Pony: last 10 comments link/page

March 18, 2002 1:47 PM

Feature idea: A last 10 link after the comment count on each front-page post, which causes the thread to be loaded with only the last 10 comments visible.
posted by rcade to Feature Requests at 1:47 PM (23 comments total)

For example:

"There should be a law about these people with web diaries or they should all wear identifying clothing or something, so that innocent bystanders who don't need some perverse kind of public fame can know to steer clear." Or, using Google to flush out potential dating disasters.

posted by Psionic_Tim at 8:56 PM PST - 72 comments ((Last 10)

posted by rcade at 1:48 PM on March 18, 2002

I like. I was thinking of something similar, a "jump to last comment" link--for when the new comments numbers get reset but you know there's been traffic. But I like rcade's idea better. Perfect for those 1500-comment threads!
posted by rodii at 2:04 PM on March 18, 2002

or a way to view only the new comments since you last logged in. It says (10 new) anyways. Could we just click that and only see new ones? I like the idea, btw, rcade.
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:06 PM on March 18, 2002

Doh!! you can (click the new comments line). sorry, i'd just never tried it before
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:08 PM on March 18, 2002

How about sticking this within the comments page itself, so as not to clutter the front page?
posted by phatboy at 2:09 PM on March 18, 2002

Maybe it'd be less of a load on the server to shove only the original message, and the new messages down the pipe, leaving the rest to be viewed if specifically requested?
posted by crunchland at 2:10 PM on March 18, 2002

Great idea!

I have noticed that often, when I click (# new), I get time out errors.

Just me?
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:19 PM on March 18, 2002

Not just you, Kafka. I also notice that clicking on the # new comments link often has a random effect, not always taking me near the new comments, but that may be some IE for MacOS browser incompatibility.
posted by evanizer at 3:11 PM on March 18, 2002

evanizer: That happens when the comment you want to see is close to the bottom of the page. Internet Explorer doesn't have enough of a page below the comment to position things the way you would expect.
posted by rcade at 3:19 PM on March 18, 2002

I have noticed that often, when I click (# new), I get time out errors. Just me?

Whether you click (# new) or # comments is irrevelant... the comment number is never sent to the server anyway. The server sees the same URL and does exactly the same thing regardless of which link you click.
posted by kindall at 5:14 PM on March 18, 2002

I don't want to do something like this, because people would miss out on comments. I like the way it currently functions because if you wanted to refresh your memory of earlier comments, you can by scrolling up. If only ten comments were showing, you'd have to reload some page to see earlier stuff. I think it'd be confusing to users and I can't see much use for it (I'd never use it, personally).

I don't want an easy way to jump down to the comments box because I prefer if people read before they made comments. Having a way to route around that would mean a lot of people posting the same point.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:18 PM on March 18, 2002

Ummm, kindall, sorry but nope. The "# comments" link takes you to the URL of the comments page, and so does the "(# new)" link, but the difference is that the URL for the latter also includes the bookmark to the first unread comment for you -- that little part after the pound sign.
posted by delfuego at 5:21 PM on March 18, 2002

But the server does the same thing in either case (viz., serves the same page), deljason, which I think is what he meant (the anchor does it's thang client-side).
posted by sylloge at 5:33 PM on March 18, 2002

Ummm, kindall, sorry but nope. The "# comments" link takes you to the URL of the comments page, and so does the "(# new)" link, but the difference is that the URL for the latter also includes the bookmark to the first unread comment for you -- that little part after the pound sign.

... which is never seen by the server, as I said. The named anchor (the # sign and everything after it) is handled entirely by the browser.
posted by kindall at 5:33 PM on March 18, 2002

To actually make the point I was trying to make, the server can't tell whether you're requesting to go directly to a particular post or just to the top of the thread, so there's no way you could get "more" timeouts by clicking one or the other.
posted by kindall at 5:50 PM on March 18, 2002

Yeh, I was thinking it was probably just a coincidence, but it sure seems like it happens more....
posted by Kafkaesque at 6:04 PM on March 18, 2002

Yeh, I was thinking it was probably just a coincidence, but it sure seems like it happens more....
posted by Kafkaesque at 6:04 PM on March 18, 2002

I'm full of shame.
posted by Kafkaesque at 6:05 PM on March 18, 2002

And pep, young man. Lots of pep.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:32 PM on March 18, 2002

I'm glad Matt said no to this, because when I suggested it's equivalent month ago, everyone though I was bonkers (my suggestion was, and IS to invert the order of posts so that that most recent is at the top of the screen).
posted by ParisParamus at 8:01 PM on March 18, 2002

I can't see much use for it (I'd never use it, personally).

It would be quite nice for threads that take forever to load (and which one is following closely), especially a concern for users on dialup.
posted by redfoxtail at 8:20 PM on March 18, 2002

*flicks open Zippo, gets ready to light pyre*

Anybody else wanna change things?
posted by Frasermoo at 12:47 AM on March 19, 2002

Paris, that's not equivalent at all.
posted by rodii at 5:51 AM on March 19, 2002