Filter First message Installed

[cpratt]

Though a week late, the filter by First message is now a setting in preferences. Those of you who want this option know why you want it and so it is available.

It locks your view of the Forum/Thread List to always sort by the latest thread, and not permit it to be ordered by any other sort sequence. No other filters will work when this is on, you can set them, but they are ignored. It was the only way this requirement could be implemented.

For others, I've put on the description that it is not recommended, the reason being that aside from not permitting you to use any other filters or sorts while that preference is checked, this sort order will hide posts on a thread that started in the past even if it is still active with people. It will inhibit staying current and limits participation in long term threads as they become more popular. The option is most valuable to those who are only interested in a few threads (a page or two of currently started threads) and don't want to see anything ongoing or just older. This option defeats one of the benefits of modern forums which are meant to be organized by post.

 

[DRussell]

Thank you for this. You're right, we have our reasons for wanting this.

 

[DoubleO7]

I am getting latest thread created first and in chronological descending thereafter in all categories, not just Tractor Tales.
Also does the same in both Threaded View and non threaded view.
Maybe misinterpreting the new filter?

 

[DRussell]

I am getting latest thread created first and in chronological descending thereafter in all categories, not just Tractor Tales.
Also does the same in both Threaded View and non threaded view.
Maybe misinterpreting the new filter?

View attachment 3461

I think some of the language re this applying only to Tractor Tales is leftover from before this change was made. I think I remember Chris posting that this was how it would work in one of his posts about this. I seem to remember him saying this was an all or nothing approach.

 

[DoubleO7]

I think some of the language re this applying only to Tractor Tales is leftover from before this change was made. I think I remember Chris posting that this was how it would work in one of his posts about this. I seem to remember him saying this was an all or nothing approach.

You could be right on that.

 

[Neil Powell]

Thanks!

 

[cpratt]

You are all correct. It was originally supposed to be that way because I didn't want to damage people's valuable participation in on-topic forums by not seeing the replies, but I dropped that and forgot to change the wording. The reason for dropping it, is because one person who requested this, was actually talking about on-topic forums, not tales. It seemed it should be their choice if they don't want to see the replies, or contribute to on-going threads.

@DoubleO7 thank you for catching that. Not sure when I will be able to fix it, but I may be able to do a hack to keep it from appearing in the interim. Should have had you in on the testing, but the test system was behind a VPN and there was no access from the net, obviously would have been a good idea since we didn't catch it . Maybe next time I can get a public IP when we are testing and invite people to beat up a change.

@DRussell - it wasn't as all or nothing in that respect as I thought it would be so I was wrong originally, it's only all or nothing as to being able to use the normal filters when this is on. But I could have trapped a single forum and made it apply to only that. If it turns out it isn't desirable in on-topic forums but is in off-topic, it's possible to do as the wording currently states if those who want this, come to consensus that it should be only on off-topic. I actually think it would be wise to have it that way. It had originally occurred to me that off-topic and on-topic communication are actually quite different, and it seems logical to have some features apply to one without the other. People may find it helpful in off-topic and irritating in on-topic. We'll see how it's accepted.

@Neil Powell and @DRussell, I'm glad it's working for you.

 

[stevieb49829]

Though a week late, the filter by First message is now a setting in preferences. Those of you who want this option know why you want it and so it is available.

It locks your view of the Forum/Thread List to always sort by the latest thread, and not permit it to be ordered by any other sort sequence. No other filters will work when this is on, you can set them, but they are ignored. It was the only way this requirement could be implemented.

For others, I've put on the description that it is not recommended, the reason being that aside from not permitting you to use any other filters or sorts while that preference is checked, this sort order will hide posts on a thread that started in the past even if it is still active with people. It will inhibit staying current and limits participation in long term threads as they become more popular. The option is most valuable to those who are only interested in a few threads (a page or two of currently started threads) and don't want to see anything ongoing or just older. This option defeats one of the benefits of modern forums which are meant to be organized by post.

Thanks Chris. I'll try it for a while, and IF I don't like what it does, I'll only change it back if I can remember how. Duh. steve

 

[Eric in IL]

Though a week late, the filter by First message is now a setting in preferences. Those of you who want this option know why you want it and so it is available.

