Inspiring

Question

Lighten the load

Forum|Forum|16 years ago
May 1, 2009
6 replies
8854 views

The top participants in the testing sub-forum just now:

Yesterday I was allegedly the top participant, which is definitely not so. Hover over someone's profile and you see recent threads - but they are rarely the most recent. 'More like this' is wildly inaccurate.

I just get the feeling of wheels somewhere grinding and groaning, trying to calculate all this stuff and keep it up to date. I think we need to strip this system down considerably to where the software can cope. I'm not seeing much in the way of slowness but a number of people are - can't we put the extraneous fluff out of its misery and concentrate on the essential functions?

Eg the current 'More like this' by this post:

It just doesn't work and must waste 'fuel' somewhere in the effort to come up with sensible entries.

This topic has been closed for replies.

A

Anonymous

From my observations it appears that Top Participants is based on getting points in that particular forum. Not your total points, but recent points.

But just a guess from what I have seen. Would be interesting to see how Jive has it programmed.

Kath-HAuthor

Inspiring

Popular Discussions as well - I've noticed in a few forums I've visited, this means 'recently active discussions', not the ones with the most posts. Well, we can see that from the list, can't we? Let's have these time-wasting, pointless twiddly bits abolished, gone - balayés (Piaf fan here).

Ramón G Castañeda

Inspiring

Kath-H wrote:

balayés (Piaf fan here).

Why would anyone need to be a Piaf fan to know how to use a broom? I'm a Piaf fan too, but I wouldn't want to identify her with a broom.

A

Anonymous

When can we have the old reliable forums back?

Claudio González

Brainiac

Kath, as a non native English speaker, I can't even understand what is meant here by "top" participants. At first, I thought it meant those with the largest number of posts, but no, they aren't. Then I thought they were those with the most useful answers, but no, it's not that either (blatantly obvious in some cases!). Then I said to myself, they must be the most recent posters, but no: I have never seen my name in any of those lists, not even in the forums in Spanish where sometimes there are no new posts for a couple of days. So I'm completely baffled: my reason tells me those names must be at the top of some list, but I am unable to find any logical list that fits the names I get.

As to the "More like this", in many cases the list seems like a bad joke.

I vote for eliminating both lists.

A

Anonymous

top participants means "the cool kids" obviously!

Claudio González

Brainiac

dave milbut wrote:
top participants means "the cool kids" obviously!

No, it's not that either. Too often, I have seen your name in the list.

B

Bob_Peters

Inspiring

Agreed. That's a useless bit of information. In fact, the entire with column is full of fluff. Hmmm. I may have made that last comment before

A

Anonymous

Search Results

( 0 )

Your search for "bob peters fluff" returned 0 results.

Try a less restrictive search, make sure all words are spelled correctly, or try different keywords.

A

Anonymous

the search engine ignores the author and title of a thread, no matter
what. So unless you leave out the author's name, and also unless the
name of said person is in the body of text of a post

thanks for the explaination ramon...

that is just DUMB! if it know WHO said something, and kinda what they said, (especially myself) but want to go back and refresh my memory, i'd like to be able to SEARCH that way!

what's with all the freaking restrictions on the common sense way of doing things that come bundled as "features" in this software?!!

edit: and please don't tell me "weeell, if you click, search user, dropdown the included forums list and check off monday through friday, excluding holidays, THEN search..." ... that's bullshiete. the simple search i performed should work on the search line. period. there's no excuse for it not to except developer/designer incompetence.