we're showing 300 members online.. that's ridiculous. Of course anyone with half a brain would know that was false. It looks like a cheap scheme to inflate numbers.
Having said that, it was 212 not long ago. Before the server move, it was something like 90. No matter how you look at that side of things, there's something that's been giving us massive boosts of members lately. It might be one of those lurkers that has a different IP every page they download. Because our usual peak amount, such as last night, isn't more than 150 even after 30 minutes.

EDIT: I just checked. It's the Yahoo! Slurp Spider, with about 50-100 logins.

[crono_logical]

Yeah, I think people need to distinguish active users and active members - the x members and y lurkers bit in brackets at the top is more informative, it's a shame it doesn't give the peaks for those two as that would be more useful :p

[Flying Mullet]

We could of course compromise at 23 minutes. 23 is my favourite number.
Why not 23:23?

[Dr Unne]

Only 11 days late, better late than never though. My case for not wanting Who's Online to be set for 30 minutes.

Let's say I come to visit the MB, I see which threads have new posts, I look at them, and I leave. For 30 minutes, new posts are being made, and the MB thinks I'm here, but I'm not. At 30 minutes, all posts that currently exist, including tons I've never seen, are marked as old. When I come back later, there are tons of posts (30 minutes worth) I've never read, but the MB thinks I have. Is this how it works? I believe so. I may be mistaken. What I EXPECT to happen is that the MB should've recognized I was gone in 15 minutes or whatever, and started remembering the new posts since that point.

I have sometimes had the MB say I was idle to long and mark all posts as read before I read them, if I had a long post to type. So I read short threads first. If I'm in EoEO typing up something huge, I JUST LOOKED at the forum list, so I still have a vague idea of what's new and what isn't. On the other hand, with the scenario above, I have NO IDEA what's new and what isn't, because I haven't been here for a long time.

The whole point of Who's Online is to show who's online. If you're gone for 30 minutes, you aren't online. I used to look in Who's Online to see who was here so I could PM them and maybe get a response immediately. Now I have to go to look at everyone's activity, and watch them for 5 minutes and see if they're shown as looking at the same page all that time, and if so, they're probably gone but the MB thinks they aren't. Who's Online no longer serves the purpose of showing who's online. I had that problem in the past too with the 15 minutes, but nowhere near to this extent.

This is aside from the fact that our online members list is showing hundreds of members as being active at any given time, which is never true.

[Loony BoB]

Judging by this thread, I'd say you're in the minority. I can't see any valid reason listed in that post, either. If you want to know when they were last online, check Who's Online, it tells you when they last clicked onto a page.

As for more people showing up, it's rarely over 100. That was Yahoo! Slurp having a different IP for every single place it went to. Inaccurate? Yes. But it would have been inaccurate no matter what was done. Even with 15 minutes, it's inaccurate. We could change it to five minutes for more accuracy but that's even less helpful.

Read the short threads first? That's saying that we should suit the problem instead of fixing it. Also, not everyone wants to browse every forum checking what threads are what length and which are new and which are old and so on. For people who view more than just the main forums (such as Jenova Rebirth, if I'm not mistaken), that's a hell of a lot of threads to keep up with.

If you can change Who's Online to show who was logged in during the last 15 minutes and still keep people's cookies for 30 minutes, that might solve both of our problems though.

[Dr Unne]

Not enough people have posted here for us to say whether or not I'm in a minority; I count five people who expressed approval. You could be annoying the heck out of everyone and no one bothers reading / posting here. (Also, Sean counts as 10.) With 15 minutes, it was inaccurate, but much more accurate than 30. You're catching all the people who check the MB for a minute and leave. I'm not going to go into the mathematics of it, but I'm pretty sure doubling the time more than doubles the inaccuracy.

I say "check the short posts first" because how often does someone type something that takes more than 15 minutes? I do maybe once a month. Why are we changing the way everything works to suit something that is the exception to the rule? The vast majority of posts don't take 15 minutes to type.

All we've done is changed one problem into another problem; now I have to suit the current problem, whereas in the past there was no problem. I was happy before, and everyone else was happy enough not to complain about it for the past 5 years.

Let's remove the currently active user list and the user counts from the main index if we're keeping it like this, if I'm going to have to check people's last activity time anyways. It no longer serves any purpose to display that data.