It locks your view of the Forum/Thread List to always sort by the latest thread, and not permit it to be ordered by any other sort sequence. No other filters will work when this is on, you can set them, but they are ignored. It was the only way this requirement could be implemented.

For others, I've put on the description that it is not recommended, the reason being that aside from not permitting you to use any other filters or sorts while that preference is checked, this sort order will hide posts on a thread that started in the past even if it is still active with people. It will inhibit staying current and limits participation in long term threads as they become more popular. The option is most valuable to those who are only interested in a few threads (a page or two of currently started threads) and don't want to see anything ongoing or just older. This option defeats one of the benefits of modern forums which are meant to be organized by post.

Thanks to any moderator that helped to facilitate this change. It certainly makes the YT experience more pleasurable for a long time classic style user like myself. My vote for the "consensus" is to continue as it is now........with first message filter active for all topic sections.

Chris has expressed he doesn't understand why anyone would want to use the boards with the first message filter set to active.
It is quite a simple explanation in my world. Classic users were conditioned over the years. It is not that I can't adapt, it is not that I have not tried the new offering, it is not that I didn't hang around for years while classic and modern views fought their battles. It is because I do not CARE or WANT to be reading an old post. I am quite fine and happy if I miss something. I do not want to re-read an old post that may be very lengthy, just to see it has morphed from "changing a plug in an A.C. WD" into "the type fuel used in a W.W. II bomber".

I have seen the good times of 25 or 30 new posts on Tractor Talk per day when the majority of them were about tractors. I have also witnessed the lean years of late, where there may be 10 new posts per day with only 5 of them being tractor related.

I read of this new software and the astounding number of new subscribers and amazing traffic numbers. That sounds great ! I would ask, "Where's the Beef"? Why are we not seeing 25-30 new topics per day on Tractor Tales and Farming? The numbers would suggest we should be.....No ?? "I don't understand the disparity.

Anyway, all that talking aside, thanks to this site. Thanks for the years, thanks for the entertainment, thanks for the knowledge shared, thanks for the software changes, and thanks to the members here.

 

[DRussell]

I read of this new software and the astounding number of new subscribers and amazing traffic numbers. That sounds great ! I would ask, "Where's the Beef"? Why are we not seeing 25-30 new topics per day on Tractor Tales and Farming? The numbers would suggest we should be.....No ?? "I don't understand the disparity.

Eric, I'm with you on this issue. There are lots of replies to old topics, but very few actual new posts anymore.

One of the biggest problems with the resurrection of old topics is that new information is seldom being proffered. It's simply a rehash of the old answers, or it is so completely off the topic of the original post that it is completely useless to it. When the replies are that far off topic to the original post it should die.

 

[cpratt]

I'm going to respond generally here, not really to any of you in particular, because I do want people using the filter to make an informed decision about when it is of value and when it isn't. I'm glad people like it, but I want it understood fully as it relates to how a forum has to work for the vast majority in an on-topic sense.

Our mistake in transitioning was, not just out of hand locking virtually all old posts and starting fresh. That combined with other confusions (having off-topic posts indexed at all and appearing in searches and similar threads) caused examples of people responding to threads they should not have, this was primarily off-topic which dredged meaningless posts up, a little in on-topic that were less meaningless. If that had been done, we might have been able to get past the first few days with people not being bombarded and preoccupied with that problem (which of course is not solved yet). The value would have been to allow some adjustment time to realize that threads can be thought of differently than the limitations of Classic view permitted them to be. Starting date of a thread no longer means it's a "bad" thread even though it's an "old" thread (though of course they are ALL "bad" threads right now). On the other hand, new Post date of a thread doesn't mean it's a "good" thread since it currently indicates a mistake rather than a feature. Therein lies the problem and reintroducing the classic limitation via the Filter, is a way to temporarily fix that problem, though at a cost.

