|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,294 Likes: 2
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,294 Likes: 2 |
Once again I post this.
Way back in UBB.Classic, some of you may remember this, when you had sent a private message you were able to see if the private messages were actually read by pulling up the screen with the list of messages. In UBB.Threads you have to actually go into the private message and read it to see if the other people had actually read the message. This is a waste of time and a real pain in the a**.
Why can this not be like it was back in UBB.Classic?
Can we get this changed?
Will it come to a point that users such as my self will stop updating and re-write all the stuff back into Threads that was in Classic?
Does anyone care?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,242 Likes: 1
Former Developer
|
|
Former Developer
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,242 Likes: 1 |
The problem is this. It's easy to do when it's only 1 message in the topic and a couple users. Here's where I can't quite figure out a solution on this one.
Say, you have a private message with 5 people participating, and there has been 15 posts in the topic.
User 1 has read them all User 2 has read the first 10 User 3 has read the first 3 User 4 has read the first 12 User 5 has read none
So some of the users might have read posts by others but not yours, or vice versa. Or they may have read one of your posts but not all. How do we go about displaying who has read what? We do care, but it's a bit more complicated of a system than UBB.classic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,294 Likes: 2
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,294 Likes: 2 |
Have the Unread by similar to the Unread messages type thing in the threads however move the unread statement to the message list where all the messages are displayed and if one user has not read a message then have it say unread by that user no matter what message was not read.
Ok say users is 5 in the message thread and user 3 didn't read message 8 of 10 messages or replies then in the database have it a 1 for unread and have it display "Unread by user 3". Now if everyone read the message then "Unread by none".
Perhaps you can use the same method as you use in the poll system to tally who voted for what. When someone opts out or removes themselves from the topic then have the database remove it from the tally. This would still send the message that they removed them selves from the topic as normal in the thread of the private message.
Whats another little database section in the database anyway. There is a few dozen of them in there now and I dont think it would have any more strain on the system then what is all ready on it now anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,294 Likes: 2
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,294 Likes: 2 |
Threads was to be the future of the message board system however classic had some great features in it that threads does not have. It would be really nice to have all the features that classic had placed in threads.
If you can not place all those great features in threads then that tells me PHP is inferior to Perl regardless of what everyone thinks.
I do not want to start a language war here like went on between Charles and my self but I will tell you even though threads has many more features in it classic was still tops and ran smooth and perfect. Classic had some great features in it that were lost when threads came along.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,242 Likes: 1
Former Developer
|
|
Former Developer
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,242 Likes: 1 |
Nah, it's nothing to do with PHP vs PERL. It's definitely not any sort of coding restrictions on what can or cannot be done. It's just a logical issue. Your idea might work, the problem with it is when there are many people in the topic.
I know of a couple sites that regularly have 100s of participants in each private topic. Trying to display who hasn't read a message under that condition would be a bit rough. Not only from a query standpoint but from a display standpoint as well. It's possible we can make it an optional thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,294 Likes: 2
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,294 Likes: 2 |
I can not see why anyone would want to have hundreds of users in a private topic over having a private discussion area but then not many users here can relate to the reasons behind having blogs, I guess it is a personal issue for use and ease.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,057
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,057 |
My thoughts are that Private messages over all shouldn't be like a forum post.
If we make them too good for a user why post on the forums?
My vice at the moment is just finding content with in. I love the pm yourself but i think this should be followed up with the ability to make it sticky too.
As most of us admin on here we get stupid amounts of pm's some handy and some just rubbish.
BOOM !! Version v7.6.1.1 People who inspire me Isaac ME Gizmo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,097 Likes: 1
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,097 Likes: 1 |
Maybe add a fuzzy look up to add users to the PM. If you don't know the members EXACT name or they're not on your buddy list you then have to open and find other pages with that users name.
|
|
|
|
1 members (Geoff),
614
guests, and
85
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|
|