-
So on a thread with 2N+3 (53) comments, page 1 would show 3 comments and pages 2 and 3 would show N (25) comments.
The rationale is really that in a multipage thread the last page is viewed all the time, the first page rarely.This doesn't make sense to me.
Are you simply proposing that instead of the comments in threads being ordered by date descending (oldest first, newest last) that this should be reversed?
For that is the only way to give you what you wanted... but would require reading UP the page.
And even then... this wouldn't prevent the fact that pages show different things to different people depending on their ignore/blocks.
The only way to truly solve the "problem" (if it is even a problem)... would be to allocate page numbers to comments when they are posted, and then only ever show the comments on the page in question.
What this means is that a page would have a maximum of n comments per page, but may well have fewer comments. i.e. on a page of 25 comments if 6 comments were made by people who were ignored, then the page would only show you 19 comments.
In many ways this proposal would be a lot faster for the database, and a would be more consistent for everyone... the first comment on page 17 of a thread would be the first comment on page 17 for all.
But...
If people delete things, or several people on ignore have a discussion, etc... it's possible under this proposal that there would be blank pages. Whole pages without a single comment.
To avoid that... perhaps we show stubs... "there was something here, but it is deleted", "there is something here, but it is by someone you ignore".
Then the problem is that the ignored stuff is still visible. This can actually be a real issue for people who can be a little triggered, especially if they're only ignoring a single person and they react to those people.
There really is no beautiful solution to the "new page fail" scenario. But the one proposed has no benefits and is odd. The one I've proposed has benefits but also failings.
The current system is about as good a set of compromises and usability as I can imagine... though if someone does solve inconsistent pagination when items may be absent, I'm all ears.
You are reading a single comment by @mashton and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Velocio
@mashton
So, sometimes when people post, their post appears at the top of a new page (in their view of the thread) and this upsets them, so they post "New Page Fail".
Other people then point out that a) it isn't on a new page for everyone, depending on ignore lists etc and that b) so what, people reading are not morons.
Anyway, that argument is not the suggestion just that it gave rise to the suggestion:
If a user has page size set to N comments (e.g. 25) then always show N comments on the page they are viewing. Not fewer. Except on page 1.
So on a thread with 2N+3 (53) comments, page 1 would show 3 comments and pages 2 and 3 would show N (25) comments.
The rationale is really that in a multipage thread the last page is viewed all the time, the first page rarely.