Help Who read this thread

Discussion in 'Message Board Help & Notices' started by Jim Haney, Mar 11, 2019.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. Jim Haney

    Jim Haney Registered User
    NAWCC Member Donor

    Sep 21, 2002
    6,214
    766
    113
    Male
    Working the farm, Garden,horses, goats, chickens,
    Decatur, TN.
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Not that it makes that much difference but the count is way off on this tool.

    I was posting to this thread and it says 23 have read it and the stats show 92 Reply's with 2768 Views?

    Marts and gold scrappers
     
  2. Steven Thornberry

    Steven Thornberry User Administrator
    NAWCC Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    20,968
    659
    113
    Male
    Ne’er do well
    Here and there
    Country Flag:
    The thread shows that 28 (Registered) Users of the MB have read the thread. Most, if not all, have probably read the thread multiple times, whenever they notice new replies. If each of these has read it only ten times, that would account for 280 views. The total number of views, however, would also include those who have read the thread while not signed in, i.e., registered users not signed in, or casual visitors to the site who are not registered users, even the odd bot or twenty.
     
  3. Jim Haney

    Jim Haney Registered User
    NAWCC Member Donor

    Sep 21, 2002
    6,214
    766
    113
    Male
    Working the farm, Garden,horses, goats, chickens,
    Decatur, TN.
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    I don't see any reasoning in your answer? If 92 people have posted to this and 2833 Views , I assume if you viewed it you would be counted at the bottom as having read it?
     
  4. Steven Thornberry

    Steven Thornberry User Administrator
    NAWCC Member

    Jan 15, 2004
    20,968
    659
    113
    Male
    Ne’er do well
    Here and there
    Country Flag:
    Yes, "viewed" and "read" would seem to be much the same thing, and those who have posted to the thread (some multiple times) should be among those who have viewed/read it. The number of posters is somewhat of a red herring in this count. Have you noticed any posters to the thread who are not listed as having viewed/read the thread?
     
  5. Jim Haney

    Jim Haney Registered User
    NAWCC Member Donor

    Sep 21, 2002
    6,214
    766
    113
    Male
    Working the farm, Garden,horses, goats, chickens,
    Decatur, TN.
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Yes, A lot of the posters are not listed as having read it. I believe that the list was deleted with a recent update and that is or was lost info lost ?
     
  6. Tom McIntyre

    Tom McIntyre Technical Admin
    Staff Member NAWCC Star Fellow NAWCC Ruby Member Sponsor

    Aug 24, 2000
    81,790
    1,292
    176
    Male
    retired SW dev
    Boston
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    There are over 146,000 threads on the message board. If the system kept track of who had read each of those it would be a significant load on the database. That would be a particular problem when displaying a thread for reading. The software keeps a scratch pad of that data for 30 days, I believe, so the list of names below the thread is those who have read it "recently."

    The storage space itself is not really an issue, but searching it to make the counts and lists would be a performance issue.

    The site already gets a bit sluggish at times and we are working on ways to improve the performance.

    It would certainly be possible to do what Jim is asking about, but I would want to see a critical need for it to do it.

    The flip side is that, if we did that, you could see a list of all the threads you had read. It could also be taken down to the level of which posts you had read. In all these cases "read" would mean had been displayed on your workstation. I am pretty sure that folks only read a small part of what is displayed.
     
  7. Jim Haney

    Jim Haney Registered User
    NAWCC Member Donor

    Sep 21, 2002
    6,214
    766
    113
    Male
    Working the farm, Garden,horses, goats, chickens,
    Decatur, TN.
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    Tom,
    No real need for it, I just noticed that it was not keeping track of the readers and it use to do a accurate job of listing the readers, but as my wife said "USETO" died
     
  8. Tom McIntyre

    Tom McIntyre Technical Admin
    Staff Member NAWCC Star Fellow NAWCC Ruby Member Sponsor

    Aug 24, 2000
    81,790
    1,292
    176
    Male
    retired SW dev
    Boston
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    #8 Tom McIntyre, Mar 12, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
    xf_thread_read (2).pdf Jim, it turns out that the system keeps track of which threads you have read for you. To avoid keeping a list of threads you are never likely to read, it has a cut off when it will automatically mark threads as read. Past that date, it can no longer tell how many people or who have read a thread, so it does not keep the data.

    We currently have that set to 60 days. It could be set to longer, but then it would have to check all the thread during that period to see if you had read them. That is actually where the slowdown occurs.

    I seem to recall setting it to 365 days a while ago, but quite a few people noticed the slowdown, so I changed it to 60. The default for the software is 30 days.Just for fun I made a listing of all the threads currently being tracked for reads. It is here on the right in date order. I like it better in order of the number of reads (with total view count).
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Jim Haney

    Jim Haney Registered User
    NAWCC Member Donor

    Sep 21, 2002
    6,214
    766
    113
    Male
    Working the farm, Garden,horses, goats, chickens,
    Decatur, TN.
    Country Flag:
    Region Flag:
    60 days of history is fine.We don't want to tax the system for useless info. Just hope it gets us by until the new system is installed.
    Thanks,
     

Share This Page