Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Order of posts on Message Board


ElCid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Every other forum in which I participate posts the original or oldest posts first.  TCM does it exactly opposite.

If I want to see what the original post said, I have to search through every page.  Some have 10 or more pages.  Then you have to go to bottom of the page to find the post.

This can be very annoying as some topics have multiple posts which have nothing to do with the original one.

Does this bother anyone else?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every other forum in which I participate posts the original or oldest posts first.  TCM does it exactly opposite.

If I want to see what the original post said, I have to search through every page.  Some have 10 or more pages.  Then you have to go to bottom of the page to find the post.

This can be very annoying as some topics have multiple posts which have nothing to do with the original one.

Does this bother anyone else?

It may be particularly annoying to the originator of the thread, especially if he had some pertinent points to make which had become lost or neglected by subsequent posters. Because a lot of posters don't have the time or inclination to go through a whole post, especially one that is pages long, it might help to curtail thread derailings, to some degree, if posters always saw the original post first, rather than starting off by seeing the latest one.

 

On the other hand, if threads always started with the original posting, posters would be forced to scroll down to see the latest comments if they wanted to see to where the thread had evolved before they make their own posting. And that would be annoying, particularly if it's a long thread.

 

You can make a case either way, I suppose.

 

If it's technically possible, I think the best way might be to always have the original posting at the top of the thread, followed by the most recent comments. That way a poster would see the originator's points in creating the thread, followed by the most recent observations on the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It may be particularly annoying to the originator of the thread, especially if he had some pertinent points to make which had become lost or neglected by subsequent posters. Because a lot of posters don't have the time or inclination to go through a whole post, especially one that is pages long, it might help to curtail thread derailings, to some degree, if posters always saw the original post first, rather than starting off by seeing the latest one.

 

On the other hand, if threads always started with the original posting, posters would be forced to scroll down to see the latest comments if they wanted to see to where the thread had evolved before they make their own posting. And that would be annoying, particularly if it's a long thread.

 

You can make a case either way, I suppose.

 

If it's technically possible, I think the best way might be to always have the original posting at the top of the thread, followed by the most recent comments. That way a poster would see the originator's points in creating the thread, followed by the most recent observations on the topic.

 

Sorry Tom, but your thought which I took the liberty to place in bold letters ISN'T necessarily accurate.

 

You see, what CAN be done and programmed, and which IS the case in another website which  I frequent(yeah yeah, that Triumph motorcycle one) is that the oldest posts are on "page-1" and all subsequent posts are shown on latter numbered pages, AND that if you are signed into the boards, the program will remember the last post you read because you have previously clicked upon that particular thread's "last page" beforehand, and thus it places the first 'unread" post at the top of your screen and all subsequent posts you "haven't read" below that one and in time posting order.

 

(...and thus negating this present need around here of scrolling down to get to your first "unread" post and then having to scroll back up and read bottom to top as it stands now)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current format is one reason I don't come to the board very often. Reading newest-post first threads is not a terribly pleasant experience

 

This is the only board I've ever frequented where newest-post-first is not only the default option, but the only option.

 

IMDb, Free Republic, Democratic Underground, FlyerTalk (1.3 million threads), Digital Spy (1.7 million threads), City Data (1.7 million threads), Bodybuilding.com (5.7 million threads) are all oldest-post first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I like the fact the system shows the newest post first.    Most of the time I'm following a subject and therefore I have already read the 'really old' post.   

 

Of course sometimes I find a subject and I do wish to read the original post and some of the comments made to that original post (especially when the newest post don't line up with what I assume is the topic).     In these cases just to to the oldest page.

 

But I do agree the site should give users an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scrolling/paging up instead of down to get to subsequent posts doesn't sound like it should be a big deal to get used to, but in practice it's quite annoying to me.  Especially going to a new page and having to go all the way down to the bottom in order to pick up where I left off.  When I first started using this site, I thought I'd inadvertently screwed something up in my settings to make things load this way as I couldn't imagine it being by design.  It's the opposite of what I'm used to, including on other sites using Invision software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found that most new forum software has newest-first as default. I understand that this change from oldest-first is because it has been found that most users prefer newest-first.

 

This is the only forum which I visit which does not allow a user to select whether they wish oldest-first or newest-first ordering. 

 

I am with majority in that I prefer newest-first but I do believe that it should be an option to have oldest-first for those who prefer that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes! This setup has driven me nuts for years, though I guess I've almost gotten used to it. When the message boards were down for a month or whatever for the big revamp, I thought to myself, "Well, surely, this is something they'll fix" (and Leslie Nielsen walked in the room and said, "Maybe they won't fix it ... and stop calling me Shirley!"). It is the only message boards forum I've ever seen in the history of the Internet with such a configuration of posts. All the others do it the opposite way.

