I saw another thread where someone said they would rather take their chances on the "server busy" problem than the disappearing/reappearing messages problem that the fix created. FWIW, I agree with that. Whether, and when, a message appears in "recent answers" seems to be pretty random. On the recent answers page, one thread may show 3 new answers...none of which has appeared after 2 hours. Another thread may show no new answers, yet when I click on it there are several.

It affects the flow of discussion when you post a reply on a thread not knowing what other replies have already been made. It interrupts the sense of an ongoing conversation not to be able to have some kind of linear discussion. I find this more of a deterrent to posting than was the "server busy" message. Of course, it would be great to have the best of both worlds; faster server and real-time messages. But, if we have to choose between them, I would choose for the messages to be real-time. How about you?

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), November 06, 1999

Answers

There are positive effects. You might not have to read my posts.

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), November 06, 1999.

RUOK, we agree with your points. But we also go crazy when "Server Busy" jams the whole works and prohibits us from getting into any thread. There's so many threads to mosey into ... gotta have that fix!

-- still addicted (trying@shake.it), November 06, 1999.

RUOK,

It's up to Phil Greenspun... his s/w... his dollar.

Just count your blessings that we're hosted "free" here at MIT... and adjust... to change. Good Y2K practice too.

;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 06, 1999.

My guess is that the value to most forum users of the improved performance exceeds the value to them of "real-time messages". For myself, long live the fix.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), November 06, 1999.

Diane,

It wasn't my intent that expressing my preference would be viewed as ingratitude towards Phil or MIT. Thank you for your suggestions that I practice counting my blessings and adjusting to change, although I don't think I'm deficient in that regard. Granted, how the software functions is Phil's decision. I'm sorry if it appeared as though I thought otherwise.

Jerry,

You may be correct, though I'm not certain, so thought to ask the question. It did occur to me that, if having one choice or the other was not a complicated change, Phil might be willing to consider input from the forum users. I'm able to accept that my preference may be in the minority if that is the case.

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), November 06, 1999.

"Half a loaf is better than none." I know that it is bad not being able to do a REFRESH/RELOAD operation with the confidence that you will see all that is there, but it is still better than being shut out for hours at a time. As we approach Jan 1, you can bet that traffic will only increase, and being able to get in and at least get the gist of what is going on with Y2K is way more important than whether you are seeing the latest comment about it.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 06, 1999.

Maybe a 3 day storm...

all programs come in late or never...

time will tell...

Have faith...

Just a thought.....

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), November 06, 1999.

I'm w/ King of Spain.

-- silver ion (ag3@interlog.com), November 06, 1999.

RUOK,

I appreciate the idea of soliciting people's views on the question.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), November 06, 1999.

"Server busy" at least makes sense. Disappearing and reappearing messages makes the site appear amateurish, hacked, and/or riddled with untested/defective software.

With the most sincere intentions, I would suggest going back to the drawing board.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), November 06, 1999.