Post counters off-by-one


  • :belt_onion:

    I know I'm doing it wrong™ but using the url to try and reach the post in this topic:

    http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/poll-shall-the-dragon-consume-codinghorror/1194/

    Is... broken.

    If you try to access http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/poll-shall-the-dragon-consume-codinghorror/1194/49?u=onyx which is post 49, by me, you're taken to post 48 by @Matches.

    This happens consistently for posts above 47, didn't check further back. I'm lazy.

    Let me guess: Discourse can't handle deleted posts?



  • Hrm, the link on the post you're referring to (by you) in that topic says it's 50, and Matches' is 49. Manual count shows correct (you made the 50th post in the topic, considering the OP as post #1).

    If it went the other way (your link went to the post after yours), I could see deleted posts possibly being an issue, but what you're seeing doesn't look to be that.


  • :belt_onion:

    @ChaosTheEternal said:

    If it went the other way (your link went to the post after yours), I could see deleted posts possibly being an issue, but what you're seeing doesn't look to be that.

    True that. I guess my thinking was off-by-one.

    What is 50 btw? Middle? Bottom? Top? Permalink (clicking the date stardate non-newtonian time offset) gives me 49, yet URL takes me to 48, but my initial guess (by scrolling) was 50...

    Bah, I give up.



  • Using the link icon for your post gives this:

    http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/poll-shall-the-dragon-consume-codinghorror/1194/50?u=the_dragon

    Looks like the post ID is 50, and the post ID is what the URL uses.



  • @the_dragon said:

    Using the link icon for your post gives this:

    http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/poll-shall-the-dragon-consume-codinghorror/1194/50?u=the_dragon

    Looks like the post ID is 50, and the post ID is what the URL uses.

    Just seeing what happens if I future post quote.

    Oh, nifty. The quote reply expander thingy.


  • :belt_onion:

    @Matches said:

    Just seeing what happens if I future post quote.

    That's not a future post quote, this is a future post quote.
    @darkmatter said:
    .


  • :belt_onion:

    And now I will close the loop so I don't get murdered by some time gang.



  • @darkmatter said:

    That's not a future post quote, this is a future post quote.
    @darkmatter said:
    .

    My future post quote is just more futury than yours.

    Curses, foiled by a ninja post.



  • I'm sure these points are explained elsewhere, across a few topics, but a summary:

    • The post # in the URL is the top-most post on your screen.
    • Unless you have the "Don't update URL while scrolling through topics" plugin option checked.
    • The post # in the green location bar is the bottom-most "visible1" post on your screen.
    • The post in the center when you open the topic is where you came in at.
    • Post #1 is the exception to the previous point.

    1 Where 1px is considered "visible".

  • :belt_onion:

    @Matches said:

    My future post quote is just more futury than yours.

    Yes, but it contains content that I doubt will actually be in the post that ends up getting quoted.
    My "." quote was almost guaranteed to work, even if it wasn't me that did it :)


  • :belt_onion:

    Ok, since I likely clicked the wrong thing: can you confirm that going to any post number at random decreases the post number in URL bar once the site loads?

    Or is it just me?



  • Your faith in any type of grammar confuses me and makes me sad



  • No, I fixed my comment above. Apparently, the URL shows the post # of the top-most visible post while the green bar shows the post # of the bottom-most visible post.


    Filed under: [Consistency? What's that?](#tag2), [I don't think that's the first time I've used a version of that tag.](#tag2), [That's why I have the plugin that disables the URL from changing on.](#tag2)

  • :belt_onion:

    If it were only a positioning problem I'd shrug it off. But the fact that it changes the URL to post_number - 1 and then flashes the correct post (which is actually post_number_in_url + 1) is freaking disorienting.



  • @Onyx said:

    the fact that it changes the URL

    That's why I have the plugin on. Their position indicators don't work very well, so disable/ignore them as best as possible is my position.



  • @ChaosTheEternal said:

    No, I fixed my comment above. Apparently, the URL shows the post # of the top-most visible post while the green bar shows the post # of the bottom-most visible post.

    Yeah, @codinghorror (I think it was him) commented about this ... somewhere. I can't be bothered to go through the DC swamp-of-searching to find it. In the end, you enter one post number and get two different numbers back.


  • Banned

    See

    And

    In the above image the URL target was post 39.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @codinghorror said:

    See

    And

    <img src='/uploads/default/3207/7ebf69caa437807d.png'>

    In the above image the URL target was post 39.

    Yes, that is an excellent description of the bug.


  • sockdevs

    Except that apparently isn't a bug...?


  • Banned

    I agree this is confusing, but am not sure how to resolve it. If the URL starts denoting the post in the middle of the screen or the post in the bottom of the screen its almost just as confusing.



  • @sam said:

    I agree this is confusing, but am not sure how to resolve it. If the URL starts denoting the post in the middle of the screen or the post in the bottom of the screen its almost just as confusing.

    I think you just need to choose one and use it in every place. Either the post at the top or in the middle using whichever logic you already do to decide that.

    I currently can't rely on the URL because I don't know which post it points to. If I want to see the raw post, my current workflow is:

    Click the chain icon -> copy the URL -> open a new tab -> paste -> edit the URL -> go.

    Maybe there's a better way, but I don't know how to be sure which post the URL shown in the bar refers to.


