New Posts time

[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.

[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