An "old" thread that is an ongoing thread is a great feature, as opposed to a "dead" thread that should never resurface. Many YT users currently don't even conceptualize the very normal concept of an ongoing thread, so there are obviously none right now. All the resurfacing threads are "bad" by definition. Ongoing threads on-topic, are things like "My AC D-14 Restoration". Imagine it goes for 2 years updated every day at times, sometimes not for a month (while the block is off getting tanked and the restorer is on vacation). It's not only a totally viable thread, it's the real purpose of YT. The change for the filters makes it so you have to "Watch" that thread and have an alternate method of getting to it (like a notification email) or you will never see it, few will know to do that, and those threads just won't exist using the filter. The filter ends up solving this irritation of meaningless threads being replied to, but at the expense of seeing meaningful threads (that currently don't exist because of the mental rules formed by Classic View).

I think it's safe to say that everyone does care about and want to read meaningful (to them) older (from a thread starting date standpoint) threads. At the same time, we absolutely don't care about or want to see what amounts to naive accidents people make in reviving threads that are done and dead. We have several actions we are taking to fix this latter problem not related to the filter, and the filter takes care of the problem in the meantime. Classic view's limitations solved the first problem at the expense of all the on-topic threads people should have been able to create on the restorations and repairs (or even off-topic home remodel projects for that matter). Classic limitations would not permit that most fundamental function of a tractor forum to exist.

It's important that people understand the above because if not, my efforts to put this filter change in will defeat the side-effect improvements of moving to new software. That is to say, I will have reintroduced the same limitations classic view placed on the old forums and people will continue to have the same mental limitations that stop tractor oriented discussions from working as they can in any other tractor, repair or restoration forum. The filter is great for improving the experience in one way as long as the person using it realizes it limits something they might like, even though they've never seen it. Then a complete decision can be made as to when to use it and when not to, or use it while using other features to still see meaningful topics they've hidden from their view. The filter can be a valuable feature that is sometimes an impediment.

We have solutions in the works to stop dredging up old useless posts. It's a different subject even if the filter is a temporary solution to it. Discussions concerning that are rehash of a known current problem that is being addressed and a little patience is required. By the way though, that is a problem we used to have fairly often when new users would search the archives and find a post (it's just more convenient here to make the mistake) and in some ways all forums will always have. It's a people problem, though we can go a long ways to stop what has been happening with some future solutions.

 

[Rich'sToys]

Maybe I'm being naive here, but I don't understand what's so difficult about simply scrolling past the threads you don't want to read? Doesn't matter if it's old new or whatever. If you don't want to read it, don't read it!! This is not rocket science. That's how I do it, and I don't need any "filters" to help me do that.

End of rant. Sorry!

 

[Brown David]

Maybe I'm being naive here, but I don't understand what's so difficult about simply scrolling past the threads you don't want to read? Doesn't matter if it's old new or whatever. If you don't want to read it, don't read it!! This is not rocket science. That's how I do it, and I don't need any "filters" to help me do that.

End of rant. Sorry!

Exactly.

Rant? That's not a rant.

It is sensible and right though.

 

[Eric in IL]

Maybe I'm being naive here, but I don't understand what's so difficult about simply scrolling past the threads you don't want to read? Doesn't matter if it's old new or whatever. If you don't want to read it, don't read it!! This is not rocket science. That's how I do it, and I don't need any "filters" to help me do that.

End of rant. Sorry!

Then why rant unless the implementation of the new option in preferences affects your experience in a negative way?

If I misunderstood, and it is affecting you negatively, please explain.

 

[Rich'sToys]

Then why rant unless the implementation of the new option in preferences affects your experience in a negative way?

You kind of answered your own question a little farther up the page.

Quote: "It is not that I can't adapt...... It is because I do not CARE or WANT to be reading an old post."

Of all the complaints that have surfaced since this new software was put in place, the ones regarding old posts have got to be the most ridiculous of all, when the solution is as simple as I outlined above--just don't read them! No one is forcing anyone to read anything they don't want to.
In the meantime, Chris is busting his a$$ trying to create "filters" and other "fixes" and "patches", simply because people refuse to adapt to something that is a little different than what we had before. I'm sure he has better ways to spend his time. Pretty soon the new forums will be as cobbled up as the old ones and people will still be finding things to b!tch about.

I think the new forums are working great! Kudos to Chris for all his hard work. Now let's quit harping about petty stuff and move on!

 

[Brown David]

You kind of answered your own question a little farther up the page.

