The reason I am asking is because I used it to see if there are posts done by ignored people. Let's say there is a new thread and I only see the first post. But if 5 of my ignored posters posted on it, the next non-ignored post will show up as #7, so I know there is a discussion going on. But right now I can't tell if this is the case, because the numbering disappeared, and I can't see the ignored posts.... So I might make the already posted points twice, etc. Any reason for the disappearance and is this just temporary?
The feedback over the years has indicated by far that ignore should mean ignore.... meaning no clues to ignored user activity.
That still doesn't explain what happened to the post counter. All message boards have them...They are useful for other purposes then just what I stated...Like referencing a particular post, since the page count can be different for different users. Is it really that hard to maintain a post counter?
Yes .... As in my post on Friday when I wanted to bring attention to a post #3 but not quote it. I only had to count to the third post, but in a thread with lots of posts that would have been impractical. The 1230.00 PCLN weekly calls reached a high of $1.70. But why?
The post counter was replaced by the word "Share" since the original purpose of clicking on the post number was to give you the ability to share the post with others.
I know the conversation is over, but there is something I'd like to point out. I never clicked on a post counter, I probably just referred to the number if I knew it.(well, it didn't last long) Anyhow, there is a thread about a company which is 130 pages long and someone just asked about summarizing the whole thread. I actually did it for him. Now maybe a year from now another poster will ask the same, but without a post counter I won't know where my summary is. In another thread first looked like a guy is talking to himself, when finally I noticed that he is talking to people on my Ignore list, but I didn't see their posts. With a post counter I would have known it immediately. There is a reason why every message board numbers their posts, but anyway....
There has indeed been feedback over the years, and Ignore has always had its problems, not only here but everywhere. If, for example, those who are not being Ignored can quote posts of those who are, then Ignore serves no purpose. If the posts of those who are being Ignored don't appear even if they are quoted by someone who is not being Ignored, then the posts of those who are not being Ignored contain blank spaces where something is obviously being quoted but what is being quoted isn't there, so the reply makes little or no sense. Reading threads filled with this sort of thing is not unlike listening to a radio tuned in to a weak signal which is accompanied by a great deal of static and frequent dropouts. If this were being read by someone from Mars, he'd have to wonder what is wrong with these people. I'm reminded of an old house with wooden sheathing that has shrunk, drafty windows whose glass are loose in their frames, iron pipes, aluminum wiring, UV-dried and deteriorating shingles. One can patch and caulk and tape and bind from now till Doomsday, but eventually only a reconstruction will last for any length of time. Ditto with Ignore, Report, moving objectionable content to the cellar or the barn, and whatever other means of sweeping it all under the carpet may be devised in future. The fundamental problem is a mysterious reluctance on the part of the administration to enforce the TOU, particularly . . . you are not to upload, post, or otherwise distribute or facilitate distribution of any content -- including text, communications, software, images, sounds, data, or other information -- that: contains excessive profanity or vulgar language; is insulting or argumentitive without merit, unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, [etc]; victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age, or disability; If the administration were to adhere to its own TOU, there would be no problem. Those who thrive on harassment, abuse, pointless argumentativeness and vindictiveness, not to mention hatred and bigotry would all find someplace else to vent their toxicity and ET could become what it is supposed to be: a trading forum for those who want to and know how to carry on adult discussions and debates, who know how to disagree without vilification. Is BMT over-moderated? Yes. Is the over-moderation intolerable? Not for those who elect to remain there. Those who find it intolerable have other places to go. Like ET. But intolerable or not, the fact remains that during any given period, BMT has five to six times the active members logged in that ET does. That translates into a lot of clicks, a lot of page views, a lot of time spent onsite, i.e., revenue. One can go on about freedom of speech and heavy-handed moderation and so forth, but the fact remains that if the administration were to follow its own TOU, none of the band-aids which have been applied over the years would be necessary, most particularly Ignore. The fact that Ignore is even an issue should be at least a yellow flag. I may be one of the few who remember when the Linda Bradford Raschkes used to post here (I still remember the demands that Larry Connors provide "proof" of his trading results). Did all of those people leave because they "got tired of it"? Or did they leave because of the toxicity? Given the numbers, which is more likely? And now we're engaged in a long, drawn-out, and typically vituperative "discussion" about "blocking" . . .
I'm not a BMT user, but I have strolled around over there the past couple of days. I am not able to see all of the content since I am not "registered," but what a difference in the readability of discussions there versus here at ET. Much higher quality at BMT, highly sustained focus on the topic at hand, and very little if any willy-wagging by the intellectually and emotionally impaired. I also recognize quite a few formerly active ET members who are now MIA here but active there - and they are not all scribblers either.
That is absolutely false. The message board software used there lets the administrator alter the time that "Current Active Users" are calculated with. He could make his board look like it only had a handful of users by changing the time of last activity to a few seconds, or he could make the current active users number look huge by changing it to hours or even days. It's one of the tricks that board owners use to make their site look larger than it really is.