Sorry guys. i made one bad mistake...

[Phil Herring]

There's a setting called "follow moderation rules" and I set it to no thinking it would moderate posts. Well, turns out it needed to be set to yes. So right up until 10:30am Pacific everyone's posts were in a moderation queue.

They're now live and if you run into that again please shoot me an email: phil at sailboatowners dot com.

Thanks and sorry!

 

[Ken Cross]

I wish I only made one mistake

Ken

 

[Phil Herring]

LOL, I should qualify that as one fatal mistake. There is way more blame in the pipeline, I'm sure.

 

[Warren Milberg]

Nice job on the new forums.

 

[Phil Herring]

Thank you, Warren! Hey, your info shows you joined in 2006 but I'm thinking it was more like 2000. Do you recall?

 

[Windtherapy]

Agreed...VERY NICE job on the new forum.

 

[Warren Milberg]

Thank you, Warren! Hey, your info shows you joined in 2006 but I'm thinking it was more like 2000. Do you recall?

Yes, I think it was 2000 that I joined...or perhaps even before. I love SBO.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

According to the "New posts" in the banners at the top of the page, there are 75 at the time of this writing. Last time I checked them there were 60-something. But when I try to scroll through them all, only 38 are ever available to read...20 on the first page, 18 on the 2nd...no more pages. What am I missing here? And what will it take to get the "all discussions" list back?

 

[Phil Herring]

According to the "New posts" in the banners at the top of the page, there are 75 at the time of this writing. Last time I checked them there were 60-something. But when I try to scroll through them all, only 38 are ever available to read...20 on the first page, 18 on the 2nd...no more pages. What am I missing here?

They could be affected by hidden forums if you have any. And in any forum the definition of "new" is a moving target. For example, the count in the red button may be based on when you logged in (i.e., the beginning of your "visit") while threads are hidden from them menu that you viewed already. Also, some posts you didn;t click into, you scrolled down to them, so the software may be making some assumptions about what you have read. If you clicked into each post you read and logged out at the end of each visit it would be a perfect count, but otherwise it's an educated estimate. But we're learning this together and it may just be broken.

And what will it take to get the "all discussions" list back?

I have committed to bring it back but it's tricky in this software. It may take a few days to a week or so to figure it out.

 

[Brian D]

I also believe this count to be cumulative. Meaning if there were 5 entries in one post, the count would be 5. During the testing of the new software, I found that there was only one thread in progress but there were 7 new post. When I opened the thread, they were there, all 7 of them. At the time I did not hide any forums. So Phil maybe 100% correct that it is also counting any forum that is "hidden" either by the software and/or by the user.

 

[Davidasailor26]

I also believe this count to be cumulative. Meaning if there were 5 entries in one post, the count would be 5. During the testing of the new software, I found that there was only one thread in progress but there were 7 new post. When I opened the thread, they were there, all 7 of them. At the time I did not hide any forums. So Phil maybe 100% correct that it is also counting any forum that is "hidden" either by the software and/or by the user.

I think it is counting new posts in hidden forums. Other than that I think the counts are working fine - not broken at all. It will consolidate multiple new posts in a single thread as one link in the list, so that might be part of Peggy's difference if she hasn't hidden any forums.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

I don't have any hidden forums...I log on and immediately click on the new posts, so that rules any that I read before going to the new ones. What's fascinating (to me anyway) is that the number I'm allowed to see is always the same: 38...2 pages, 20 on the first (which I'm reasonably certain is the number allowable), 18 on the second. So methinks something just MIGHT be broken.