Jump to content

[RESOLVED] Topics and Posts widgets


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

Hi everyone,

There's been some confusion regarding the Topics widget we have on the home page of the forums.

04062015-01-what_regular_users_see1.jpg

The Topics feed above only show new topics (aka threads) that were recently created. If you replied to a topic or a post more recently, your reply will not show on this feed since you did not create a new topic, but simply replied.

To clear up the confusion, would you, the community, like to see this feed renamed? If so, would you prefer it be called "New Topics" or "Recent Topics"?

Additionally, would you like to see a Post (aka replies) feed as well?

This is what the Post feed would look like:

posts.png

Is this widget being called Post enough? Would you like it see it be renamed something like "New Posts" or "Recent Posts"? Or should we do away with Post and call it "Replies", "New Replies" or potentially "Recent Replies"?

I look forward to reading your responses :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cast my vote on naming the feed to represent exactly what it is.  Does that feed currently show only new topics, or topics that have recent replies?  If new, then name it new, if new & recently replied, then Recent will be a better choice.

If the second Widget is for the Topics with recent replies, then New posts will work in naming that, which leads me to believe that the first feed is new topics only so should be named new topics.

IOW, New Topics, and if you start adding the new feed, then New Posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say just a widget with "new topic"  with the reply count was enough

 

the widget with  post feeds with also a part of the content of that post is not recommended to dislplay on the index, just the post and the name who replied.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Sounds like the consensus is to have Topics (which we'll rename to "Recent Topics") and to not have a Posts feed. Default is to show the last five topics so we'll keep it at that.

Additionally, the default setting to load this sidebar is set to 60 seconds - which means it can take up to 60 seconds to show up. We can adjust this and based on our setup, IPS recommends 30 seconds. So to be clear: this will be out-of-sync for up to 30 seconds.

Keep the thoughts coming in on this and we'll make a call soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, msherwood said:

Additionally, the default setting to load this sidebar is set to 60 seconds - which means it can take up to 60 seconds to show up. We can adjust this and based on our setup, IPS recommends 30 seconds. So to be clear: this will be out-of-sync for up to 30 seconds.

Invision also thinks that this Forum software and its Editor are good so what Invision states has to be taken with a grain of salt.

The caching and the non-caching have to be empirically tested and compared.  Then a value of zero or some value greater than zero, that best serves this Forum, can be properly determined.  However when I saw that a post I made took 5 to 10 minutes to be shown in a Recent Topic list, that was way too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if it affects system resources to the point where there is a lag doing other things, then 30 seconds, even if it is a default and recommended option, is going to be detrimental to the users.

All these threads that we've been creating and replying to for the last few weeks are here because things were not tested thoroughly enough before being implemented. (At Mods / admins - yes, I also know why - not the scope of my rationale here).  So, just implementing the setting as determined by IPS to be the default, which we've already seen can and does cause issues, and doing so blindly, is not very good form, not logical, and certainly not effective.

That is why I asked what I did.  Before things are changed, things need to be evaluated.  And 60 seconds is not a very long time, most MBAM scans take longer than that.  If 60 seconds taxes the resources of the server far less than 30 seconds does, in terms of responsiveness / page load times / background scripting / post submission / attachment uploads / other things that users do, then it should be looked at as a much more viable alternative than 30 seconds.

EDIT:  Ninja'd by David lol

Edited by John L. Galt
Added note
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, John L. Galt said:

What kind of server load does that generate?  I don't want 30 seconds to be set because it is a default, only to increase the lag users experience when posting replies / creating topics....

We're reviewing this with IPS. 60 seconds is simply the default and 30 seconds was their recommendation based on our site's configuration and load times they shared with us.

31 minutes ago, David H. Lipman said:

Invision also thinks that this Forum software and its Editor are good so what Invision states has to be taken with a grain of salt.

The caching and the non-caching have to be empirically tested and compared.  Then a value of zero or some value greater than zero, that best serves this Forum, can be properly determined.  However when I saw that a post I made took 5 to 10 minutes to be shown in a Recent Topic list, that was way too long.

While I understand you're frustrated with IPS, it's a bit harsh to state everything they say must be taken with a grain of salt.

Also appreciate you telling us how to test software. :) We're not changing things willy-nilly. Instead, we heard feedback on this widget, started to investigate a bit, learned a bit and share the latest with you and now we'll go back to testing a bit.

30 minutes ago, John L. Galt said:

Because if it affects system resources to the point where there is a lag doing other things, then 30 seconds, even if it is a default and recommended option, is going to be detrimental to the users.

All these threads that we've been creating and replying to for the last few weeks are here because things were not tested thoroughly enough before being implemented. (At Mods / admins - yes, I also know why - not the scope of my rationale here).  So, just implementing the setting as determined by IPS to be the default, which we've already seen can and does cause issues, and doing so blindly, is not very good form, not logical, and certainly not effective.

That is why I asked what I did.  Before things are changed, things need to be evaluated.  And 60 seconds is not a very long time, most MBAM scans take longer than that.  If 60 seconds taxes the resources of the server far less than 30 seconds does, in terms of responsiveness / page load times / background scripting / post submission / attachment uploads / other things that users do, then it should be looked at as a much more viable alternative than 30 seconds.

EDIT:  Ninja'd by David lol

Although I'm quoting you @John L. Galt, this is not directed at you but rather at all reading this thread.

The topic of this thread, the lag / CS / Marketo issues and the Topics vs Posts widgets are certainly related in some ways, but in other they are completely separate items and issues.

This thread is to discuss the Topics and Posts widgets: do we want them visible, what the caching period is, etc.

Lag issues - we are tracking this as a separate issue. Although it certainly could affect these widgets updating within their specified time (e.g. 60 seconds), it's a bigger issue across the site. In short, if the lag issues are gone, the caching period of the widgets being discussed in this thread are not causing delay or lag issues - it's actually working as expected and publishing the update to the widget within the specific setting.

Calling all of this out so we're on the same page with a few of the similar and dissimilar items here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • celee changed the title to [IN PROGRESS] Topics and Posts widgets
  • 2 weeks later...
  • celee changed the title to [RESOLVED] Topics and Posts widgets
  • celee locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
Back to top
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.