Posted By: blowdart | Jul 3rd @ 9:25 AM
page 1 of 2
Comments: 28 | Views: 537
I only just noticed you can click on the text beside Time:

(And Jamie; no claiming this was because you whined outside the feedback forum)
maybe it was always like that and no one noticed??

*how come there are threads on frontdoor - with 7 and 8 +replies - but with 0 views?

blowdart wrote:
(And Jamie; no claiming this was because you whined outside the feedback forum)
No duh! It was MY whining from the coffeehouse on Day-0 that got it done! Gimme the credit!

jamie wrote:
*how come there are threads on frontdoor - with 7 and 8 +replies - but with 0 views?
It's because "views" isn't updated in real-time. Only every so-many minutes.
actually ive noticed your viewing a thread and it says one number.. then maybe you edit - and check it again - and its like 15 views less... then you refresh 2 or 3 times - and it goes back to the higher number.
jamie wrote:
actually ive noticed your viewing a thread and it says one number.. then maybe you edit - and check it again - and its like 15 views less... then you refresh 2 or 3 times - and it goes back to the higher number.
To cheese blowdart off, I think you should take a screen shot & post it to the coffeehouse.

I'm starting a new movement!

"Coffeehouse Forever! Feedback Never!"

Who's with me?

Need a T-shirt w/ Che-esque picture of me! LOL!

maybe they should break the coffeehouse up in to even more sub-forums... 
that might help the pitiful thread counts (that dont show up) go down even more!

edit...   from the forums page:

>>
The Coffeehouse 
Threads: 23,431 | Posts: 278,615
This actually is a place for you to talk. But read the fine print, we are watching you.
>>

how can there be less posts than threads?  wow this ajax stuff is brilliant at math..
You pasted this in:

jamie said:
Threads: 23,431 | Posts: 278,615


and then said


jamie said:
how can there be less posts than threads?


I suspect you are making a joke, but I don't get it... is there something wrong with those #s?

Dunno, but I guess the irony is that ajax is better at counting than Jamie is.. Tongue Out

Think its time we took old jamie out to the barn with a shotgun.. (its fairer this way).

I kid!

I think you know this but just to sum up:

The "thread" is a new entry in a forum
The "post" is a new entry in a thread
re:  "Think its time we took old jamie out to the barn with a shotgun.. (its fairer this way)."


i like the analogy  Wink


edit: and i think it must refresh every day or so...

I don't get why they'd structure it that way.  It doesn't seem like it would take terribly long to call a sproc like this:

create proc IncrementHits(PostID int) as begin
update Posts
set hits = hits+1 where ID=PostID
end

... It could be called during the AJAX refreshment that occurs after page_load.  Seems responsive and quick enough.  I wonder how they're doing it.
It is actually updated every few minutes (not once a day, the lack of updates today was a bug, discussed in the feedback forum) with an insert, not an update... an update would mean that the n servers in a web farm would all be contending to update the same row... not a big deal in dev, but over time it matters.

The other idea is we want to know views over time, so updating a single view number wouldn't give that to us. And as far as doing it during the ajax page load, well we don't do an ajax page load now for most pages, only when you go to page 2, etc... (and the current 'go to last post' link does it as well) ... and even when we do, we don't hit the database to get the page, that content is likely all coming out of the asp.net cache.


Ahh, so there's a row for each unique post view... Handy, and I'm sure it's great for statistics tracking  (My blog does something similar).

Now I see what you mean; I thought I had remembered seeing an UpdateProgress on load, apparently I was mistaken as it's not happening now. 
i still wouldnt mind knowing:

- was that there all along?

and if it wasnt...

how long did it take to add?  3 minutes?

Wink
It wasn't there before, we added it... just like we said we would.

Was it three minutes? No, it was a couple of hours of work, then another hour or so of testing.

For performance reasons, we only send down the data that a particular control needs and the template used for the thread view didn't previously need the URL of the last post, so it didn't have it. So we added it... easy enough... except I wanted to have it go direct to the right page... (by adding a Page= query string) which seems easy. You take the # of posts (since this is the last one we are talking about) and just use the page size to figure out what page it would go on, right? Well, not really... not every page on this site has the same page size, it is set by the individual template. Even if they were currently all the same (which they are not, videos have 9 comments per page, forum threads have 25) we allow each page in each site to override if it suits the purpose of that design... (maybe Mix wants 40 items per page, or no paging at all ... or 10 for forums and no paging for videos... who knows?) so you can't assume a certain page size.  This possible variation means that I had to add code so that I could specify the target page size for the template (so I put pageSize="25" into the line item template for the thread list, for example) ... but then there is the case of the profile page, where the same line item template is used... in that case you could have a video, then a forum thread, then a blog post... so there had to be code that would actually go and figure out the page size of the target URL for a particular item. Once all that was done, then it was ready to be tested and shipped. None of these things were hard, but everything takes time.

Adding a link to the menu of this site, or to the sidebar of every single forum thread page... that would be a '3 minute job' (although assuming you'd want to test it, compile and run the dev site... view it in staging with release settings and then use FTP to deploy it... even a 3 minute job is probably a 30-60 minute process). Adding a dynamic URL that is affected by the entry in question and the # of other comments and has to take into account what page it is on and what page it is targeting... that isn't 3 minutes. It wouldn't have been 3 minutes in the old C9 either... it might have been quicker, because the forum thread list on that site was only ever used for that one purpose, so I could have just hard-coded the page size (in fact, I'm sure it was) ... of course, that would be a real pain if anyone ever wanted to extend, re-use or even modify that code for any other purpose.

I've always believed that the most annoying thing for any developer to hear is "that would take a couple of minutes" ...  and it usually just indicates that you are dealing with someone who has never written code and doesn't know anything about it... but I know that isn't the case here. As far as I can tell, you are a professional web developer, so I don't really understand it when this comes from you. Smilie on the post or not, it seems like an odd thing to say.
On a related "Hey look, how long has that been there" note: there appears to be some sort of rating system on the videos now.
no - i meant 3 minutes of my time (complaining) to get it done...

wait... 4,3,2,1  .bing  

3 minutes.

(applause and apple sauce)

*smiley removed  <-that would have been over there..
we rolled that out this morning... there are many additional pieces, where we actually make use of the rating, but we need data before we can really do that... so for now you can thumbs up/down videos... eventually that will populate a list of top rating content, and it will also spread to the sandbox so that people can use it to rate samples...
Yah and don't let this be a chicken and egg problem either.  Rate, rate, rate!  I know there's not much "motivation" at the moment to rate, but we'll be adding features (like Duncan said) that will make content discoverability much better if you rate stuff now (and into the future).
btw, did anybody notice the new setting in your profile (it's off by default)?  Big Smile  (at the bottom of the edit profile page)
I can't turn it on. I check it, click save, then go back to the profile and it's unchecked again.
page 1 of 2
Comments: 28 | Views: 537