Writing as one who is usually last to know, I just realized today that the number of thread viewings is highly deceptive.

Here's why: Yeah, Wordwind, tell us what the rest of us always knew...

Everytime you click on a page of a thread, the number increases. For instance, if there's an eight-page thread that you haven't read, everytime you click on a new page of the thread, the number of thread viewings increases by one.

Therefore, the number of viewings increases on that single eight-page thread by eight even though only one person has read that thread one time.

Feeling a lot better for having pointed out the inflation of numbers here (even though everybody else already knew it),
Wordwind And to think it took me nine months to realize this!!!

If'n ya go ta "Edit Profile" an' ya select "Display Preferences" an' then ya set "Total posts to show on one page when viewing a thread in flat mode" ta 99 or so, it's a rare thread indeed that goes ta multiple pages.

If the whole world did this, we could dramatically curtail the problem of view inflation in one swell foop, and leave this place better for generations to come.

Thank you, and good night.

Well said, Hyla! And I will do as you suggested immediately if not sooner!

Wordwind

Well fancy that. WW, don't feel bad about bringing stuff up. See, now I've learned something and have changed my number of posts per page to 99. How great is that?! No needless clicking back 'n forth.

and now you better understand why we also tend to start a new thread when a topic goes to 100, (and page 2!) and with old threads, you sometimes can't get to page 2.. but if you have preference set to 99, voila! most (or all) of the thread is available!

we old timers keep saying this.. and we keep saying try to "post" your comments to the comment your are responding to..

In this case, i am responding to belM, but if i responded to WW, it would look the same (in flat mode) but for those of us who get notified is some one has responded to one of our 'posts' (as many do) it makes a big difference!

the easiest thing in the world is to read flat, and the just respond "flat" (that is just hit the respond button on the very last post we see) but its really better to read 'flat', and then scroll back to the comment that you want to respond to, an hit the respond button there.. then it's easy to copy a bit of the text (and usefull if the thread has two or three topics being woven in and out.. ) an include it in your response!

there are some here who read threaded (not me!) and others, who pay a premium for on line time (not me, again) and this really makes it easier for them to keep up.. is like the basic 'rules of the road' (in US), slow traffic to right, fast traffic to left.-- here it's read flat, responde threaded..

an other cool trick is, to set display preferences to Post Header Top (not side) then the info about who posted in in a few lines across the top, and threads are less likely to Wide-- when someone has a long-ish URL posted..
(PS-- view this thread in threaded mode, an you'll see, this post is in response to Hyla's! posting, not belM's, or WW's-- (Oh the blinding light of so many light bulbs going on!

but Helen, don't you find that the threads get longer if you post multiple responses to a pile of people rather than one post answering everbody?

yes, and i don't always do it.. but sometimes, it makes sense.. some threads have 2 or 3 seperate topics going.. and those who do read threaded.. might miss your comments, if you only 'post' flat. it also rare that i am interested in all three topics.. i might read the stuff, but 'pass' on responding to topic A, but be very exicited about topic C. Max, on the other had, who is having a serious (and to me boring!) discussion about topic A, doesn't want to read my recipes! (boring to him!)

Its like being in room, and several people are talking about the same thing (Jenifer Lopez, say!), but the guys are talking about how hot she is (or isn't,), and the girls are all talking about how thin she has gotten, or her outfit..and the kids are talking about her newest music video.. i might hear what the kids have to say, but i am not really part of their conversation, nor do i find her sexually attractive (she attractive, but i'm not attracted to her!).. Does that make sense?

Does that make sense?

Choose your own response - I can't pick between the two.

I was with you up to "yes".

It did, until you started talking about J Lo not being attractive.

Good thing this thread is here... perhaps this is something I should bring up with our Administratrix, but I've had my preferences set to 99 posts per view for some time, and just lately I get a server error message from wordsmith.org that the MIME header file is too long whenever I try to get into a thread of longer than, say, 50 posts. I'm a little puzzled, as it lets me into the shorter ones without issue. Anyone else having this problem, or did I break it?

if it's anything chocolate, or curry, I'm in!

Ooh! got any good curried chocolate recipes?

At one time I belonged to and supported wholeheartedly that organization known as the Fraternal Order of Police, but they have become moribund, leading me to lament the once-well FOOP.

I wouldn't have posted this, but Hyla specifically ordered it in another thread! Actually I would have posted it, but at least I have an excuse.

It took me a while to notice that as well. One of the many things I just don't notice.

I just noticed that your name is "Theresa" in your profile struck me as odd, since I had thought wordwind was a pseudonym for anu. I've even looked at your profile previously and didn't notice.


k

>It took me a while to notice that as well.

nor, it seems, have you yet to notice that by the time you reply to the original message it's hard (yes it's hard) for us flatlanders to know what it is to which you refer. that's why we urge you to provide a bit of context, as I've.

()

but Hyla specifically ordered it

Thank you kindly, Ted. It's rare to find a skilled punster who also takes requests.

per tsuwm: nor, it seems, have you yet to notice

Now, if he had yet to notice, I'd take that to mean he hadn't noticed. Howsomever, there's that little "nor" prefixing the whole affair, which suggests that the negative, or opposite, of the upcoming clause is in fact the case. So, he has noticed, and has chosen to pay the fact no never mind? Fiendish!

nor, it seems, have you yet to notice that by the time you reply to the original message it's hard (yes it's hard) for us flatlanders to know what it is to which you refer. that's why we urge you to provide a bit of context, as I've.


Well, boogers. I noticed. I do it sometimes, but I often forget. Pardon me.

I keep switching between modes and I often get confused.

k

actually, a local coffee/candy/nut store, offers dried soybeans, with a curry coating.. and you can get them with curry and dark (bitter) chocolate.. so yes, you can get curry, chocolate foods, should your heart (or taste buds) so desire!

(does any where else have this kind of stores (a nut and seed one)? they don't sell all candies, only nut and seed candy.. basicaly a nut/seed store the candy is peanut crunch (and other nut crunches, halavah, and other seseme candies.) and they sell a few spices, crystalized ginger, and caramadon seeds, and whole nutmegs.. not all spices.. just seed/nut ones (well ginger is an exception.. and i guess soybeans are quite a seed or nut, but dried soy beans are nut like)and whole bean coffee, which is a seed.

nut & seed stores

Sure, they are rather common here. A little less "every five blocks" than fruit stores though.

I have been selling these as party favors for some time. Indeed I am known for currying favors.

but chocolatized, TEd? a flavored curry?

The curried chocolate bar has yet to be invented.