 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