[Loony BoB]

Like I said, if we want to solve the problems, we need to find a way to make Who's Online show people who have been active in the last 15 minutes while still allowing people to keep their logins active for 30 minutes. Also, all of your problems still exist - you still have to check to see if someone is active even with 15 minutes as the active setting. If someone clicked on a link 14 minutes ago, let alone 2 minutes ago, they're just as 'gone' as they were 29 minutes ago. If you want to know if they're active, you have to check. I always checked when it was 15 minutes. It's the logical thing to do.

And yes, 15 minutes to 30 minutes makes a huge difference when you're reading an entire thread, let alone typing out a long reply. Maybe I just read slowly. Maybe you read fast or type fast. I know I type fast, but I still need to think quite some time about my post. :p

So far I've seen at least 6 (possibly 8) people voice approval for it and only 2 (possibly 4) against. While you are the big bosses and you do have more power and voice than me, I don't see why that should stop me from pointing out that, from the few people who do make the effort to visit this forum, a large majority of the more active posters are voicing approval.

[Dr Unne]

15 minutes was accurate enough that I could assume people were here and they usually were. Sometimes I missed people, but not often. 6 vs. 4 or even 8 vs. 2 isn't a statistically significant majority, let alone a large majority. We would have to have a larger sample size if we were looking for a good representation of what people believe.

But yeah, I think we should either put it back the way it was or let's remove it from the front page so people aren't misled into thinking it's accurate. Does it serve any purpose on the front page any longer?

EDIT: When I type "long" posts, it sometimes takes me an hour or more. I don't want you to set the idle timeout to an hour just to accomodate me though.

[Loony BoB]

I'd be fine with putting it to a vote because I honestly think it's better for more people to stay logged in longer. And I still think that we can get it set to show the users logged in for the last 15 minutes only, even though people can stay logged in for 30. Surely that would be a better solution for all?

[Del Murder]

23 minutes.

[Leeza]

This is where I find email notification of new threads very handy...when the thing works properly that is. I subscribe to all threads that I have any interest in and so I don't ever even check to see if there is a red folder marking new posts because I usually get notified right away with a pop-up window.

I like the 15 minutes from before because the 30 minutes that we have right now is so far off as far as who's online is concerned that it almost might as well not even be there, and I use Who's Online quite often.

[Loony BoB]

I don't want to subscribe to every single thread that's made just to see where posts are made. Which again brings me to the seperate times for Who's Online and login times, which I think would solve all problems.

[Dr Unne]

They way I THINK it works is that when you visit the MB and log in / are already logged in (via cookie) under some username, the MB starts a "session" for you. Remember in old versions of the MB, you'd always end up with links like index.php?s=0923485892345098435 ? It gave you a session ID, and that ID is used for lots of things, including who's online. I don't know if the MB still works like that since VB3 came out, but I would assume so, since it's a somewhat standard way of handling such things as user accounts and tracking who is currently viewing your site. You're likely talking heavy-duty hacking to alter anything having to do with session management. But if you can manage, more power to you. Admittedly I haven't even looked at the PHP, so I'm just guessing.

Using email to track posts is not something I would enjoy.

I will accept 23 minutes as a compromise.

[Loony BoB]

I'll make a thread at vBulletin forums tomorrow to see if they can help me do it without hacking - if it requires file hacking then I'll probably go with the 23 minute option to save on hacking a file. I don't think we've actually changed the coding on any files yet, so it'd probably be better if we avoid that, yeah.

[eestlinc]

I agree with Unne and Sean. I don't even see how it'sreally a problem whether you get logged out or not. I've never had a problem with this. I check the date and time of the most recent post in threads I'm interested in reading to see if there are new posts regardless of the color of the folder. Increasing the login time to 30 minutes doesn't really offer much improvement and yet causes more problems. It probably also makes the server slower, having twice as many users to track.

[Loony BoB]

You might not have had a problem, but giong by people's posts in this thread, other people (including myself) have. It's an annoyance. Just like you having to click into Who's Online to see a time is an annoyance, only we have to use memory and guesswork to try to figure out what new threads/posts are made, and all you have to do is click a link. I'd say our problem is more of an inconvenience than yours. Having to click onto Who's Online doesn't exactly take much effort. It doesn't make the server any slower (at least not anything that a human would notice) as people who were online 15 minutes ago obviously won't need any tracking, given that they aren't clicking links and therefore won't be sending any new information to the server.

EDIT: Keep in mind that I do actually have the same annoyance as you when it comes to Who's Online, only I already had it at 15 minutes. I still send people PM's expecting them to reply and then I would check Who's Online to find that they hadn't been active for ten minutes and the last page they looked at was the index - in other words, unless they had decided to research the forums index, they'd gone. I solved this 'problem' by checking Who's Online more often when sending PM's. But more importantly, I realised that it doesn't matter if I know if they're online or not, they're not going to reply any faster or slower. They'll reply when they're good and ready and me knowing if they're online or not won't make a difference. I send the PM anyway.