 

As the numbers of posts shown on a single page is very long, I usually find myself not having the patience to scroll all the way to the bottom before I begin reading and just start reading posts backward. I would have to think the format is extremely off-putting to newcomers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if threads always started with the original posting, posters would be forced to scroll down to see the latest comments if they wanted to see to where the thread had evolved before they make their own posting. And that would be annoying, particularly if it's a long thread.


 


No, you can just choose which PAGE you'd like to view. 


If a thread is say 10 pages long and I've been following it, I just click on "Page 9" under the thread title.


 


Often, when first reading a thread that's multiple pages long, I look at the original post's page (page 1) then the last page (page 10) to see where it's evolved. If I want to add my thoughts, I look through every page to make sure it hasn't already been covered.


 


Yes, I still hate the web designers haven't figured this out. (and the light gray page numbers I can hardly see)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the only board I've ever frequented where newest-post-first is not only the default option, but the only option.

 

IMDb, Free Republic, Democratic Underground, FlyerTalk (1.3 million threads), Digital Spy (1.7 million threads), City Data (1.7 million threads), Bodybuilding.com (5.7 million threads) are all oldest-post first.

 

OTOH The New York Times and The Washington Post start with the newest posts first, as does the Baseball Think Factory and most of the other newspaper sites I've been on. 

 

I agree that we should be given an option, but the few times I've wanted to start reading with the oldest post in a thread I've never found it more than a minor inconvenience.  Just click on the >> tab and take it from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Used the "double arrow" icon to find the beginning of a topic.  Really helpful for those with many pages.

However, if there are 85 total posts, it shows the first post as number 85.  Why not show it as post #1 and the rest sequentially after that?  I tried to find the original post on the Hammer Film Noir movies and the original was so brief I did not realize it was the first since the post number was #83 or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm nowhere near as bothered by this order of the posts business as some seem to be.

 

what surprises me is that more people are not annoyed by the fact that we can no longer reply directly to one another and  the new quoting method is a confusing mess.

 

It seems to me as if these new boards were designed with the intent of preventing us from having interaction and dialogue with one another. it seems like someone was aiming for the NEW BOARDS to be a series of independent, non-controversial posts that don't proceed in any direction (on or off track.) no conversation means no controversy and no need to lock or remove those pesky off-topic or heated threads (which, for the record, are the real fun ones.)

 

it is a lot harder to have a conversation now on the boards. and i miss that. and i think the traffic numbers support the fact that I'm not the only one (although there has been something of an uptick  of late.)

 

I also add that no one seems to much use the "I like" button- which frankly is not the same as sending a poster a direct reply and saying "hey, I really liked what you wrote"- which to me is something we need to be doing (encouraging one another to post that is.)

 

I dunno. Anything else I say is probably just going to get me in trouble....

 

ps- oh, okay, here goes: the autocensor is just too dumb to describe in any words, expletives included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm nowhere near as bothered by this order of the posts business as some seem to be.

 

what surprises me is that more people are not annoyed by the fact that we can no longer reply directly to one another and  the new quoting method is a confusing mess.

 

It seems to me as if these new boards were designed with the intent of preventing us from having interaction and dialogue with one another. it seems like someone was aiming for the NEW BOARDS to be a series of independent, non-controversial posts that don't proceed in any direction (on or off track.) no conversation means no controversy and no need to lock or remove those pesky off-topic or heated threads (which, for the record, are the real fun ones.)

 

it is a lot harder to have a conversation now on the boards. and i miss that. and i think the traffic numbers support the fact that I'm not the only one (although there has been something of an uptick  of late.)

 

I also add that no one seems to much use the "I like" button- which frankly is not the same as sending a poster a direct reply and saying "hey, I really liked what you wrote"- which to me is something we need to be doing (encouraging one another to post that is.)

 

I dunno. Anything else I say is probably just going to get me in trouble....

 

ps- oh, okay, here goes: the autocensor is just too dumb to describe in any words, expletives included.

 

Yes,  a simple reply function would be great.   It could have an option to re-post what the prior post said or NOT.  Therefore this would be simlar to the quote function but we would have an option to quote the prior post or not.    But users would known who I was replying to.     I'm using the quote function as a 'reply' but this isn't very useful if the prior post is long or if there are pictures.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,  a simple reply function would be great.   It could have an option to re-post what the prior post said or NOT.  Therefore this would be simlar to the quote function but we would have an option to quote the prior post or not.    But users would known who I was replying to.     I'm using the quote function as a 'reply' but this isn't very useful if the prior post is long or if there are pictures.

 

You can backspace out anything you don't want repeated within the quote box - like pictures and/or excessive amounts of dialogue. But you have to be careful you don't backspace past the very first letter within the quote box.

 

Then you just have to make sure you begin your reply by clicking outside of the quote box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...