Hi!

I see we're on vb4 now. Or, so I assume. It does match the style of the site now, as far as I can tell. From one professional (heh) vB hackster to another, thanks for your hard work. It was probably long since due to happen.

Now, how about returning the features? For example, the "Unanswered Posts" feature?

Admincp > Settings > Navigation Menu > Forum > Select "Add Link" at the right of "Quick Links".

The "Target URL" should be "search.php?{session.sessionurl}do=process&contenttype=vBForum_Post&replyless=1&replylimit=0&exclude=3"

You might not need the "exclude" feature; you might need it and the number be wrong. I don't yet see any article replies, so I can't tell you what number the CMS article replies are. You probably want to exclude them (we do, and that's why my URL includes that directive).

If you don't know what number to exclude, a query against your DB like this:

 select forumid,title from forum where title like "%article%";

might do the trick.

Looking forward to seeing the old functionality back soon. It's what allowed the community to make this board the fine resource that it became.

    dalecosp;11007377 wrote:

    the "Unanswered Posts" feature?

    The what?

      It used to be under Quick Links. I admit I never used it myself: the use case didn't really apply.

        I must be a very slow adopter of new features such that I didn't notice much missing, hahah.

          I think unanswered posts are sad:bemused:

          We should probably have a policy to bump em so people will take another look.

          I'll ask about adding the unanswered post option.

            The only really noticeable difference I have noticed (minus the appearance of course) is that the performance has taken a huge hit and now some threads take a long time to load. Sometimes Firefox will prompt me saying a script is taking too long or I just hit the stop button for the browser. I would have hoped performance would improve, or at least remain the same. 🙁

              Bonesnap;11007547 wrote:

              The only really noticeable difference I have noticed (minus the appearance of course) is that the performance has taken a huge hit and now some threads take a long time to load. Sometimes Firefox will prompt me saying a script is taking too long or I just hit the stop button for the browser. I would have hoped performance would improve, or at least remain the same. 🙁

              I have also noticed a performance degradation. One of the things that kept me coming here was the speed with which it used to load. Oh well I'll keep coming back for the awesome people.

                Hmm, I'd not noticed any performance issues. We have 3 vB4 installs that run lickety-split on FreeBSD/Apache. However, I do note that, at least according to Alexa :queasy:, this board is at least two, if not more, orders of magnitude more popular than ours...

                This was interesting:

                phpbuilder wrote:

                This forum requires that you wait 10 seconds between searches. Please try again in 13 seconds.

                  Weedpacket;11007397 wrote:

                  It used to be under Quick Links. I admit I never used it myself: the use case didn't really apply.

                  Well, although I can 't seem to convince the new search engine to find it ... you were an avid champion and instructor of destructive fishing techniques, weren't you? 😃

                    I haven't noticed any over all perfoamance issues... Early this morning with IE8 I thought I was going to cry things were so slow... But then t cleared up.. I'm using IE9 now and it's OK too.. FF13 on the other hand works well.

                    We'll keep an eye on it.

                      Bonesnap;11007547 wrote:

                      The only really noticeable difference I have noticed (minus the appearance of course) is that the performance has taken a huge hit and now some threads take a long time to load. Sometimes Firefox will prompt me saying a script is taking too long or I just hit the stop button for the browser. I would have hoped performance would improve, or at least remain the same. 🙁

                      I haven't noticed anything like that. Once all of the page dependencies are loaded things are as fast as I'd expect (when I have had ordinary pages taking long enough to cause a prompt saying that a script is taking too long, the script named is usually that of an FF extension).

                      What I have noticed is that there seems to be less client-side caching going on: a lot of the icons and scripts for example: even if they have an expiry date a month or a year in advance, the request is still made - and instead of getting a 304 response an entire 200 comes back. A glance at the response headers makes me suspect the "Vary:Cookie" response header - those cookies are changing by the second. (Speaking of cookies, there seems to be some duplication going on there: a Webtrends WT_FPC for both ".board.phpbuilder.com" and "board.phpbuilder.com", for example.)

                        Weedpacket;11007779 wrote:

                        What I have noticed is that there seems to be less client-side caching going on

                        I was going to say "slim to none", but "less" works too. 😉

                        I'm guessing that's the same and/or heavily related cause of the performance hits Bonesnap is talking about. I know it certainly takes longer for the page to load since my browser is constantly wasting time downloading data it already has, and I can't imagine that it's doing any favors for PHPBuilder's bandwidth consumption either (both total used and average throughput).

                          The performance seems to have increased but threads and sections don't load like they used to. The forum overall feels clunky now, which is taking a toll on my motivation to post.

                            Hey guys, just a little note dunno if anyone's noticed or not but [NOPARSE]

                            ...

                            and

                            ...

                            [/NOPARSE] seem to wrap lines. This makes reading it harder IMO. I haven't noticed this issue with the [NOPARSE]

                            ...

                            [/NOPARSE] tag.

                              Write a Reply...