post without notification that others just posted

PaulS:
Two different people rarely say exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. Sometimes what one person says resonates with the person it is addressed to, while the same message, phrased a bit differently does not.

There is a great deal of sense in that.

...R

PaulS:
Not if you assume that the post will go through and hit the back button.

And you would do that why? :astonished:

And you would do that why?

Because 99.9% of the time the post DOES go through.

PaulS:
Because 99.9% of the time the post DOES go through.

Given your post count, I simply cannot believe you could possibly be serious in asserting that! :astonished:

Paul__B:
Given your post count, I simply cannot believe you could possibly be serious in asserting that! :astonished:

Why? What ARE the odds that two people will be reading and replying to the same thread at the same time?

In general, pretty low.

I'd say pretty high - happens to me all the time.

I come across it frequently also. I'd say at least once per day.
And it never happens with trivial posts :slight_smile:

...R

PaulS:
Because 99.9% of the time the post DOES go through.

I read the forum on Saturday with my coffee.
lost one post last week.
lost one today.
for me, that is getting much closer to 80% of the time.

my point is that WE are supposed to be the smartest people in the room.
WE do software, and WE have entire systems crash and burn because the input goes high when we thought it should go low.

WE know how to fix things in code.

WE should have the ability to make decisions that are the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

in the event of a double post, you have ( and a huge THANK YOU to the designers) the ability to go back and edit your posts. a simple mistake in spelling, easy to fix now. if your post is duplicate, you can edit. if your post is wrong because of more information, you can fix it.

if your post is lost, you have two choices. do something else, let your help for the forum get wasted, or double your time and re-write your post. last week I took the time to re-write the post. today, I just moved on.

my personal point of view is that yes, you can walk on glass because doctors can use stitches and bandages. yes there are solutions to problems that are around us. but WHY leave the pot-hole there ??

but WHY leave the pot-hole there ??

Because there are more important things to do, like re-designing and moving the icons around.

PaulS:
Because there are more important things to do, like re-designing and moving the icons around.

yup I noticed karma is back.

And glow is now prohibited.

I was replying to a different point - the matter of a post being lost for no reason when you hit the final "Post" button after preview. This is frequently recoverable from a draft or by going "back" to the preview and telling the browser to re-submit the details.

I cannot on account of that risk, believe anyone with experience of this forum would not actually wait for the thread to load and see that what they attempted to post, appeared in the final form.

dave-in-nj:
I just wrote a sketch for a person, good half hour of descriptions, etc,

posted, but it was prevented from being poster because someone else posted.

how stupid is that !

my post gets trashed because someone else posted.

that is just wrong.

Are you sure it got trashed? Normally you just hit Post again, once you check that what you are saying still makes sense.

Paul__B:
And glow is now prohibited.

We weren't expecting that to go. I put in a request a week or so for it to be returned.

It seems that he had got into the habit of doing without reading. :astonished:

In this case, hopping "back" in the previous page list, to the index page.

Of course, that is what we do - but most of us would look at the result of the "Post", first.

And size?

No, I don't recall asking for that back.

Did they repair theglow, or has it never been gone but just a missing button ?

Hmm, seems that I was previously testing it without the second argument (which is poorly documented).

It's documented?

As per Google, older references refer to a single colour argument which now does not work alone; the more recent version requires two or three arguments - the second ("strength") and third ("width") actually doing nothing anyway. :astonished: