Just curious if adding a search function to 'most viewed thread(s)' would be possible? Some of these threads are quite valuable and others are just fun.
Most viewed thread
- Thread starter 25yearslater
- Start date
Sure can JSG. We have most posts, most media, most likes (Is this farcebook?), what about most viewed threads. Let's say I want info on sails. A quick run down of a list of popular threads is likely to yield the greatest number of opinions that can then be selected for their best match. Searching at random for 'sails' yields thousands of threads that have to be read and sorted according to application.
Well, it depends on the succinctness of your keyword(s), I think.
The fewer keywords, the more nebulous your search results will be.
The more keywords, the more focused the results, to the point of "no items match your keywords".
Also, certain keywords you may input get ignored, being too short, common, etc..
In short, "garbage in, garbage out". Which search button are you using? Have you tried the advanced search option? Seems more tweakable.
The fewer keywords, the more nebulous your search results will be.
The more keywords, the more focused the results, to the point of "no items match your keywords".
Also, certain keywords you may input get ignored, being too short, common, etc..
In short, "garbage in, garbage out". Which search button are you using? Have you tried the advanced search option? Seems more tweakable.
Or does this wording express your question any better?
"Just curious if adding a 'most viewed thread(s)' search function would be possible?"
I wonder if there's a "search within these search results" function. Could save a little time.
My original wording would be most accurate. I was in error on where it might appear as my previous comment was in relation to the members tab. Nevertheless, some older obscure forum posts that had a high number of views might be of benefit to newcomers especially. Just a thought.
The button would be the ideal, Joe. My reasoning is, if it generated high interest by the number of views perhaps having it readily accessible would be handy.
And how would this work with a "most viewed" catagory?... are you suggesting there should be a "most viewed" for threads containing the topic of sails... and then another one for engines... and another one for deck hardware, and another one for... ect, ect..
And after we had this new format with the most viewed buttons for any given topic, one would still be searching for the particular ones that pertain to the particular boat one is interested in....
And probably still not get the specific information they were looking for...
There are too many threads that get a lot of views, that wander "off topic", or becomes a rant or disagreement without much real infomation contained in it....
Some of the best and most informative threads and the ones that are only a page or two long... the information in these is commonly so precise that there is little room for argument or discussion.... so the infomation is gleaned within a short time without a lot of interuptions...
And... i feel that any thread that goes dead should be sealed from any replies after 3 weeks of inactivity, and become "read only"...
There is a high number of older threads that people reply to that the OP has gotten his answer to and moved on... there is no sense in reviving old posts, when its easy enough to refer to them with a link if necessary for passing the information to someone else... or contacting the OP by PM to share what one thinks is relevant.
Last edited:
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen that thread. Even the Boat Babe thread generates arguments. Shoot, even this thread has already gone down that road.
REALLY.... your going to use the boat babe thread as an example of an informative thread?...
But you have helped me make my point
No matter the question there are the trolls waiting to find fault Kermit. Such is life in the information age.
Threads do devolve, don't they? But I think I somewhat agree with centerline here. "Most viewed" does not necessarily mean an informative thread.
Perhaps Phil could write a script that would rank search results according to view numbers, but I think a searcher's best bet would be, again, succinctness in keywords.
There are 10 kinds of people. Those that understand binary, and those that don't. I'm of the latter.
trolls?... thats a strong term thats uncalled for... on this forum and in this context.
no one here has to agree with anothers idea... and if the idea was fully thought thru about how it could be implemented so it could work for everyone and on all subjects, and be better than what we have now, it may never have been posted on a discussion forum... for discussion.
Some very good ideas are only good for the one who thinks them up, and may not work as well as they think it should....
It would be easy for the web designers to add a "most viewed" button (by view count), but it can never work with a "most viewed" button for any given subject one may be searching for... and its unnecessary when there is aleady a reasonable search engine here and any question can be asked and answered, or, somone will point you to the most important and relevant thread on the subject...
But if they can come up with a single button that takes me to where I can view all i want to know, and no more than what i want to know, about the lay up of the keel on my cal, im all for it.... and another button so i can read about the cut of the main sail on my mac, but i dont want all the infomation available, but only the particular parts that im interested in, so it has the leave the other stuff concerning the jibs out.....
A search engine is already fairly precise in the key words used, or excluded.... and no matter how many buttons there are, it will never give us only the relevant posts specific to our particular thought at the moment....
Last edited:
thats why its called research...we have to sort out what we need and what we don't need
Well... yes!REALLY.... your going to use the boat babe thread as an example of an informative thread?...
Sorry, I didn't see this yesterday! I can certainly create a list of most 'popular" threads, sorted by either views or number of replies.
I _think_ I can create a sort by most views or number of replies on the advanced search function. It depends on how much db overhead it would take to create that, but it may be possible.
That said, there's not much correlation between view/replies and quality -- for one thing, a user's definition of quality changes moment to moment. But I think what you're getting at is a rating system for threads. For example, if you could rate a thread from 1 to 5 stars with 5 being most valuable, you could tell at a glance if thread was considered valuable by past users. If people really used that kind of rating system it could be pretty cool.
Also, there might be an assumption we can make about "Likes" from a given thread... but I don't think it would be as accurate.
I _think_ I can create a sort by most views or number of replies on the advanced search function. It depends on how much db overhead it would take to create that, but it may be possible.
That said, there's not much correlation between view/replies and quality -- for one thing, a user's definition of quality changes moment to moment. But I think what you're getting at is a rating system for threads. For example, if you could rate a thread from 1 to 5 stars with 5 being most valuable, you could tell at a glance if thread was considered valuable by past users. If people really used that kind of rating system it could be pretty cool.
Also, there might be an assumption we can make about "Likes" from a given thread... but I don't think it would be as accurate.
It would be helpful to know who the poster is that got the "Likes." Ex Kermit v. Jackdaw
This would be a much better system, as even though a "5 star" thread may not be extremely informative as to subject content, it must undoubtedly be entertaining to have gotten a 5 star rating, and we all like entertaining content.... versus a thread that may have a very high view count, only because it had a catchy title.. with lame content.