Hey mods

[rwalker999]

How come all replies are showing as one short of views these days ?

 

[EXPLORER]

Good point,

 

[Psycho Doggie]

Boooooooo, you got it wrong, the problem is that the views are always one more than the replies

 

[Rodzilla]

i see 0 views in all threads

 

[rainman]

How come I didn't pick up on that

 

[Psycho Doggie]

How come I didn't pick up on that

You losing your touch?

Maybe theKennel has actually been prophesying that the last two wins would be by 1 point, and we all missed it.

 

[rwalker999]

Boooooooo, you got it wrong, the problem is that the views are always one more than the replies

Your right - but you knew what I meant and the question remains - why is one just more than the other ?

 

[GrogDog]

Loud noises!!

 

[rwalker999]

Loud noises!!

Nice response - in English pls !

 

[GrogDog]

Nice response - in English pls !

Do yourself a favour and check out anchorman.

 

[rwalker999]

Do yourself a favour and check out anchorman.

What's that going to do GrogDog ?

 

[Mr Invisible]

Boooooooo, you got it wrong, the problem is that the views are always one more than the replies

Correct. It's either one of two things.

The original poster re-views the thread once posted (creating the first view always being himself)

OR

The original poster is not counted as a view for their first post.

 

[Captain Kickass]

Don't listen to Mr.I .... he be drunk.

Unofficially, it's loosely to do with your 'session' (or active log in time).

I've been logged in for about 20mins and the majority of my views are 0 also. If i move to the 2nd page of "What's New" I can see a handful of threads that have the correct view amounts (ie: replies are 10-20% of view-count).

But once you've been logged in for a bit, the correct 'views' appear.

Like I said ... dunno the official terminology for it. Cache, servers, whatever-it-is. You just gotta be "logged in" for long enough for them to 'tally up' properly.

 

[Rodzilla]

Don't listen to Mr.I .... he be drunk.

Unofficially, it's loosely to do with your 'session' (or active log in time).

I've been logged in for about 20mins and the majority of my views are 0 also. If i move to the 2nd page of "What's New" I can see a handful of threads that have the correct view amounts (ie: replies are 10-20% of view-count).

But once you've been logged in for a bit, the correct 'views' appear.

Like I said ... dunno the official terminology for it. Cache, servers, whatever-it-is. You just gotta be "logged in" for long enough for them to 'tally up' properly.

what happens when you are logged in for 16 hours? is that why i see 0 views?

 

[rwalker999]

Correct. It's either one of two things.

The original poster re-views the thread once posted (creating the first view always being himself)

OR

The original poster is not counted as a view for their first post.

I'm afraid neither response there answers the question

 

[rwalker999]

Don't listen to Mr.I .... he be drunk.

Unofficially, it's loosely to do with your 'session' (or active log in time).

I've been logged in for about 20mins and the majority of my views are 0 also. If i move to the 2nd page of "What's New" I can see a handful of threads that have the correct view amounts (ie: replies are 10-20% of view-count).

But once you've been logged in for a bit, the correct 'views' appear.

Like I said ... dunno the official terminology for it. Cache, servers, whatever-it-is. You just gotta be "logged in" for long enough for them to 'tally up' properly.

With respect CK, that would not explain a perfect one discrepancy between the two

 

[GrogDog]

What's that going to do GrogDog ?

What?

 

[Rodzilla]

With respect CK, that would not explain a perfect one discrepancy between the two

i reckon its a coincidence

 

[Captain Kickass]

I shall clarify my original comments by adding that it is 100% correct ..... if you're using Firefox.

 

[Captain Kickass]

Turns out I was about 70% right.

The cache for the servers will refresh every "x" amount of posts.
So the more activity here, the faster these counts update.

That being said, Admin could have changed the "refresh cache after 'x' posts" from something like "every 1000 posts", to "every 5000 posts", and we'd never know it unless one of our observant posters noticed, like today.