|
|
Post by lostali75 on May 4, 2009 15:14:56 GMT -4
Wow. I just checked that out. I wasn't aware that was part of the feature...I was under the impression it would only apply to consecutive posts in a single thread. It's actually pretty ridiculous what it does to the 54 most recent posts, and IMO shouldn't be part of a code like this. I've never seen it done that way before. In light of that, I'm in favor of removing the code that I just added. ;D I know a few of us were waiting a long time for a code like this, but...maybe someone will come out with a better version of it in the future, or ProBoards will make an improved version a standard part of the boards. For those that are still in favor of the code and haven't tried looking at the 54 most recent posts...please take a look at that and decide if you really want to keep it. It's going to be a big inconvenience for those who use the most recent posts feature. I personally use the 54 most recent probably 95% of the time, so it does make it slightly confusing for me  |
|
|
|
Post by tigerlily on May 4, 2009 15:20:13 GMT -4
Wow. I just checked that out. I wasn't aware that was part of the feature...I was under the impression it would only apply to consecutive posts in a single thread. It's actually pretty ridiculous what it does to the 54 most recent posts, and IMO shouldn't be part of a code like this. I've never seen it done that way before. In light of that, I'm in favor of removing the code that I just added. ;D I know a few of us were waiting a long time for a code like this, but...maybe someone will come out with a better version of it in the future, or ProBoards will make an improved version a standard part of the boards. For those that are still in favor of the code and haven't tried looking at the 54 most recent posts...please take a look at that and decide if you really want to keep it. It's going to be a big inconvenience for those who use the most recent posts feature. Oh wow...I wasn't aware of this either. In light of this confusion, I vote for removing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Edith S. Baker on May 4, 2009 15:58:16 GMT -4
Wow. I just checked that out. I wasn't aware that was part of the feature...I was under the impression it would only apply to consecutive posts in a single thread. It's actually pretty ridiculous what it does to the 54 most recent posts, and IMO shouldn't be part of a code like this. I've never seen it done that way before. In light of that, I'm in favor of removing the code that I just added. ;D I know a few of us were waiting a long time for a code like this, but...maybe someone will come out with a better version of it in the future, or ProBoards will make an improved version a standard part of the boards. For those that are still in favor of the code and haven't tried looking at the 54 most recent posts...please take a look at that and decide if you really want to keep it. It's going to be a big inconvenience for those who use the most recent posts feature. Oh wow...I wasn't aware of this either. In light of this confusion, I vote for removing it. You def. have my vote for removing it. |
|
|
|
Post by flummery on May 4, 2009 16:30:16 GMT -4
I was about to remove it, but then....I think I might have found a fix for the problem. We may be able to keep the code.
When you want a code to work on every board, you put it in the Global code section. So that's what I did with this.
When you want it to work on an individual board, you put the code just on that board. If I go through and put the multiple post automerge code on every board individually, and skip the Global section, I believe it will bypass the 54 Most Recent Posts feature.
|
|
|
|
Post by flummery on May 4, 2009 16:30:49 GMT -4
testing
|
|
|
|
Post by flummery on May 4, 2009 16:33:37 GMT -4
IT WORKED!
I replied not only to this thread, but a thread on another board, and the replies were NOT merged in 54 Most Recent Posts. Now, that does mean that when viewing Most Recent Posts, nothing will be merged...which makes the feature useless for that. But when viewing whole threads...it should work as I thought it would to begin with.
|
|
