Skip to main content
1-Visitor
March 24, 2011
Solved

Neat trick

  • March 24, 2011
  • 16 replies
  • 33519 views

How do you make sure that no one sees a discussion where you ignore one poster's question until the shame makes you lock it?

see http://communities.ptc.com/message/161343#161343

Nice trick on not having it show up on the recent activity list!

Best answer by DanMarotta

Tom, your points were valid and were considered during the judging process. It even led us to incorporate more [clear] assumptions to shape future challenges so there will be little chances of ambiguity when considering variables.

-Dan

16 replies

1-Visitor
March 24, 2011

Does this really warrant a new thread?

Mike

1-Visitor
March 28, 2011

I just wanted to show how Mark Walked locked and somehow sorted the list so that a thread with activity three days ago would show up between one from 7 months and one from 5 months ago.

1-Visitor
March 28, 2011

Tom MacMillan wrote:

I just wanted to show ............. sorted ... list so that a thread with activity three days ago would show up between one from 7 months and one from 5 months ago.

Tom,

The display order is affected by each user's preferences. In the normal indented thread order, you will find your new post [almost] immediately after the thread you replied to, unless it had other sub-replies, and immediately following your reply will be a different reply to some part of the thread higher up the hierarchy. Thus it will have two 'old' threads either side of it.

Sometimes it is just what is wanted, and other times it means that all the latest news is scattered about the whole thread. On the old forum I used the simple date order and managed my reading using the "mark as read" but that isn't available any more so I've resigned my self to just reading the last few threads that look interesting and ignoring the rest. Have a check as to what your preferences are set to. You may want to change them.

I don't like the competitions anyway because they always need 'hidden' rules [= things obviously misunderstood (that's an oxymoron;-)] that I don't always 'get'.

Philip