7
   

Below viewing threshold?

 
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 10:31 am
Is this a new feature? I just read a thread where just about every post was
collapsed and marked with "below viewing threshold". I had to click every post in order to read it. How can I deactivate this feature, please?

Quote:
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5981/picture2um9.png
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 10:37 am
@CalamityJane,
brandon started a thread about this, and tico stated he thinks it's some tweaking of the site, according to something he read the other day

but yeah, it stinks
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 10:38 am
@CalamityJane,
Happening for me too.
One thing I have noticed though is that when I click to open them, they are NOT voted to a zero or even a negative number.

Some are just a 1 .. as all posts are..
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 10:51 am
Oh sorry, I checked if there is already a thread about this topic and couldn't
find anything - my mistake. Embarrassed

But now that we're here Laughing - it's quite annoying isn't it?

So many new features implemented an the only one most of us want is
a PM feature. So much for "service". I am venting, as I think this feature
really takes the cake!

I like a2k, that is I like the people here, but features like these make it
very difficult to preserve a friendly community, especially to the ones
whose post are consistently below viewing thresholds.
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 11:33 am
Just what does the term "below viewing threshold" mean exactly?
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 11:37 am
@eoe,
It is supposed to mean that something was voted down farther then your viewing rules allow.

You can go through your profile and select how low a post can be voted before it automatically collapses for you.

Apparently, something is going on to where no matter what your settings, anything that has been voted down, even from a very positive number, is being collapsed.

I opened one collapsed post that was ranked at a 5.

Odd
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 11:44 am
@CalamityJane,
eoe wrote:
Just what does the term "below viewing threshold" mean exactly?

CalamityJane wrote:
I like a2k, that is I like the people here, but features like these make it very difficult to preserve a friendly community, especially to the ones whose post are consistently below viewing thresholds.

I would like confirmation from Robert G that this is indeed the case, that someone's thread who doesn't get many views, gets automatically collapsed.

If that is what this means, there's no reason for me to post here any more, as my threads are never popular.

I would have preferred that all threads had to be manually collapsed by each person.
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 11:46 am
@Reyn,
No.
Your post is "automatically collapsed" IF that is how your account is set up.

go through your preferences and look at what you have set up.
Everyone can make theirs how they choose to based on thread/post "ratings"
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 11:47 am
@Reyn,
Reyn wrote:
I would have preferred that all threads had to be manually collapsed by each person.


that's how it's supposed to work, it appears to be a glitch in the system
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 11:59 am
@Reyn,
Reyn, I always loved your threads. They gave everyone a chance to participate, and they were fun.
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 12:10 pm
@shewolfnm,
shewolfnm wrote:

No.
Your post is "automatically collapsed" IF that is how your account is set up.

go through your preferences and look at what you have set up.

I'm aware of those settings. It's not set to collapse, but rather, expand. Also, "no minimums".

Even if this is a glitch, I'd still like to know what the term "below viewing threshold" means, so even an idiot like me can understand it.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 12:17 pm
Reyn, someone mentioned somewhere (forgot where) that Robert and/or Nick
are playing with different features on a2k and all posts below a certain threshold
automatically collapsed. I might collapse certain threads but never individual
postings.

I truly thought this is a new feature and was annoyed by it, thus this thread,
however, if it's just a glitch, no problem.

While playing with features, I still want the PM feature back! It's been
good 4 or 5 months now, and if Nick and Robert like to play with features,
why won't they give us what WE want ?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 12:20 pm
@Reyn,
interesting question, what do the categories mean

no minimum is obvious, but what numbers correspond to low, medium and high, is this what you're asking
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  6  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 12:33 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:
why won't they give us what WE want ?


I think you've been through this before but, what you want doesn't necessarily = what WE want nor does it necessarily = what the site owners want.

If you want something different, set it up and fund it.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 12:43 pm
@ehBeth,
ehbeth, I deliberately said "we" as many people have expressed the same
wish for PM. The owners of this site can only exist with its members. It would
be pretty redundant to set up such a forum, implement all kinds of features,
if it weren't to entice people to write here.

"If you want something different, go get it someplace else!" is really not
an productive answer, at least not for me and not from you.

If Robert tells me the same thing, I probably will.
0 Replies
 
Joeblow
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 01:30 pm
@Reyn,
I can't find the thread now Reyn, but I think I remember that when things are working as intended, if you vote a thread down it collapses for you, and you alone. But, If you and nine others vote down the same thread (ten votes down), it collapses for everyone. So the minimum viewing threshhold is tied to deliberate down votes, and not to how many times anyone has actually viewed the topic.

I checked the blog but can't confirm.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 02:24 pm
You can change this on your profile preference settings. Access this by clicking the My Preferences link at the bottom of every page.

Scroll down to the two lines that read Minimum Topic Votes and Minimum Post Votes. There are various choice settings that can be customized.

Be sure to click the Update Preferences button if you make a change.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 02:45 pm
I have both my Minimum Topic Votes and Minimum Post Votes set to No Minimum, yet I'm still getting the "Below viewing threshold" messages.

I think A2K is experiencing a glitch.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 02:46 pm
@InfraBlue,
Yes, I think so too - well, I hope it's only a glitch!
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 02:47 pm
I figure that any changes on this will be discussed in the a2k Blog at some point.

I only have one thread, knock on wood, collapsed because of some threshold thing - a lovatt's thread, and I always knock those off myself. My preferences are set to no minimum.. since I want to control my own thread collapsing.

Maybe the hamsters are in a tinkering mode this weekend; it might even have been a passing error, a hamster hitting the wrong piano key.

Famous last words, and I hope I don't see a barrage of threshold collapses too.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How to use the new able2know - Discussion by Craven de Kere
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
I'm the developer - Discussion by Nick Ashley
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
A2K censors tags? - Discussion by hingehead
New A2K Bugs - Discussion by sozobe
New A2K annoyances - Discussion by sozobe
The a2k world is changing 3: about voting - Discussion by Craven de Kere
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Welcome to the 'New' My Posts - Discussion by Nick Ashley
The "I get folksonomy" club - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Below viewing threshold?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/17/2022 at 10:36:10