DataDoc
Nilsson Schmilsson
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
 ·Suddenlink
|  Let user chose number of threads displayed in Favorite Forum
I suggest that the user be allowed to determine the number of threads, in each forum, that show up in the Favorite Forums page. Showing more might help the problem of some threads never being displayed, as mentioned in
--
My loony bun is fine, Benny Lava. |
|
Ken
Premium,MVM
join:2003-06-16
Brownsburg, IN
edit:
January 19th, @01:43PM
| Good idea, *sign*
In case anyone doesn't understand what the favorite forum is »/forums/fav.
I would like to be able to change it from 8 to 20. Or honestly I would love to be able to change just certain forums from 8 to 20, and leave others at 8. |
|
DataDoc
Nilsson Schmilsson
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
·Suddenlink
| said by Ken  :Good idea, *sign* In case anyone doesn't understand what the favorite forum is » /forums/fav. I would like to be able to change it from 8 to 20. Or honestly I would love to be able to change just certain forums from 8 to 20, and leave others at 8. That's exactly how I want to use it. |
|
cacroll
Eventually, Prozac becomes normal
Premium
join:2002-07-25
Martinez, CA | reply to DataDoc
SIGN
Especially since traffic volume varies so widely, from forum to forum. |
|
Weirdal
we must repeat.
Premium
join:2003-06-28
Lincoln, NE | reply to DataDoc
*object*
too many options is a bad thing. |
|
DataDoc
Nilsson Schmilsson
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | said by Weirdal :too many options is a bad thing. Then don't use them. |
|
Weirdal
we must repeat.
Premium
join:2003-06-28
Lincoln, NE
·Charter Pipeline
edit:
January 20th, @06:30PM
| said by DataDoc :said by Weirdal :too many options is a bad thing. Then don't use them. You can say that about every single thing that is requested here.
I'm saying that having too many options is a bad thing. It gets confusing to just configure the site.
--
SBKRadio | dslr tools
|
|
DataDoc
Nilsson Schmilsson
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | Word has hundreds of options I've never used/changed, but it's nice to have the option to if I needed it.
I guess I don't understand voting against an option you won't use, but others might want. |
|
Weirdal
we must repeat.
Premium
join:2003-06-28
Lincoln, NE
·Charter Pipeline
edit:
January 20th, @07:03PM
| said by DataDoc :Word has hundreds of options I've never used/changed, but it's nice to have the option to if I needed it. I guess I don't understand voting against an option you won't use, but others might want. Because with pages and pages of options most people don't care about, it makes the preferences screens overwhelming. there's a ton of topics in the help forum with people not being able to find an option because there are too many options here.
Useless options lead to a confusing interface, which is poor site design.
»/join
»/prof/passwd
»/prefs/forum
»/prefs/style
»/prefs/flair
»/prefs/avatar
»/prefs/seepeople
»/prefs/fortunes
»/prefs/boxes
»/prefs/tickerconfig
»/prefs/minibar/config
three rows of tabs
--
SBKRadio | dslr tools
|
|
Pentangle
With our thoughts we make the world.
Premium
join:2006-06-01
Vancouver BC | reply to DataDoc
*sign*-an excellent idea. |
|
Rob A
Jets 19 - Steelers 16
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | reply to DataDoc
-sign- |
|
Mactron
el Camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv | reply to DataDoc
Some forums have so many "Pinned" items that it makes sense.
-Sign- |
|
Johnny
Premium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
| reply to DataDoc
I'd prefer just to implement the "ignore thread" feature. I have no problem with this request, but it is true that options are bad for stability - every option doubles the number of configurations that have to be tested and debugged.
Let's just bring back ignore thread and be done with it. We might be limited to a number of threads we can ignore, since the list of ignored threads would have to go along with the user -- it's not feasible for each thread to have a list of the users that are ignoring it.
For example, you might be limited to ignoring 100 threads. Still better than seeing the same 8 threads constantly being updated and you never can get to the ninth one. |
|
DataDoc
Nilsson Schmilsson
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
·Suddenlink
| said by Johnny :For example, you might be limited to ignoring 100 threads. Still better than seeing the same 8 threads constantly being updated and you never can get to the ninth one. Then there'd have to be some way to rtire them once you reached your limit. It'd be so much easier if only the ones showing got flagged as read, and the next 8 moved up. I do see you point though. |
|
Johnny
Premium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
| said by DataDoc :said by Johnny :For example, you might be limited to ignoring 100 threads. Still better than seeing the same 8 threads constantly being updated and you never can get to the ninth one. Then there'd have to be some way to rtire them once you reached your limit. Yep - in the old system, as soon as you hit your limit, the list was deleted and you had to re-ignore all of them. There must be a better way. |
|
jfgnet
12 Step Program
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
Limbo
clubs: | reply to DataDoc
Sign |
|
C_
Kill The Socialists
Premium
join:2001-03-19
Aurora, IL | *object* |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to Weirdal
said by Weirdal :*object* too many options is a bad thing. Lol you could be right.
*SIGN*
 |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA | reply to DataDoc
/sign
The default is much too small, make it an option or double it. |
|
MVS
Premium
join:2005-04-18 | reply to DataDoc
*Sign* I'd prefer this to be a global option rather than a per-forum option, though. |
|
