Continuing from the "where has the older messages button gone".....
Very very odd. Up late last night and "marked all read" before leaving. Now this morning there are half a dozen showing "New" but in fact there aren't any new contributions on those threads.
Also the thread counter is all over the place.
David
|
Curious!
I do not have that trouble, but now and again, on this site only, that blue screen comes up and the computer freezes, the only cure being to reset and start again.
|
If you want an example. Look halfway down this page to the thread "importing clasic cars". It is shown as New (despite being marked read last night) and with 12 replies. I can't see any replies at all.
David
|
|
|
|
|
I think you must have a bent klinker rod in your computor Dave
|
|
Then Dave's bent clinker rod must be the successor to the Nimda virus, or what ever it was called, because it's got my complicater too!
|
|
|
|
|
and me
|
Lots of people have been speculating, and some have believed they've found cracks in our underpinnings. For example, Michael wrote:
>
> and me
But not me!
For starters, on both my screens (the iMac and the PC) the 'older messages' button is always there. It's there now, however I manipulate the message display. And the "new" flag, well, that seems to be working. But because it's machine-specific (in other words, it's a function of the cookie that each message places on an individual hard disk when it is read. I just checked my cookie list and everything is as it's meant to be) I don't tend to take a lot of notice of it anyway. For me, sooner or later all messages cease to be 'new' anyway, whatever David Woollard and Mark (Brazil) might imply about my sleeping activities. (One thing that comes to mind: if you delete your cookies, either wholesale or selectively, in the way that several people reported doing here the other day, then you'll cock up the flagging altogether.)
Part of the problem with this sort of fault analysis lies in the fact that many of these things are anomalies which look as though they're faults with the site but are in fact down to the individual's computer/browser combination. So unless we can reprooduce them on our own terminals, or we can see pictorial evidence (a screen dump, for example), we can't tell quite what's happening on other people's computers.
(Another thing that comes to mind, to do with Stuart B's slipping lines and lookup tables: If there's a long line of text on the screen in the listings, that will throw the line into disarray, and it will look as if there's an error. Try making the window wider and it should rewrite itself back into it's former perfection.)
I wouldn't be surprised, though, to find that these problems are popping up all over the place, but till now no-one's bothered to mention them. So I'm sure it's nothing new, and certainly nothing to worry about.
|
Martyn,
I'm not trying to wind you up! There really is something odd. I haven't changed configuration and the "Older Messages" is still missing (Collapsed Form). It was on the red bar at the bottom which is still there with the other choices. If I use Flat view the "Older Messages" is there.
Also look at the thread I gave as an example, "Importing classic cars" by Dr S Stamp (about halfway down). It shows 12 replies but there are none for me to see. Many of the other thread reply counts are way out too
David
|
|
|
|
when i read all the messages the 'new' disappears, but when i come onto the forum the following day, all the messages say 'new' again, even the ones dating back a few days. this is very confusing, as i then dont know which ones i have read.
|
|
I think, Chris, that everyone is having the same trouble. Sorry!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Martyn but there is certainly a problem, the 'older messages' button is missing from my view too this morning.
I've never had a problem with any aspect of the site before this.
(setup: Mac and ADSL)
|
|
|
|
Martyn, I can see "older topic" and "newer topic" when reading a posting but I cannot see "older messages" when looking at the main forum page. Also the "totals" of new messages are wrong and I noticed a missing message from the post regarding vento cylinder head (someone offered to post some sealing fluid if the original poster supplied address details via an email). I guess the latter may have been deleted deliberately but there is usually a message explaining such action.
|
|
|
|
Martyn, forget the last bit about the vento - it was a jetta anyway and i've found the thread now - it was a new thread as opposed to a continuation of the original one.
|
|
|
|
Martyn, again, everytime I post a new message and return to the main forum page, I can see "Newer messages" in the top and bottom right of the page, but no "older messages". When I press "go to top", I return to the same page but without the "newer messages" on top and bottom right. Curiouser and curiouser.
|
|
|
|
and finally, all seems well if I view with "expanded threads". As soon as I "collapse threads" the "older messages" sign disappears.
|
|
|
Martyn,
I have not changed settings either and have not done anything with cookies. As for screen settings it was on maximised window and the number of posts had definitely slipped a line, though it looks better now.
I have a screen dump I can send if you wish, its virus checked (Mcafee) drop me an email if you want it.
regds,
S
|
Thanks, Stuart. I can see where the problem is now, so I won't need the screenshot. But I appreciate your offer.
See my reply further down this thread (preferably using uncollapsed view! )
|
|
|
|
The 1989 Orion one alse says 12, but only has 10.
I put some test posts in the classic car one, and when viewing in the post, it is correct, but when viewing in collapsed, it still says 12.
|
|
Robins Weight post also says 14, but only has 1 reply.
|
|
Mazda 626 says 24 but only has 2 replies.
|
OK, I can see what you're all saying now.
The short answer is to switch to 'View Threads', I think. I never use the collapsed view anyway, because I like to scan the contributors' names. My connection is fast enough that I don't have to wait ages while I go to the next page. But I appreciate that some people prefer to see the topics in collapsed view.