Quote: "It is not that I can't adapt...... It is because I do not CARE or WANT to be reading an old post."

Of all the complaints that have surfaced since this new software was put in place, the ones regarding old posts have got to be the most ridiculous of all, when the solution is as simple as I outlined above--just don't read them! No one is forcing anyone to read anything they don't want to.
In the meantime, Chris is busting his a$$ trying to create "filters" and other "fixes" and "patches", simply because people refuse to adapt to something that is a little different than what we had before. I'm sure he has better ways to spend his time. Pretty soon the new forums will be as cobbled up as the old ones and people will still be finding things to b!tch about.

I think the new forums are working great! Kudos to Chris for all his hard work. Now let's quit harping about petty stuff and move on!

Hear! Hear!

Well said.

 

[Eric in IL]

You kind of answered your own question a little farther up the page.

Quote: "It is not that I can't adapt...... It is because I do not CARE or WANT to be reading an old post."

Of all the complaints that have surfaced since this new software was put in place, the ones regarding old posts have got to be the most ridiculous of all, when the solution is as simple as I outlined above--just don't read them! No one is forcing anyone to read anything they don't want to.
In the meantime, Chris is busting his a$$ trying to create "filters" and other "fixes" and "patches", simply because people refuse to adapt to something that is a little different than what we had before. I'm sure he has better ways to spend his time. Pretty soon the new forums will be as cobbled up as the old ones and people will still be finding things to b!tch about.

I think the new forums are working great! Kudos to Chris for all his hard work. Now let's quit harping about petty stuff and move on!

The question was "Why rant unless the change causes yourself (or others) to be negatively impacted?"
It was not intended to be mean, just curious if you were negatively impacted by the change.

If you wish not to answer that's fine.

 

[caterpillar guy]

The problem I have and have not found a cure to yet, is that every time someone replies to a post whether it is new or several years old it comes to the top of the list, each time it is commented on. There is no difference in the posts to tell what I have read and what i have not read so I now have to go back and check or reread each post wasting my time on that instead of reading the new posts without reading the new comments. It also does not change from the bold print to the lighter print when I have read a post. Makes it very hard to keep track of read and not read. I have about given up on this because of it. I don't want to spend half an hour figuring out where I left off each time and the bold print changing would solve that if it changed after reading a post in each topic like from implement ally to tractor talk or other such topics. If I want to see how a post is progressing I can look it up to find it or scan a page to find it if it is on a slower moving forum. With posts in chronological order as they get posted not as they are commented on.

 

[cpratt]

If the bold or non-bold is failing for what you have already read or not read, sounds like you are using the browser back arrow to navigate. That will not work since back arrow just displays locally cached pages on your PC, Mac or phone. If that's the problem, see the "I can't tell what I've read" the top of this forums stickies. It explains when back arrow navigation works and when it doesn't. If you want to forgo that, The quick answer is when moving from a post you've read back to the forum list, click on the link that takes you back there rather than pressing the back arrow. That link is shown at the top of the thread and below similar threads. It will look like this on this page and is called in internet-speak, Breadcrumbs:

Edit: too many typos... too early in the morning.

 

[Jim.ME]

The problem I have and have not found a cure to yet, is that every time someone replies to a post whether it is new or several years old it comes to the top of the list, each time it is commented on. There is no difference in the posts to tell what I have read and what i have not read so I now have to go back and check or reread each post wasting my time on that instead of reading the new posts without reading the new comments. It also does not change from the bold print to the lighter print when I have read a post. Makes it very hard to keep track of read and not read. I have about given up on this because of it. I don't want to spend half an hour figuring out where I left off each time and the bold print changing would solve that if it changed after reading a post in each topic like from implement ally to tractor talk or other such topics. If I want to see how a post is progressing I can look it up to find it or scan a page to find it if it is on a slower moving forum. With posts in chronological order as they get posted not as they are commented on.

Have you gone into your preferences and checked the "Threaded View" and "Order by First message" boxes, then clicked on Save to lock those check marks? That should make it, so the Threads stay in the order posted in time and they do not move to the top when a new post is made to the thread, like the old Classic View. At least it works that way when I check those boxes and save.