[o_O]

I vote 30 minutes. I always had the problem of taking too long to lurk, and my session would expire before I managed to browse all of the new posts. :p

Ever since the change, though, vB3 has been reporting threads which I have just posted in to have new posts, when I'm the last poster.

[Loony BoB]

Yeah, I'm getting that too, although I get the feeling it might have something to do with the upgrade to the forums more than the timeout setting being changed. It only happens sometimes, though... we'll figure it out. I think.

EDIT: Thread at vBulletin regarding Who's Online issue (http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?p=751162#post751162).

EDIT: Thread at vBulletin regarding thread-reply-read issue (http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?p=751172#post751172).

[Citizen Bleys]

The whole point of Who's Online is to show who's online.

That pretty much sums it up. If I want to see who's online, I want to see who's online now, not just an indication that the member has maybe accessed the site at some point in the last 24 hours.

As for the cookie issue, posts that take so long to type up that the cookie times out are very, very, very rare. Why b0rk a feature that currently works for all members just to satisfy the four people who write posts that long more than twice a year? If you start doing that, you'd better start putting in all the hacks that The Man asks for. It's only fair.

EDIT: And it's urinating me off that other posts that I've read are showing as unread even though I'm the last poster. I'm almost ready to choke someone, and I haven't even been to work yet.

[Loony BoB]

That pretty much sums it up. If I want to see who's online, I want to see who's online now, not just an indication that the member has maybe accessed the site at some point in the last 24 hours.
Then why wasn't it set to ten, five, or even three minutes beforehand?


As for the cookie issue, posts that take so long to type up that the cookie times out are very, very, very rare. Why b0rk a feature that currently works for all members just to satisfy the four people who write posts that long more than twice a year? If you start doing that, you'd better start putting in all the hacks that The Man asks for. It's only fair.
It's more the reading of threads that can take some time. And I'm not installing hacks, you of all people should know I reject hack requests. I'm hoping for a template change (or leaving it at 30 minutes!). And so far more people have voiced against 15 minutes than 30 minutes. So why bork a setting that currently works for all members just to satisfy the four people who only posted here about this because they actually knew it had changed, rather than against someone proactive like Jenovah who realised a problem without it even being told to him? If you guys were never told about the change or if it was 30 minutes as of four years ago, you'd probably not even care.


EDIT: And it's urinating me off that other posts that I've read are showing as unread even though I'm the last poster. I'm almost ready to choke someone, and I haven't even been to work yet.
Yeah, I know. It sucks. I just found out that it's happening at Aiyon, too, so it's definitely something to do with the upgrade from 3.0.0 to 3.0.3.

[Citizen Bleys]

Ooh, I think I sense an opportunity to be snide. *rubs hands together in anticipation*

Can you tell that I've become more of a hateful person as a result of working in tech support? I used to try to be nice


Then why wasn't it set to ten, five, or even three minutes beforehand?

No doubt because Jelsoft programmers are sadistic and enjoy making people suffer. I knew that they had to have something in common with me.

Conversely, if there is a kind and loving God in this world, why was the timer not set to 12,000 years initially?



It's more the reading of threads that can take some time. And I'm not installing hacks, you of all people should know I reject hack requests.

I hope so. Suggesting you install The Man's hacks was a rhetorical device similar to what I said in the other thread about taking naked outdoor strolls in February. I hope you don't do that, either. If nothing else, for the sake of the poor, innocent police.


So why bork a setting that currently works for all members

if the who's online is inaccurate, then it does not work.


just to satisfy the four people

Because really, only the people who have posted in this thread count, not the hundreds of other members affected by the who's online outage.


who only posted here about this because they actually knew it had changed,

Try who posted here because it was being discussed, and you are talking action about making the problem get bigger than it already is by increasing the timeout.


rather than against someone proactive like Jenovah who realised a problem without it even being told to him? If you guys were never told about the change or if it was 30 minutes as of four years ago, you'd probably not even care.

So now it's not what we're saying, but who we are? On the one hand, you complain about the members who whine about the staff members for being staff members, and now you're whining about oldbies for being oldbies.

Let's try this again, but focus on what is being said instead of who is saying it.

EDIT: This post started out a lot more sugar-coated, but then I realized it would be sheer hypocrisy to nice things down just 'cause I was talking to BoB and then close by saying "forget who, discuss what"

Meh.

