If I was the new admin boss I’d....

[RogerBoner]

After creating a post and then quickly editing it, what is the purpose of making visible the Last Edit time along with the name of the poster?

Like this.

[hungrypunt]

@ HP Maybe a name change to something beginning with a capital C would suit you better

Straight over my head that one Steve.

[daviemac]

After creating a post and then quickly editing it, what is the purpose of making visible the Last Edit time along with the name of the poster?

Like this.

So the fact it's been edited and who last edited it can be seen.   

[RogerBoner]

So the fact it's been edited and who last edited it can be seen.   

I didn't know that someone else could edit my posts? But I guess that you can as a moderator. If that is the case then why not put Edited By only if it has been edited by someone other than the writer of the post?

[NelsonH]

Since the very start of software writing, writers have been plagued by WIBNI's (wouldn't it be nice if).

By it's nature you can just keep inventing these.

After a while you get down to things that DON"T MATTER A DAMN.

[Kev40ish]

I didn't know that someone else could edit my posts? But I guess that you can as a moderator. If that is the case then why not put Edited By only if it has been edited by someone other than the writer of the post?

There seem to be quite a few anomalies appearing, I am sure it’s always shown when it’s been edited.

I think as the new team is tinkering with things, things that old admin has hidden in the past are becoming visible.

Another one is who is viewing the thread at the top of the thread.

I am sure all these things will be ironed out at some stage, but I’m certainly not going to worry about it..

[Steve2]

Where can you see those stats?

The info centre at the bottom of the Home Page lists current users online, but not total membership. Do you mean the "xxx posts in xxx topics by xxx members" entry? I've never paid a huge amount of attention to it before, so not noticed how much it has increased (or decreased?) by.

I remember there being a sort of members directory at some point in the past, but that seems to have been removed/hidden long before the change over.

That's the one Pat

250,000 a month or so ago down to 90,552 currently

[PatMacGroin]

That's the one Pat

250,000 a month or so ago down to 90,552 currently

Thanks Steve.

That's a big decrease. More than 50%. It does sounds like it means the membership is lower. Although did you notice if the posts count or topics count has also been reduced?

"1,968,843 Posts in 167,621 Topics by 90,554 Members" reads like the count only includes members that have posted.

Potentially that number could have been changed by a number of factors, e.g.:
- Old posts or topics that have been removed (like when off topic was dropped), or somehow got lost when the forum files were transferred to the host server?
- A change in the count method. Like it used to count all members even non posting lurkers, but for some reason the current count is now only including active posters?
- A defect that means the count is incorrect, similar to one that seems to be affecting the review counters from time to time (like recently reported here - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=252893.msg2601266#msg2601266)

These are just observations. My tech knowledge is pretty limited. Enough to make educated guesses and generally be a pain in the ass to IT departments. Not enough to actually be useful.

[PatMacGroin]

Thanks Steve.

That's a big decrease. More than 50%. It does sounds like it means the membership is lower. Although did you notice if the posts count or topics count has also been reduced?

"1,968,843 Posts in 167,621 Topics by 90,554 Members" reads like the count only includes members that have posted.

Potentially that number could have been changed by a number of factors, e.g.:
- Old posts or topics that have been removed (like when off topic was dropped), or somehow got lost when the forum files were transferred to the host server?
- A change in the count method. Like it used to count all members even non posting lurkers, but for some reason the current count is now only including active posters?
- A defect that means the count is incorrect, similar to one that seems to be affecting the review counters from time to time (like recently reported here - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=252893.msg2601266#msg2601266)

These are just observations. My tech knowledge is pretty limited. Enough to make educated guesses and generally be a pain in the ass to IT departments. Not enough to actually be useful.

The home page numbers now read "1,974,260 Posts in 168,098 Topics by 48,128 Members." Dropped by almost another 50% in the past 4 days, from the "90,554 Members" figure on the 13th of July.

So if those numbers are accurate it looks like there is quite a big cull in membership going on. There are no where near that many listed on the banned log, so I have to assume that figure is coming from dead/inactive accounts that have never made any posts being deleted. Which would be a good idea in my opinion. And is in line with announcement by the new admin team a few days ago:

"Here's a rule. This is not a free resource. Members are expected to post useful information after being registered for a certain period of time. We'll decide what this is shortly." - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=252680.msg2601183#msg2601183

[Fuzzyduck]

I didn't know that someone else could edit my posts? But I guess that you can as a moderator. If that is the case then why not put Edited By only if it has been edited by someone other than the writer of the post?

An example is my post earlier this thread. Admin edited the error of my ways.
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=254585.msg2597582#msg2597582

My assumption was that you could edit the message within the 15 minute window without getting the edit message so long as no-one else reads your post (or clicks on the thread).
If another pair of eyes has potentially seen your message before you post the edit, then it seems sensible to flag that up in some way.