 | | 1 new or 3? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | I just posted to loc.ch.zh.zue... a group that had no posts to it other than the two starter posts back in 1998. So that is post #3 and 1 new one in the last 24 hours right? But the traffic report page shows **3** new posts. Not so. Bug or feature? (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 1 new or 3? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Somewhere in between a bug and a feature. The traffic page considered the group as empty when there were only 2 posts because it disregards groups with only 2 posts. When the count jumped from 2 to 3, the traffic page saw it as no longer empty (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 1 new or 3? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Sounds like kind of a misfeature :-), you must have a hard coded "ignore if 2"... so just hack in another hard coding "if this is a jump from 2 to something, pretend you weren't ignoring the 2's and just show (something-2) new instead" ++lar (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 1 new or 3? —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | Yes, but since most newsgroups have the welcome to <newsgroup> and the Lugnet terms of use messages posted to it on startup, there would be little or no point in considering these two messages as traffic. :-) -- Cheers ... Geoffrey Hyde Larry (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 1 new or 3? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I think you're agreeing with me??? That's kind of what I am saying too. (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 1 new or 3? —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | Umm ... Mate, what was the original question for then? ;-) My thinking is that it is probably better for the lugnet server not to bother with low traffic newsgroups at all. It would mean that the server doesn't have to worry about tracking them. -- (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 1 new or 3? —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | (...) (URL)My thinking is that it is probably better for the lugnet server not to (...) I don't know how it is implemented, but it really shouldn't be much of an overhead :) Besides, not showing low-traffic groups on the traffic page is a great way (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 1 new or 3? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | I hope that despite all of the discussion, Todd keeps this one low priority. :) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 1 new or 3? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed. However, sometimes the one line fix (that truly *IS* a 1 line fix, that is, about 11 % of them :-) ) that can be banged out in 15 minutes, especially if the likelihood of failure is low, and the consequences of failure are minimal, is (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 1 new or 3? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) To see if we can get the erroneous report of 3 "new" posts to a low traffic group corrected to only be one "new" post. The other two are not "new" they are just an artifact of the filtering being applied. (...) That would be bad. IMHO. (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