[Leeza]

if the who's online is inaccurate, then it does not work.
It still works, but you have to check your clock against the person on the list and then just assume that they are not there anymore if their time is listed as being 10 or so minutes past the present time. Or maybe they're just stuck in that one thread that is taking them so long to read.

[Dr Unne]

I'd say our problem is more of an inconvenience than yours.

I disagree, so where does that put us? The current system doesn't work; it annoys the heck out of me, or I wouldn't have bothered posting at all. Also your "large majority" has become somewhat lessened given recent posts by Bleys, Leeza, and eestlinc.

I'm going to change it to 23 minutes unless someone gives a very good reason why I shouldn't. 23 is even a bit high. I'd ask for 20 (or good old 15) but this thread is already too huge as it is.

[Loony BoB]

I'll live with 23. After all the intermittent EoFF downtimes (UK specific for some reason) today, I've enjoyed the 30 minutes, though, as it was often about 20 minutes that the place was down and that meant it kept me logged in. clout and Baloki can back me up on that one.

I included Mark and eest in the original four.


if the who's online is inaccurate, then it does not work.
Leeza answered that one well enough - The only way to be truely accurate would be to have it set to record exactly when logged in members were actually looking at their EoFF window at the time, and that's impossible as far as I know.


Because really, only the people who have posted in this thread count, not the hundreds of other members affected by the who's online outage.
Hey, I just used the line you used. Right now, from what we know, we do have the majority. I'm not saying it's accurate, I'm saying it's a majority of people who have posted in this thread. We represent the rest of the forums just as well as you do, and you used a similar argument to mine.


So now it's not what we're saying, but who we are?
I never said that or suggested that. I just said his name because he was indeed the one who posted the thread. In fact, I haven't boasted anyone's importance to the matter as far as I know, although both Unne and I acknowledged Cid's importance.


and you are talking action about making the problem get bigger than it already is by increasing the timeout.
I didn't understand that bit. :(

I'm very sorry that my debating skills aren't the best, but I'm doing my best to support all the people who have voiced their approval for the 30 minute thing. I'm guessing after watching Bleys and Unne and I argue about it they're not too keen to join in, but if it's going to be won by whoever argues longest (which at this stage it looks like that's the case), then we may as well just go with 23 and be done with it, because I don't see why it should be 'won' that way.

I will however keep looking into the 15 minutes for Who's Online, 30 minutes for login idea, because it sounds like that would solve the problem. Maybe we could make it 10 minutes of 5 minutes for Who's Online instead of 15 if I do figure it out, because that would be more accurate as to who's actually there to reply to a PM. :)

[Citizen Bleys]

I never said that or suggested that. I just said his name because he was indeed the one who posted the thread. In fact, I haven't boasted anyone's importance to the matter as far as I know, although both Unne and I acknowledged Cid's importance.


I was referring to that snipey little comment about "if it had been like this 4 years ago you cranky old "oh-for-the-good-old-days" old-timers would shut the @#$@ up and let me do what I want.

It's not a reaction against change, it's a reaction against breaking the Who's Online list.

[Loony BoB]

I was referring to that snipey little comment about "if it had been like this 4 years ago you cranky old "oh-for-the-good-old-days" old-timers would shut the @#$@ up and let me do what I want.

It's not a reaction against change, it's a reaction against breaking the Who's Online list.
But it's not broken, as Leeza pointed out. I was pointing out that yes, 30 minutes isn't an accurate showing, but neither is 15, and if you'd 'grown up' in EoFF with 30 then I don't think you would care. I only said four years ago because four years ago would have been the time that Who's Online would have started (at a guess). I was here four years ago, too. :p

[Citizen Bleys]

It existed in a hack for ezBoard as well, except it worked a lot better back then.

But that was before ezBoard started to suck, so you weren't even born then.

[eestlinc]

how about we stop showing who's online on the forum main page? If you really want to know, click the current users link. Or, we could set everyone to invisible mode so only staff could see who's online.

Or, you could make vB only mark a thread as read after you either read the thread or mark it read. I think that's how ezBoard used to (still does maybe) work and while it's also pretty annoying to do, it eliminates the probl;em of threads being marked read when you have not in fact read them. Then logout time would not matter at all.

[Citizen Bleys]

Or we could just drive red-hot spikes into our eye sockets while carving rude words into our intestines with a scimitar, that would work pretty well, too, and be less painful.

[Del Murder]

23 sounds good chief.

[eestlinc]

we could also ban everyone