Ignore user's new posts when user is ignored

[NanoSector]

Like, when an user has posted a new post in a topic, it should not show on the Show New Replies pages, no matter if the topic is read or unread.

It should let the user be able to disable this function.

Thanks.

[Arantor]

Reason it's not done is for performance. It's hard enough on the server to do new posts/unread normally, and filtering it like that will make it even slower.

[NanoSector]

Reason it's not done is for performance. It's hard enough on the server to do new posts/unread normally, and filtering it like that will make it even slower.

Again, you don't read.

It should let the user be able to disable this function.

[Arantor]

Jeez, don't you ever let up trying to find reasons to correct me? I know I'm over twice your age and you feel you have to prove something, but all you're doing is making yourself look stupid.


In actuality, YOU don't read. I was explaining why the current implementation doesn't do what it should logically do, since barring PMs and hiding posts from your ignore list are user controlled items, which is because there is a non trivial performance cost attached to it.

If you make it default to hide, the performance cost becomes significant. If you make it non default to hide from the unread list, the performance cost isn't so bad, but it's still a significant relative cost even if just one person uses it.

The more you insist on trying to correct me, the more I will continue to correct you. You're a smart 11 year old, I'll grant you that, but seriously, it would do you good to learn a little humility and listen to the people around you that might actually be trying to share some of the lessons they've learned.

[NanoSector]

Jeez, don't you ever let up trying to find reasons to correct me? I know I'm over twice your age and you feel you have to prove something, but all you're doing is making yourself look stupid.

I don't care, like I said before.

In actuality, YOU don't read. I was explaining why the current implementation doesn't do what it should logically do, since barring PMs and hiding posts from your ignore list are user controlled items, which is because there is a non trivial performance cost attached to it.

If you make it default to hide, the performance cost becomes significant. If you make it non default to hide from the unread list, the performance cost isn't so bad, but it's still a significant relative cost even if just one person uses it.

Depends on the server the script is being ran on. If the server's performance is good, the forum won't harm it. Besides, if the Admin panel had an option to fully disable the function, it won't harm either.

The more you insist on trying to correct me, the more I will continue to correct you. You're a smart 11 year old, I'll grant you that, but seriously, it would do you good to learn a little humility and listen to the people around you that might actually be trying to share some of the lessons they've learned.

I'm listening all the time. It's just that I'm being followed by other's sneaking up behind me at EVERY forum I encounter...

[Arantor]

Depends on the server the script is being ran on. If the server's performance is good, the forum won't harm it. Besides, if the Admin panel had an option to fully disable the function, it won't harm either.

Doesn't matter whether the server's performance is good or not. The slower a query is, the worse the overall effect. Anything that has a serious performance consequence like this should be taken care to implement - and without completely overhauling (from scratch) how read/unread is handled, there is no efficient way to implement this. (I've tried.)

It's just that I'm being followed by other's sneaking up behind me at EVERY forum I encounter...

Well, you're not a member of my forum, I only sent you a message from Bryan's forum to try and convince you I was me (and you're banned from there anyway AFAIK), and the only forum that you and I have in common is this one. But I guess the attitude that you think you're always right, trying to claim the moral high ground and pointing out everyone else's flaws like you don't have any is going to earn you some serious attitude in return.

When I was your age, I was just like you. I thought I knew everything, and I made damn sure everyone else did too. Then I grew up, and learned a little humility, like when to listen to people that might be willing to teach me something even after I crapped on their doorstep, but it took a long time to learn that lesson, because I spent so long with my head up my ass.

If no-one else corrects you, you'll assume you're right, which means you'll continue believing you're right when you're not. In this environment, being wrong isn't likely to do any serious damage. Wait until you get out there in the real world, when a single mistake can cost your company money, can cost you your career, put your home at risk and so on. I've been there... it wasn't *that* long ago that I was heading towards the verge of bankruptcy due to poor decisions on my part. Point is: when you think you know it all, you invariably haven't a clue.

[NanoSector]

Depends on the server the script is being ran on. If the server's performance is good, the forum won't harm it. Besides, if the Admin panel had an option to fully disable the function, it won't harm either.

Doesn't matter whether the server's performance is good or not. The slower a query is, the worse the overall effect. Anything that has a serious performance consequence like this should be taken care to implement - and without completely overhauling (from scratch) how read/unread is handled, there is no efficient way to implement this. (I've tried.)

If it can't be implemented, that's another story.

It's just that I'm being followed by other's sneaking up behind me at EVERY forum I encounter...

Well, you're not a member of my forum, I only sent you a message from Bryan's forum to try and convince you I was me (and you're banned from there anyway AFAIK), and the only forum that you and I have in common is this one. But I guess the attitude that you think you're always right, trying to claim the moral high ground and pointing out everyone else's flaws like you don't have any is going to earn you some serious attitude in return.

When I was your age, I was just like you. I thought I knew everything, and I made damn sure everyone else did too. Then I grew up, and learned a little humility, like when to listen to people that might be willing to teach me something even after I crapped on their doorstep, but it took a long time to learn that lesson, because I spent so long with my head up my ass.

