Patterns in AskMe thread numbers February 11, 2005 12:16 PM Subscribe
Just noticing a quirk: The thread IDs of the anonymous AskMe posts seem to reflect the number that would be assigned to them had they been instantly posted at the time of submission. The three latest threads on AskMe are 14998,15006,15016 (all Anon threads) followed by normal threads 15032, 15031...etc.
I don't know how anon is implemented right now. Wouldn't it be easy to just setup a regular account named 'anonymous' and copy-n-post approved Qs with that account? Of course, that'd be unfeasible for (upcoming) anon answers.
posted by Gyan at 12:34 PM on February 11, 2005
posted by Gyan at 12:34 PM on February 11, 2005
that's what I do now Gyan.
The problem is someone makes an anonmyous question post at 11:30PM and I approve it at 7AM. It has an ID value similar to the previous day's posts, even though it will get a new date at the time I approve it.
I need to rework the back/next code to grab the next post by date rather than ID number, which is what currently causes the problem.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:41 PM on February 11, 2005
The problem is someone makes an anonmyous question post at 11:30PM and I approve it at 7AM. It has an ID value similar to the previous day's posts, even though it will get a new date at the time I approve it.
I need to rework the back/next code to grab the next post by date rather than ID number, which is what currently causes the problem.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:41 PM on February 11, 2005
that's what I do now Gyan.
The problem is someone makes an anonmyous question post at 11:30PM and I approve it at 7AM. It has an ID value similar to the previous day's posts, even though it will get a new date at the time I approve it.
Doesn't compute. I mean, why is the submitted question (and its thread ID) connected to the 'anonymous' posts unless there's some automated code or different procedure involved. Anyway, this isn't a problem, just a quirk, or rather, a feature.
posted by Gyan at 1:53 PM on February 11, 2005
The problem is someone makes an anonmyous question post at 11:30PM and I approve it at 7AM. It has an ID value similar to the previous day's posts, even though it will get a new date at the time I approve it.
Doesn't compute. I mean, why is the submitted question (and its thread ID) connected to the 'anonymous' posts unless there's some automated code or different procedure involved. Anyway, this isn't a problem, just a quirk, or rather, a feature.
posted by Gyan at 1:53 PM on February 11, 2005
knave, it's a problem because the little next and back links at the bottom of anon ask mefi posts don't actually go to the next thread on the front page.
Gyan, I think we're talking past each other or something. All the anon questions get an ID automatically on creation that cannot be changed. They're all keyed to the one anon user account I set aside for this. I have to approve them later, so the timestamp gets updated to the current time, but the ID remains "old" based on the way the next and back links are done. Once the next/back links are keyed to find the next new post by date rather than by ID, the problem will be solved.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:59 PM on February 11, 2005
Gyan, I think we're talking past each other or something. All the anon questions get an ID automatically on creation that cannot be changed. They're all keyed to the one anon user account I set aside for this. I have to approve them later, so the timestamp gets updated to the current time, but the ID remains "old" based on the way the next and back links are done. Once the next/back links are keyed to find the next new post by date rather than by ID, the problem will be solved.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:59 PM on February 11, 2005
it's a problem because the little next and back links at the bottom of anon ask mefi posts don't actually go to the next thread on the front page.
Ahh, I get it. :)
posted by knave at 2:03 PM on February 11, 2005
Ahh, I get it. :)
posted by knave at 2:03 PM on February 11, 2005
Ok.
What I was getting at, is users fill the anon form, whose contents get added to some private page or sent to your email. You approve some. Log into MeFi and copy-post the text of the question like the rest of us, except that you're using an account called 'anonymous'. But your system is different. No problems with it, though. Just wondering.
posted by Gyan at 2:05 PM on February 11, 2005
What I was getting at, is users fill the anon form, whose contents get added to some private page or sent to your email. You approve some. Log into MeFi and copy-post the text of the question like the rest of us, except that you're using an account called 'anonymous'. But your system is different. No problems with it, though. Just wondering.
posted by Gyan at 2:05 PM on February 11, 2005
Yeah, it's all automated instead, so that the posts are posts in the db and I just need to approve them to make them live. Just trying to minimize the impact on my time so copying and pasting was out.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:30 PM on February 11, 2005
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:30 PM on February 11, 2005
Why would he want to do that much work, to fix such a small problem?
posted by delmoi at 3:58 PM on February 11, 2005
posted by delmoi at 3:58 PM on February 11, 2005
could you have a query that pulled the surrounding posts' ID numbers based on approval date (or submitted date, whichever is more correct)? if you could do it via date it'd take care of things if the ID numbers ever get out of sync for other reasons too, I think.
posted by mrg at 6:49 PM on February 11, 2005
posted by mrg at 6:49 PM on February 11, 2005
Wouldn't it just be easier to have the system spawn a "new" thread for the anonymous one after it was approved, so the DB picks a new one off the top of the heap that's actually in sequence?
That way, it can just trash the old now-out-of-sync ID number for the unapproved version, like it was any other deleted thread, right, and there wouldn't be any sequencing issues?
posted by LairBob at 9:09 PM on February 11, 2005
That way, it can just trash the old now-out-of-sync ID number for the unapproved version, like it was any other deleted thread, right, and there wouldn't be any sequencing issues?
posted by LairBob at 9:09 PM on February 11, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:22 PM on February 11, 2005