  • :belt_onion:

    @Keith said:

    Maybe there's a better way, but I don't know how to be sure which post the URL shown in the bar refers to.

    Hmmm... could make a "show raw" userscript later. Maybe. Right now I'm busy and not in the best of moods so...


  • sockdevs

    My method is simply to reply to it, then press quote. Seems to be fairly good at getting the raw content, warts'n'all, but I'm sure I'm "doing it wrong" somehow.



  • @Keith said:

    Maybe there's a better way, but I don't know how to be sure which post the URL shown in the bar refers to.

    How about just showing the post number? Like, next to the time stamp. Of course, that might confuse people trying to get the post id for quoting purposes, which of course means that nested quoting needs to be supported so we don't have to fuck around with post ids.


  • Banned

    I think in some places, for example here, it makes 100% sense to show the post number on every post eg:

    #22 3m on top right.

    Should be a site setting cause for some its too noisy, but here, totally makes sense.

    (either that or show the number below avatar)


  • sockdevs

    Wait, the post number is too heavy? It's typically 3 characters, 4 on longer threads, 5 on extreme TDWTF cases...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Keith said:

    I currently can't rely on the URL because I don't know which post it points to. If I want to see the raw post, my current workflow is:

    Hover over the timestamp (rather than the chain) on Firefox shows the post URL in what passes for a status bar these days:


  • :belt_onion:

    You can also click the timestamp to see actual post #:


  • :belt_onion:

    So, the solution is extra clicks or hovering, instead of using the thing I used since I first heard of such thing as Internet?

    We used to call it the addressbar back in the days of yore. These days it's awesome-omni-everything-bar, but you know what never changed, despite all the cruft browsers put in there?

    It shows the correct URL.

    Fuck. At first I ragged on Discourse because it was fun. Then it stopped to be fun so I stopped as well. Now, I'm actually getting genuinely annoyed.



  • @Onyx said:

    So, the solution is extra clicks or hovering, instead of using the thing I used since I first heard of such thing as Internet?

    Exactly!

    @Onyx said:

    We used to call it the addressbar back in the days of yore.

    Oh, I was thinking, eyes. Just put the freakin' data on the page! I think that if you saw the number, you'd quickly figure out what the x of y stuff was telling you and there would be no confusion.

    I mean, most people probably wouldn't care that the post tracker wasn't matching their OCD notions of Right and Wrong (I don't really), but at least Discourse could clue in you mental fuckers so you'd stop bitching and go like my posts in the Likes thread. Sheesh.


  • Banned

    @Onyx said:

    It shows the correct URL.

    In general since forever this is what forums do this:

    The URL bar just stays static and post numbers are sprinkled through.

    For highly technical places I totally get that post numbers can be handy. Longer term i do want to get rid of the shifting sand issue and just have the "magic widget" ALWAYS unconditionally show the post number, not position in stream, but a bunch of change is needed to support that.



  • @boomzilla said:

    How about just showing the post number?

    Twitter and Google don't show the post number!


  • Banned

    @DrakeSmith said:

    Twitter and Google don't show the post number!

    On the other hand, post numbers are not a barrier to reading post numbers.


  • sockdevs

    And on the other hand in order for the URL bar to be correct, you have to fuck about spewing shit all over the browser's history. This is why I have that thing turned off, and thus your assertions all fall apart.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    Oh, I was thinking, eyes. Just put the freakin' data on the page! I think that if you saw the number, you'd quickly figure out what the x of y stuff was telling you and there would be no confusion.

    That would work. I'm used to copy/pasting URLs from my address bar (you know, the thing that shows and accepts URLs) but fuck it, I'd adjust.

    @boomzilla said:

    I mean, most people probably wouldn't care that the post tracker wasn't matching their OCD notions of Right and Wrong (I don't really), but at least Discourse could clue in you mental fuckers

    Again, not right or wrong, I actually want to use that data, not just look at it. Like looking at the raw version (ok, edge case maybe), or linking to the damned post.

    @boomzilla said:

    so you'd stop bitching and go like my posts in the Likes thread. Sheesh.

    There, liked this one too. Sheesh

    @sam said:

    In general since forever this is what forums do this:

    The URL bar just stays static and post numbers are sprinkled through.

    Granted. It's just my expectation of the URL being correct. And since it updates as I scroll, well, I might as well use it, no?

    @sam said:

    For highly technical places I totally get that post numbers can be handy. Longer term i do want to get rid of the shifting sand issue and just have the "magic widget" ALWAYS unconditionally show the post number, not position in stream, but a bunch of change is needed to support that.

    As a measure to decrease confusion at least, would it be possible just to always show the indicator of the "current" post, no matter how Discourse determines it? Pretty much the same thing that j and k do already.



  • @Onyx said:

    Like looking at the raw version (ok, edge case maybe), or linking to the damned post.

    Yes, I've expressed a wish for a non-edit-the-url way to get the raw post, too. Linking is easy...just copy the link from the timestamp (which seems like a common web idiom to me).

    @Onyx said:

    Granted. It's just my expectation of the URL being correct. And since it updates as I scroll, well, I might as well use it, no?

    Hmm...I don't get that any more. Probably because I turned off the history spamming thing.


  • Banned


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.