If no-one else corrects you, you'll assume you're right, which means you'll continue believing you're right when you're not. In this environment, being wrong isn't likely to do any serious damage. Wait until you get out there in the real world, when a single mistake can cost your company money, can cost you your career, put your home at risk and so on. I've been there... it wasn't *that* long ago that I was heading towards the verge of bankruptcy due to poor decisions on my part. Point is: when you think you know it all, you invariably haven't a clue.

AFAIK the problem is that EVERYONE corrects me and the ones that do, know damn good that I don't like that.

Reason I'm banned there is..unknown to me. Gotta check that out.
EDIT: I'm not banned at all.

[Arantor]

If it can't be implemented, that's another story.

Try reading again. I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it couldn't be done efficiently, which is the same thing I've been saying all the way along.

AFAIK the problem is that EVERYONE corrects me and the ones that do, know damn good that I don't like that.

I didn't like it either. I still don't really like it - when the person correcting me doesn't know what they're talking about, or they're just being an ass about it. Correcting me when I'm actually wrong, that happens, you learn to deal with it because all the time you just ignore what you're being told, you will continue to be wrong and continue to be corrected. The only one who can stop yourself being corrected is YOU.

Reason I'm banned there is..unknown to me. Gotta check that out.

You certainly were banned at one point for being irritating, i.e. correcting people over stupid stuff and trying to come across as smarter than you are, everything I've been getting at here basically. You're smart for 11, and right now, over confident, brash but woefully naive.

[NanoSector]

If it can't be implemented, that's another story.

Try reading again. I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said it couldn't be done efficiently, which is the same thing I've been saying all the way along.

I know, I just didn't know how to word it better (else it would be something like "if you feel like it's hard to implement it then that's another story"...doesn't make sense to me). I don't NEED this to be implemented, only saying it's nice, you know?

AFAIK the problem is that EVERYONE corrects me and the ones that do, know damn good that I don't like that.

I didn't like it either. I still don't really like it - when the person correcting me doesn't know what they're talking about, or they're just being an ass about it. Correcting me when I'm actually wrong, that happens, you learn to deal with it because all the time you just ignore what you're being told, you will continue to be wrong and continue to be corrected. The only one who can stop yourself being corrected is YOU.

I know, and that's why I'm studying more in the languages I'm correcting & fixing in (currently PHP).

Reason I'm banned there is..unknown to me. Gotta check that out.

You certainly were banned at one point for being irritating, i.e. correcting people over stupid stuff and trying to come across as smarter than you are, everything I've been getting at here basically. You're smart for 11, and right now, over confident, brash but woefully naive.

Like Runic states, he's an (what did he say in his Personal Text again?).
I just said something like "That doesn't help me at all." and thus he banned me from his forum.
Not that I care anyway.

[Norv]

Arantor: while I agree with the performance issues remarks, I'm confident you know that discussing a feature request can be done without personal attacks. Please stop using this board for the latter. Thank you.

OP: I agree that the behavior of the unread messages features for ignored users could be better. I'm not sure I remember seeing this request ever before, though, and indeed performance may also be a concern to keep in mind.
If there is more interest in it from the community, I can propose it to the devs and testers for discussion nonetheless, for an eventual feature enhancement package (not default SMF), and we'll see from there.

[Kindred]

Norv,

I don't see this as personal attacks from Arantor. Honestly, Yoshi went on the offensive first. Arantor's original response explained why this was not done (and I agree completely, BTW... Considering some of the pathetic hosts that are out there, this would create a performance degradation of massive proportions.)

[Norv]

I don't really agree Kindred, but if I'm wrong, I apologize for calling Arantor on it. However, this board is for discussing the ideas, the possibilities, the needs, the software. NOT the people proposing them, nor second guessing or jumping on the people proposing them.

Hot discussions between Arantor and Simple Series team exist in Chit Chat, and look like they may become subject of moderation even there. Yes, to be fair, none of them seems to stop, but that's not the main point. The topics in this board should not become one of those.

[Kindred]

true... whoever made the first volley, it doesn't belong here in feature requests.


So, both of you (Yoshi and Arantor) knock it off.

[NanoSector]

I tried to be nice yesterday...don't know how it was with Arantor? Anyhow I guess we'll knock it off.

But can we please get on topic again?

[Norv]

OP: I agree that the behavior of the unread messages features for ignored users could be better. I'm not sure I remember seeing this request ever before, though, and indeed performance may also be a concern to keep in mind.
If there is more interest in it from the community, I can propose it to the devs and testers for discussion nonetheless, for an eventual feature enhancement package (not default SMF), and we'll see from there.

I'm not certain at this point if it is really needed, or there is interest from the community. As I said, the current behavior not the best behavior, but I'm not sure how annoying it is considered, I don't remember seeing it reported other times.
We can use some more opinions here.

[UndergroundChic]

members at my forum keep asking for this feature (we have one really annoying member)

[Antechinus]

I get quite a few requests for this feature too. Now the site in question has a good server and a relatively small number of active users, so we may get away with it. I was thinking of giving it a go myself and seeing how the server handles it, just as an experiment.