Your Heart's Desire

[studiot]

Again and again I keep bumping against the loss of the obviously useful way of referencing previous posts.

That of post numbering in a thread.

Why can we not have it restored?

I see the post counter in lists now does not include the OP so is a 'reply counter'.

 

 

Some more losses has come to light.

When displaying lists of posts the Originator is credited (quite rightly), but the last poster is no longer displayed.

Also now the time/date of the OP is stated but not when the most recent post was made.

 

All of this is really useful information that facilitates navigation and is still standard in many other scientific forums.

 

 

[Lord Antares]

Why not just quote the post you're talking about? It's even more convenient to the person who you want to quote it to because they don't have to go back and search for posts. The only time I would consider referencing posts by number more useful is if you're quoting someone from a different thread. But then again, you could just link the exact comment and it's easier again. Actually, I can see why post numbers aren't deemed necessary. I'm not sure what their role is if there are other (IMO more efficient) ways of referencing posts. Plus, mods cannot recognize the post you're referencing because they are showed the hidden posts which we aren't. 

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Also now the time/date of the OP is stated but not when the most recent post was made.

Sure it is. It's next to  the clock on the right.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

When displaying lists of posts the Originator is credited (quite rightly), but the last poster is no longer displayed.

My ''unread content'' page looks different than yours. Which browser are you using? 
Here is how I see it:

https://imgur.com/Q0G2MoZ

Ahhh. I think I know why. I think you're using the condensed view, rather than expanded. You see those buttons on the top right of my screenshot?

[MigL]

I miss the post numbering also.
I don't like quoting because I don't like re-reading posts ( sometimes several times over and over for a contentious post ).
And sometimes huge posts are wholly quoted for a one word answer.

Give us back the choice.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The makers of our forum software believe they know better than we do, and don't intend to create an option for adding back post numbers. This is one of the many reasons why I hate all forum software.

However, if you click the little Share icon at the top right of a post, you can get a direct link to the post, which you can use to send people directly to the post you're referring to.

[Mordred]

Roflmao, the makers of the forum software evidentally don't often use forums if they never encountered the mere convenience of

"See post 34 above"

Thanks for trying though, can't do what the forum software isn't programmed to allow. 

Edited October 14, 2017 by Mordred

[koti]

Posts have to have markers in the code and it would seem a pretty quick and easy task to add to that marker or substitute it with a numbering system. I only presume that...if they are fighting against it, means that its not such a simple task?

Edited October 14, 2017 by koti

[studiot]

You mean there is an organisation in the world that doesn't listen to its customers?

Who would have thought it?

And in the IT industry as well. Of all places.

 

 

[StringJunky]

57 minutes ago, studiot said:

You mean there is an organisation in the world that doesn't listen to its customers?

Who would have thought it?

And in the IT industry as well. Of all places.

 

 

"You can have any colour as long as it's black".  

Edited October 14, 2017 by StringJunky

[studiot]

Well here are my thoughts.

1) It must be possible or the program could not provide the information about the number of replies.

2) Are we to understand that the program authors never intend to issue any updates?

3) Even Microsoft admitted it was wrong over the start button fiasco.

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Well here are my thoughts.

1) It must be possible or the program could not provide the information about the number of replies.

2) Are we to understand that the program authors never intend to issue any updates?

3) Even Microsoft admitted it was wrong over the start button fiasco.

I suspect the great majority of their websites are not as formally structured as this one, with this type of membership, that works this way. They probably use their own forum as a test bed and found it wasn't needed or was superfluous.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Their excuse is that post counts can vary. Moderators can see posts that were hidden for breaking the rules; posts may be deleted after members already referred to them by number; and posts may be in the mod queue awaiting approval. I could refer to post #48, but its number may be different by the time you look at it, because post #47 was deleted.

I suppose every post could be assigned a permanent number, displayed at the top right, and if #47 is deleted the thread simply skips from 46 to 48, but then you could see when we delete things, and the more censorious forums would get upset that their members could see behind the curtain.

[studiot]

31 minutes ago, Cap'n Refsmmat said:

Their excuse is that post counts can vary. Moderators can see posts that were hidden for breaking the rules; posts may be deleted after members already referred to them by number; and posts may be in the mod queue awaiting approval. I could refer to post #48, but its number may be different by the time you look at it, because post #47 was deleted.

I suppose every post could be assigned a permanent number, displayed at the top right, and if #47 is deleted the thread simply skips from 46 to 48, but then you could see when we delete things, and the more censorious forums would get upset that their members could see behind the curtain.

Thanks but that doesn't answer my comment that the forum software must create a count to come up with the number that is displayed to all.

If say the displayed post count number is 20 are you saying that the claim is members of a scientific forum or even 5 year olds, are incapable of counting the actual number of posts and finding out that only 15 are displayed?

Or does the displayed post count number actually with the numeber of posts displayed?

The moderators are quite assiduous in displaying a notice to the effect that some posts have been hidden.

 

In any event, is it beyond these super programmers to keep several running totals for whatever different purposes they want?

[koti]

The previous version of the forum had a well working post numbering system. Just saying.

[Endy0816]

Rarely utilized them whenever I was reading posts and I don't think I ever used them when I posted.

 

Back of house, I'm sure they're just looking at which posts are claiming thread #123 as their parent and then organizing via timestamp.