Subject:
|
Re: Help: Re: review: LEGO '99
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:46:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
328 times
|
| |
|
|
> I'd prefer a standard representation, something like:
>
> <set:344>
>
> or
>
> [set:8448]
>
> This would avoid false positives. And there _are_ three digit set numbers.
The only two problems with a new representation:
First, older posts wouldn't work - why leave them out?
Second, people wouldn't do the extra typing. Right now they could refer to
every set as a link, (for example, http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?
query=8448 ), but very few people do so. Of course, even when you do this,
the link might be split across lines, and then in spite of the effort, not
work.
You can add zeros for set numbers under 1000. So set 344 can be typed 0344,
which is a very minor inconvenience, and places like brickshelf already do
this, so it's not too strange. In any case, even if these were left out, the
number of sets missed is a small fraction of the total.
As for false positives: who cares? The context would be enough for people to
recognize that this is a set number or not. They don't *have* to click on it,
after all. The text is readable in any case. Having the last four digits of
a phone number possibly show up in your link colour isn't too bad a price to
pay for the greatly improved ease of use all the rest of the time. There
aren't too many people that post phone numbers anyway.
--
David Schilling
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
2 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