The long answer is, we'll have to try to get this fixed. Stephen Khoo, our programmer, is with me now, but he's working on a problem I can't take him away from. So it might be some time.
I just looked back over this post, and the long answer is shorter than the short answer. It's a topsy-turvy world!
Martyn
|
OK, this is what we think is happening. The Back Room has just reached a specific number of contributions. Around 16000. Apparently this is some kind of magic number within the programming of the management software which bursts a pre-set limit. Once this overflow occurs it causes a miscalculation in the collapsed view which (a) messes up the counter, and (b) causes the "older messages" button to disappear because it believes there are no older messages.
The bad news is, we can't fix it. The good news is, it's fixed in the new software which should be implemented shortly.
|
|
I'd be impressed there have been 16000 posts! When was the forum first set up?
|
|
It's just about a year ago. Mid-October 2000. This is message number 16782.
|
|
|
|
Martyn (Back Room Moderator) wrote:
>
> OK, this is what we think is happening. The Back Room has
> just reached a specific number of contributions. Around
> 16000. .............................
I doubt this is it since new posts are functioning correctly. Also, I very much doubt that there were 672 post which occurred since the error showed, at most 100, I would have thought.
It may be worth trying removing a couple of threads around the hocus pocus mark and see if that clears it. Assuming that you can put them back again, of course.
|
Mark,
I'm glad Martyn is taking us seriously now but remember what he said about the fine line!
David
|
> I'm glad Martyn is taking us seriously now but remember what
> he said about the fine line!
'scuse me, t'wasn't me who said he was sleeping when he should be awake ! I'm the right side of the line for once.
BTW since it actually is the hocus pocus focus thingy note that is the start of the trouble, was that the 160,000 note ?
M.
|
Of course, if you look at the PHP code and its data register you might find that you have a DB record with non-existent parent ID.
Just a shot in the dark, you understand.
|
|
|
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
>
>
> 'scuse me, t'wasn't me who said he was sleeping when he
> should be awake ! I'm the right side of the line for once.
Ah, but it *was* you who sent me an email saying "wakey wakey" or some such ribald remark!
Incidentally, the burst variable theory isn't me making a shot in the dark, as Mark seems to imply. It comes from the Phorum developers. Others have had the same problem (see their support forum).
(Tech stuff to be ignored...
Mark also wrote:
>
> I doubt this is it since new posts are functioning correctly.
> Also, I very much doubt that there were 672 post which
> occurred since the error showed, at most 100
In fact 16000 was a round figure. It took place somewhere around 16600. Remember, this figure isn't *the* variable itself but the result of a calculation upon it, and the seed of several other calculations.)
|
> Ah, but it *was* you who sent me an email saying "wakey
> wakey" or some such ribald remark!
Well, I might have mentioned something along those lines; however, I notice it took you until the next morning to respond - I rest my case, M'lud.
On which subject, in the high court many years ago, I was there for the judge's summing up on Monday morning, the conversation went like this...
Judge: I'm terribly sorry, but I've left my summing up at my country house and so we'll have to delay.
QC: Fax it up here, My Lord.
Judge: Yes it does rather, I really am most terribly sorry.
Well, it made me, and the rest of the court, laugh - although the judge looked a little confused.
|
> Incidentally, the burst variable theory isn't me making a
> shot in the dark, as Mark seems to imply.
No, it was me making the shot in the dark.
> It comes from the Phorum developers. Others have had the same problem (see
> their support forum).
You mean the one running Version 3.3 with the display sorted by last reply date rather than thread creation date ? Is that the one you mean ?
|
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
>
> You mean the one running Version 3.3 with the display sorted
> by last reply date rather than thread creation date ? Is that
> the one you mean ?
Mark, see this? ---> ___________________________________
|
sorry Mr. Moderator, important person, sir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have computer problems try the www.net4nowt.com site and ask in the discussion group. But do state what operating system. One cause of problems has been the virus software and Norton heads the list. Not that I have had problems. However I do get the updates for Norton and Windows weekly- if available!
|
Does that mean we can go all the way back months back to the very first post? Who posted the first post? Who replied to the first post?
I would if i could, but I cant be bothered, besides I havent got the time, hence few posting, maybe a slacker at work could do it for me. HH
Kev
|
|
|
|
We have suddenly started to have problems at work, earlier this week my computer there had a blue screen crash every time I tried to go into the internet, although most other machines on the same network were OK but a couple had similar problems.
This seems to be a virus checker clash, if the anti-virus is shut down on the machine everything comes back to life. The anti-virus is McAfee.
Strange thing is that absolutely nothing was changed, to the best of my knowledge, before the troubles started, other than regular virus updates. A complete mystery.
We are now investigating using a firewall on the communications machine and downgrading the antivirus on the individual machines to reduce the clash factor.
|
|
|
ladas are cool
It sounds as if you have got "Clear history on exit" or a similar function ticked, so that when you turn back on the computer does not know where you have been or which messages you have read.
Regards
Brian
|
|
|
