{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/21/2013 9:12:55 PM
5
Should threads ordered as "Oldest First" have pages?
For large threads, it can be very hard to still follow a topic. Plus, page gets. Who doesn't like getting gets?
If no, please explain why below. I'd like to know the thought process behind your answer.
-
Certainly. Without it, anything past the 100th or so comment is pretty much invisible (unless you have a [i]lot[/i] of time for scrolling down). Or the reverse if you sort by popularity. They wouldn't be that hard to implement from a theoretical standpoint: Each page is comprised of 25 comments, regardless of replies (I believe these aren't loaded until you click to view them, so it doesn't make much of a difference how many there is). Very similar to the old page system, or the one which is in place for thread lists (those these are handled a little strangely as well). From a technical standpoint, they mightn't be the quickest of additions, but since threads are already divided into groups of comments (until you scroll down) and forums already have pages for sorting through threads, I wouldn't imagine they'd be a completely foreign idea.
-
1 RispondiModificato da Macharius: 3/21/2013 9:46:19 PMFor some threads (82000 post long spam thread) pages are necessary. There is simply no (practical) way to scroll all the way down there.
-
1 Rispondiyes, but i think someway that simulates you linking a specific page so that it is easier to find stuff if ya know waht i mean
-
1 RispondiNo, I kinda of like the unlimited scrolling.
-
3 RisposteHow would they divide pages up? By 25 posts? That could cut off some people's replies to another comment. 25 comments could have any number of replies.
