Suggestions

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

New Military Records

New military records

Was your ancestor a war hero?

View thousands of brand new military records, including Chelsea Pensioner records, Military Nurses, Prisoners of war and much more.

View military records today

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

ENH: Remove viewed count

ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Dea

Dea Report 5 May 2011 21:54

Just to help tidy things up and give a little more room on the boards, I don't think we need the section which shows the number of times a thread has been viewed?

Maybe some people would disagree but I cannot see any purpose in this and it does not seem very accurate anyway. e.g. - there is one thread I saw which had been viewed 8132 times and yet had been replied to 21907 times - this does not make sense??

Is there any reason why anyone should need to know how many times their thread has been viewed? - surely, the most important thing is how many replies they have received and what amount of help they have received from those replies?

I think we could get rid of that section.

Dea x

jax

jax Report 5 May 2011 23:00

No it looks bad if a post has had a lot of views but no replies...so here is one for you Dea so you dont feel ignored :-)

jax

Edit I also think perhaps when the views get to 99,999 it must go back to zero

+++DetEcTive+++

+++DetEcTive+++ Report 6 May 2011 00:04

Agreed - and also it would appear that the 'new post' icon is stuck. So for those of us who browse around, we can't spot if we've already read the thread.

But over all, the changes are to the good and just need a bit of tweaking.

SylviaInCanada

SylviaInCanada Report 6 May 2011 00:33

I agree ................ the number of times viewed is more or less useless.

Cynthia

Cynthia Report 6 May 2011 08:37

I think GR will have added the 'number of times viewed' bit because that is what other sites offer.


Sometimes it can be useful in that you can see that people have, at least, looked at the query even if they can't actually help.


Cx


~~~Secret Red ^^ Squirrel~~~  **007 1/2**

~~~Secret Red ^^ Squirrel~~~ **007 1/2** Report 7 May 2011 08:59

People may have suggested it when GR had their survey, originally I didn't see the point of it but it may be useful if someone hasn't had a reply on their genealogy query. If their post is lost a few pages back and no one has looked at it , they may find this change useful useful as they may want to nudge the post up for people to see. ???

KempinaPartyhat

KempinaPartyhat Report 7 May 2011 10:54

The number of views MAY only help those asking for info on people they are searching for but even then if you get a reply you have your info!! silly them numbers really

Persephone

Persephone Report 8 May 2011 11:42

In my book - the viewed threads should way outnumber the replies. You cannot reply without viewing ... maybe I am being pedantic.

I will collect my coat on the way out the door. :-)

Persie

TootyFruity

TootyFruity Report 8 May 2011 12:04

The number of views is useful to the seeker of the information because even if you have no replies then you can see that at least people are looking at your thread.

The number of views, in theory, should be greater than the number of replies but if you don't go out of the thread when you go looking for information and post your reply, then go off for more info and post this then the coding will not recognise that as 2 views because the page was not closed.

jax

jax Report 8 May 2011 13:29

I have noticed on most of the long standing threads where the replies are in the 20,000s that the views are less than the replies so it must be that once its gets to a certain amount of views it starts back again at 1

jax

patchem

patchem Report 8 May 2011 13:47

Does the 'views' record the total number of views or the number of different people who have viewed it?
The latter, possibly?

SylviaInCanada

SylviaInCanada Report 8 May 2011 19:56

oh, surely it records the total number of views ..... whether that is by different people or the same people returning time and time again

TootyFruity

TootyFruity Report 8 May 2011 20:10

I think it will record each time a thread is opened because that is the easiest code to implement rather than differeniating between members viewing. However, if a member enters a thread and opens a second tab in their browser to look for records and then pastes results in the thread this will not be recognised as a second view. Only if the thread is closed and reopened would it be recognised.

patchem

patchem Report 8 May 2011 21:42

I suggest you actually open and close a thread and open and close the same thread and see if the view count increases.
It does not.

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 8 May 2011 21:43

I agree with both TootyFruity's opinion and her interpretation of the counts:


The number of views is useful to the seeker of the information because even if you have no replies then you can see that at least people are looking at your thread.

The number of views, in theory, should be greater than the number of replies but if you don't go out of the thread when you go looking for information and post your reply, then go off for more info and post this then the coding will not recognise that as 2 views because the page was not closed.


;)

I also find it interesting to look for TTF threads that have been viewed many times and had few or no replies. Either a challenge or a hopeless case!

TootyFruity

TootyFruity Report 8 May 2011 22:00

I see what you mean Patchem, and I stand corrected. They obviously went for the more complicated coding :-)