What is the meaning of the weird time stamp
0000-00-00 00:00:00 in the newsgroup threads?
Also, in my opinion it would be better to
organize the threads in the order of the time of
the most recent posting rather than the time of
the original posting.
Weird time stamp: 0000-00-00 00:00:00
-
Chase
RE:Weird time stamp: 0000-00-00 00:00:00
>On 2001-03-11 10:47:44, xby wrote:
>What is the meaning of the weird time stamp
>0000-00-00 00:00:00 in the newsgroup threads?
It means that the Date header had a extra space in it
and my scripts weren't handling it properly.
It's fixed now.
>Also, in my opinion it would be better to
>organize the threads in the order of the time of
>the most recent posting rather than the time of
>the original posting.
Are there any newsreader that do this?
I figured most people would be used to sorting by
thread start date, since most newsreaders seem to do
it this way.
Would it help if threads that had new replies were
highlighted in some way? (was on my possible list of
things to do already)
>What is the meaning of the weird time stamp
>0000-00-00 00:00:00 in the newsgroup threads?
It means that the Date header had a extra space in it
and my scripts weren't handling it properly.
It's fixed now.
>Also, in my opinion it would be better to
>organize the threads in the order of the time of
>the most recent posting rather than the time of
>the original posting.
Are there any newsreader that do this?
I figured most people would be used to sorting by
thread start date, since most newsreaders seem to do
it this way.
Would it help if threads that had new replies were
highlighted in some way? (was on my possible list of
things to do already)
-
Guest
RE:Weird time stamp: 0000-00-00 00:00:00
>On 2001-03-11 18:57:10, Chase wrote:
>
>>Also, in my opinion it would be better to
>>organize the threads in the order of the time of
>>the most recent posting rather than the time of
>>the original posting.
>
>Are there any newsreader that do this?
>I figured most people would be used to sorting by
>thread start date, since most newsreaders seem to do
>it this way.
>
DEJA did that while it was alive. It was great.
>Would it help if threads that had new replies were
>highlighted in some way? (was on my possible list of
>things to do already)
Would it be too much trouble to offer the user the
option to choose between alternative orders? I
think this is better than highlighting, because it
eliminates the need to search for highlighted
threads.
>
>>Also, in my opinion it would be better to
>>organize the threads in the order of the time of
>>the most recent posting rather than the time of
>>the original posting.
>
>Are there any newsreader that do this?
>I figured most people would be used to sorting by
>thread start date, since most newsreaders seem to do
>it this way.
>
DEJA did that while it was alive. It was great.
>Would it help if threads that had new replies were
>highlighted in some way? (was on my possible list of
>things to do already)
Would it be too much trouble to offer the user the
option to choose between alternative orders? I
think this is better than highlighting, because it
eliminates the need to search for highlighted
threads.
-
Nick
RE:Weird time stamp: 0000-00-00 00:00:00
>On 2001-03-11 18:57:10, Chase wrote:
>>On 2001-03-11 10:47:44, xby wrote:
>>
>>Also, in my opinion it would be better to
>>organize the threads in the order of the time of
>>the most recent posting rather than the time of
>>the original posting.
>
>Are there any newsreader that do this?
>I figured most people would be used to sorting by
>thread start date, since most newsreaders seem to do
>it this way.
>
>Would it help if threads that had new replies were
>highlighted in some way? (was on my possible list of
>things to do already)
Is there any real need to do special highlighting???
I know which messages I've read by the way my browser
highlights them..... purple for followed links (read the message),
and blue for unfollowed links (unread messages)!
All that needs to be done is for older threads that have not
had reply's contributed for 1-2 weeks are removed from the active
board (the whole thread that is). The removed messages should
still be available in archive of course.
--Nick
>>On 2001-03-11 10:47:44, xby wrote:
>>
>>Also, in my opinion it would be better to
>>organize the threads in the order of the time of
>>the most recent posting rather than the time of
>>the original posting.
>
>Are there any newsreader that do this?
>I figured most people would be used to sorting by
>thread start date, since most newsreaders seem to do
>it this way.
>
>Would it help if threads that had new replies were
>highlighted in some way? (was on my possible list of
>things to do already)
Is there any real need to do special highlighting???
I know which messages I've read by the way my browser
highlights them..... purple for followed links (read the message),
and blue for unfollowed links (unread messages)!
All that needs to be done is for older threads that have not
had reply's contributed for 1-2 weeks are removed from the active
board (the whole thread that is). The removed messages should
still be available in archive of course.
--Nick