The old A.Net had never so long treads. It was easy to scroll down to the last message, not like today with 10-15-19 pages.
Using a smartphone this makes the site very slow and “boring”
Can’t we go back to say 300 messages max before a new tread is started?
-
- PatrickZ80
- Posts: 2641
- Joined:
Re: Why can’t we have shorter treads ?
There were some very long treads in the old days as well, but by far most of them weren't that long. Just like nowadays by the way. Most treads are quite short, but there are some longer ones. Sometimes they become so long I can't be bothered to read them, so I can see your point.
Re: Why can’t we have shorter treads ?
I find the new system much easier to follow compared to trying to find “Part 15” of a 29 part thread on the old system.
Re: Why can’t we have shorter treads ?
skane340 wrote:The old A.Net had never so long treads. It was easy to scroll down to the last message, not like today with 10-15-19 pages.
Using a smartphone this makes the site very slow and “boring”
Can’t we go back to say 300 messages max before a new tread is started?
The old layout had multiple threads per month, same topic, & now the threads simply run for 1 month which make it far easier to monitor. I’m not sure what’s difficult about clicking on the last page?!?
EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
Re: Why can’t we have shorter treads ?
Perhaps they should make the last page the default, rather than the first. So when you click on a thread you go straight to the latest news, rather than page one, two years ago!
I too believe having the same long threads (see page 80) all the time, makes this site very boring, and any 'new topic' posts are quickly flamed and extinguished by the ten or so regulars, who like to put their 2 cents worth in. They then waste ten more pages arguing among themselves.
I too believe having the same long threads (see page 80) all the time, makes this site very boring, and any 'new topic' posts are quickly flamed and extinguished by the ten or so regulars, who like to put their 2 cents worth in. They then waste ten more pages arguing among themselves.
Your computer just got better
Re: Why can’t we have shorter treads ?
I use 'first unread post' so no need to start at page 1 which takes me to my last unread post so surely you can use that facility!
But I agree some threads are far too long and not worth reading as you just get lossed in the conversation, typical example being the current Amazon B767 thread that has over a thousand posts surely that's far too much!
But I agree some threads are far too long and not worth reading as you just get lossed in the conversation, typical example being the current Amazon B767 thread that has over a thousand posts surely that's far too much!
Re: Why can’t we have shorter treads ?
uta999 wrote:Perhaps they should make the last page the default, rather than the first. So when you click on a thread you go straight to the latest news, rather than page one, two years ago!
When you click on the icon on the left of the thread title, you will be redirected to the first unread message.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
Re: Why can’t we have shorter treads ?
KarelXWB wrote:uta999 wrote:Perhaps they should make the last page the default, rather than the first. So when you click on a thread you go straight to the latest news, rather than page one, two years ago!
When you click on the icon on the left of the thread title, you will be redirected to the first unread message.
Also, clicking the timestamp next to the username of the ”Last post by” on the forum page takes you to the last post in a topic. Really helpful if you already have read the topic
5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS II, 50mm 1.4, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, SPEEDLITE 600EX-RT
Re: Why can’t we have shorter treads ?
WOW, thank you for the input! I have learned something new.
But maybe making last page default would be an idea
But maybe making last page default would be an idea
Re: Why can’t we have shorter treads ?
skane340 wrote:WOW, thank you for the input! I have learned something new.
But maybe making last page default would be an idea
But then you would be missing the OP on threads you haven’t visited before?
Re: Why can’t we have shorter treads ?
Cunard wrote:But I agree some threads are far too long and not worth reading as you just get lossed in the conversation, typical example being the current Amazon B767 thread that has over a thousand posts surely that's far too much!
How is that any different than having 20 different "parts" of a discussion? You still have thousands of posts on the same topic, and you'll still struggle to read everything in the discussion, except in that case it's harder, because you have to find the older parts before reading them, vs. having them all in one thread with multiple pages.
The only reason for "parts" in the old system was because an entire thread loaded on one page and therefore really long threads required ridiculously long page loads. The page system of this forum fixes that.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests