I can see you point, but it is also nice for the end user if they see consistency throughout the system... that is why I think it should go there as well... but, as always, tis nothing more than a personal preference...
Congratulations on tackling the problem of following the discussion in flat mode.
As for numbers, if you guys are happy with them then you're all arithmetical geniuses in my book. I can't see how using a four, five, six digit post number is easier to follow than the name of the person they are replying to, ala Remarq.com. The number will be more exact but I reckon that's all it's got going for it.
On the positive side, your users will spend more time on your site trying to figure out which number is a reply to which number. You folks must have been buying those memory tapes from your late night shopping channels.
It's great to have something in there though and a good spot for it too.
Gosh, now that I think about it... we're on post number 536940868 -- I guess that isn't exactly the easiest to follow. (It took me a second to even make sense of it. ) I'm torn, though, because when a thread gets going, it often has multiple replies from the same users, so just giving the name would be severely lacking in such conversational threads. Maybe just the last three digits of the post number, such as [Post#: ...868 / re: ...860] or something along those lines?
That's right, that's where it becomes less exact with the names. But if I reply to you and you reply to me and then I reply to you, etc, it's going to be pretty unusual for my last reply to you not to be to your most recent post. With names is a step up from how it was, less exact than numbers, but more user-intuitive. Anyway, something is better than nothing.
Loc: Aberdeen, WA
The number listing may not be the most elegant but it is the most server friendly. The reason being is we already have the Post number that this post is actually in reply to so it's just a matter of printing it out. To list the name of the person you are replying to we would have to do another database call to find out what the username is that is associated with the post you are replying to. And remember, we try to avoid extra database calls whenever possible;).
Hm, just thinking about the name option here... would it be really that tough? Couldn't you just put the name of the parent post into a variable, pull the next record, get that printed with the parent's [Re:Name], and put the current name into that variable... maybe this sounds too easy to be do-able. I would definitely prefer the name option! While the numbers are a good idea, it looks a bit confusing and I haven't yet once tried to find the post number, maybe it just needs getting used to... BTW I'm a flat mode fan... I like to pull one page (posts set to 99 per page ) and read it all without having to click on the individual posts and waiting for them to show up.
Doh, of course my idea was too simple (and I was stupid enough to try - it worked, but defies the purpose - simply lists the previous post's username). Darren, you are right! That would be the easiest way, it would mean to add to the table, though... but other than that, this would be the way to go! The only real catch is that this would only work for future posts, not for existing ones, but some upgrades in features will bring that I guess. Either way, we just need to store the $ResUsername in an extra field in w3t_messages (?) when someone makes a post and pull that when we display the messages. Shouldn't be so hard to implement!