TullettJ (MoneyAM)
- 25 Jul 2005 10:47
- 307 of 388
I've just changed the working of the

link so it should be more intuitive.
J.
Priscilla
- 25 Jul 2005 10:54
- 309 of 388
JT: I don't know the correct way to express this, but threads I read pretty regularly always started from the last post I had read when I next visited. Now that's not the case. I know I'm getting old but I can remember I've already read that lot. Can we revert to the previous system, please?
Piptrader
- 25 Jul 2005 11:02
- 310 of 388
Jon - you've changed the chain link in exactly the way I hoped you would. I'm redundant now:-)
But did you consider my suggestion to open a link in a new window?
Kayak
- 25 Jul 2005 11:05
- 311 of 388
I've just hurt myself on those pins... must be more careful while cleaning the monitor.
Piptrader
- 25 Jul 2005 11:21
- 318 of 388
Thanks Jon.
Re Priscilla's #309 and your reply #312, in "the good ol' days" accessing a thread jumped you to the last post you had read - ie, the last post read was displayed as the first post next time you went to that thread. This gave you a little reminder of where you were, and also confidence that you hadn't missed anything.
The new system (prior to the present fault) takes you to the first unread post. A number of posters requested a return to the old way, to which your (AM) answer was that you could tell where you were from the post numbers.
It is virtually impossible to remember post numbers when accessing many threads several times a day, whereas a reminder of the last post read was invaluable.
Please consider returning to that method.
Priscilla
- 25 Jul 2005 11:21
- 319 of 388
Thank you, JT.
Piptrader: I think I love you.
Piptrader
- 25 Jul 2005 11:25
- 320 of 388
Priscilla - aaaaaaahhhhhhhhh XXXXX:-))
Jon - cancel by last suggestion - the board is operating in a different way now, which may satisfy Priscilla and me. Will ponder it for a while!
Edit: yes, this is even better than the "ol' days", since you now have all the current page's posts available to view, but you are automatically scrolled to the latest you haven't read. Thankyou.
Kayak
- 25 Jul 2005 11:36
- 322 of 388
Except when said previous post is the last post on a page...
Piptrader
- 25 Jul 2005 11:38
- 323 of 388
Jon - Yes, I think that's what I meant:-)
I'm happy now, except that...
Opening this thread this time, I only got the header post, and your post #321, but not #320. I think this is because a new page of posts has started. Does that make sense, and is it intentional?
edit: Kayak has put it more succinctly!