BUG? : Linear - Newest First

[AustinChief]

When using "Linear - Newest First" display mode... the post numbering is reversed... post#1 is the NEWEST post instead of the OLDEST.

This may sound petty... but for my board it is actually a big deal...
any ideas?

[Wayne Luke]

It is supposed to display that way... Linear - All the posts in Line. Newest First - The newest post shows first.

Maybe try Linear Oldest First. Which would show them in chronological order oldest to newest.

[AustinChief]

It is supposed to display that way... Linear - All the posts in Line. Newest First - The newest post shows first.

Maybe try Linear Oldest First. Which would show them in chronological order oldest to newest.
no.. I know how it is supposed to work.. I am talking about the POST NUMBERING... it reverses the post order fine... but the numbering DOESN'T reverse when it should.

i.e.
in OLDEST first POST#1 is at the top
in NEWEST first POST#1 is at the botttom
the actual posts are in the correct order but the NUMBERING isn't.

[Wayne Luke]

Those numbers tell how the post appears in the thread not the order that it was posted in. I am not sure it is a bug. They still link to the correct post.

[AustinChief]

Those numbers tell how the post appears in the thread not the order that it was posted in. I am not sure it is a bug. They still link to the correct post.

That seems like a fairly useless(and confusing) designation then... I can SEE the way the posts are displayed.. I don't need a # for that. I would think that the # would be useful to show what ACTUAL NUMBER THE POST IS.

#1=first post regardless of display order
#10=tenth post made
etc, etc...

[Lumina]

I agree with AustinChief because people use to say "answering to #3" for example, and this means "answering to the third post". This is an old habit earned from the times where threaded mode and auto-quotes didn't exist at all.

Another use is when someone uses the threaded mode, and there are two replys at same time, but not same branch : the #number would allow to know which one was the very first answer.

[Wayne Luke]

Personally, I think the whole concept of showing the post number is fairly useless. What happens when you merge two threads? Split them? The post numbers will get rearranged anyway. Or will you have two post with the designation of Post #3?

[AustinChief]

Personally, I think the whole concept of showing the post number is fairly useless. What happens when you merge two threads? Split them? The post numbers will get rearranged anyway. Or will you have two post with the designation of Post #3?
It is extremely useful on my board, and since I rarely split/merge threads, I have never seen any issues with it.

I know that people can just look at the time of each post... but it is much easier to quote "post#56" than to say "in reference to the post at 10:34pm 6/17"

anyway... my question is this... will this be "fixed"? Or do I need to hack this out myself?

[Lumina]

That's a good point Wayne !

Well, in that case, my first explanation is not interesting, unless you never split/join/delete.
But the second one is still a good information : the post number would allow to know which reply came first in a threaded mode when replies are posted at the same time, but in different branches. the post number would allow to know who did post that 100th reply, 666th reply, 1000th reply, ... !

[Scott MacVicar]

I agree, there should be a constant when referring to post numbers in linear mode regardless of the way it is being displayed.

Though the problem is with deleted posts not viewable to the user. The total posts shown on that page would have to be calculated before the page content is parsed.

I'll move this into the bugs forum so that it can be looked at.

[wolfman]

Yes he is right the last part of the url &postcount=4 just shows the location in the thread and not the actual post # http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showpost.php?postid=476808&postcount=4 and http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showpost.php?postid=476808&postcount=7 show the very same post thats because they are the same post you can tell by the postid=476808

[Scott MacVicar]

fixed now.