Rex

The brief debut of the "new interface" was said to be marred only by a "little bug" that apparently took a little more time and effort to iron out than expected. what was it? will the new interface be coming back? Do the data exist to add "hit count" to each thread? <BR> <BR>Even if impossible to add retroactively to old threads, the counter could say "Page views since Month, day, year" or something like that. I would so like to see this. <BR> <BR>Anyone else support this request? <BR>

Rex

I just went to reply to a post, wanting to reference another thread - - and it occurred to me (I believe this is where Fodors was headed with the new interface anyway) - - why not give each thread a unique (SEARCHABLE) "born on" timestamp? <BR> <BR>Thus this thread would be 2001.02.06.07.58.00 - - surely there are never more than 60 new threads initiated in any given minute. <BR>

Rex

Whoops - - old habit, typing "[email protected]" - - that mailbox continues to be defunct (another long story why I don't have it fixed yet!) <BR>

xxx

Why do you care about number of hits? I'd rather have more space for text. That experimental version was awful.

Paulo

Rex, you may not know it, but every thread is identified by a unique number (in this and in the new application). <BR> <BR>This specific thread is identified by <BR>topic=1274384 <BR> <BR>Knowing this number, I'm able to reference this thread in any post, by giving its URL. The problem is that the URL in the this (old) interface is very long and awkward. In the new application, this has been simplified and one will be able to write down the URL and once this will appear hypertexted one will get to it on a click of the mouse. <BR> <BR>If you have an interest on what I'm talking about, click the right button of the mouse on the right frame and choose &lt;open frame in new window&gt;. Then have a look on how the URL of this thread is built up. <BR> <BR>Paulo

s.fowler

To answer the questions in order: <BR>1. I hope not <BR>2. Not if it takes space away from the posts. <BR> <BR>One other comment: In my brief "fling" with the new interface I found it annoying in just those ways MS Word can be annoying [or any Microsloth product for that matter] in that it tries to read your mind. My mind works *fine* thank you -- and the shortcuts *I* [or anyone else for that matter] want may not be the ones _you_ think I want or should want. <BR> <BR>If you gotta stick ads here fine. That we understand. But the rest ain't broke IMHO.

Paulo

Well, Sally, the rest ain't broke only of sorts <BR> <BR>IMO the current application is quite obsolete and (serious) <BR>problems with it are a sure bet in the (near) future. The <BR>application is not able to handle the increasing volume of <BR>the database and users. We're already feeling some of these ... <BR>and they don't look that serious because we're adapting (one <BR>may adapt oneselve to just about everything). <BR> <BR>I'll name only a couple: <BR> <BR>a) it's more than evident that the old application isn't able <BR>to handle posts that are longer than a couple dozen of lines <BR>or so; <BR> <BR>b) one isn't able to reference a thread adequately; <BR> <BR>To the first shortcoming we're now chopping posts in thin <BR>slices to get through. To the 2nd one the only remedy appears <BR>to be the topper . Look at the size of the URL below <BR>(relative to Fodors new format discussion): <BR> <BR>http://www.fodors.com/forums/crossro...eta&x=13&y=17& <BR> <BR>Hadn't I cut my text in pieces, by inserting space returns, it would occupy the full length of the URL. Something like this line <BR> <BR>The new application has chopped this to the size of a normal <BR>line, and as it has also enabled the hypertexting of <BR>anything starting with http://, one will be able to get to <BR>a thread with a click of the mouse! <BR> <BR>Of course, there are two parts to the new application. <BR>One concerns the way the database is handled and how <BR>URLs are defined, and another relative to the page design <BR>and functions available to users. One part has nothing <BR>to do with the other. I think that a new application should <BR>be a robust interface between the I/O and the database <BR>handling. The I/O part of the application doesn't <BR>concern me much. It may be modified almost at will and <BR>is much more a matter to be discussed by whom (like you) is <BR>in the business I use a 14" screen with 800x600 pixels <BR>and unless I'm wrong, that's what most people uses. If <BR>pages are designed for this majority, it's understandable <BR>that things won't work as well on bigger and/or lower/higher <BR>pixel density screens. <BR> <BR>Paulo

Sue

Paulo, you know too much for your own good.

s.fowler

What Sue said <BR> <BR>You are probably right Paulo. But fixing the "underneath" doesn't have to mess up the top *that* badly. That much I do know