A Question about marking all posts as New

[#1]

I'm asking this out of curiosity more than anything, but as I've said before my default URL for this site is this and with it I get an option to mark all the posts as read, which is fair enough and used quite often. But what purpose (as I see none) does it to select the other option to mark these are New when by definition they are New!

Is there a way to remove this, as I see it, redundant option?

[#2]

must be another Lithium Oddity

[#3]

@rongtw - You don't have much  for this forum do you.

[#4]

Not many of us do.

[#5]

I wouldn't say I had love for it either, there are some things I miss from the SMF days, like Polls for one, and I'm still of the opinion that there is to much screen bloat, and wasted space and there are some things that beggars belief but all-in-all I'm a happy user.

[#6]

Mook For a new and improved forum ,,,, its pretty poor

Maybe in 12 months it may work as intended after several fixes

[#7]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

But what purpose (as I see none) does it to select the other option to mark these are New when by definition they are New!

Is there a way to remove this, as I see it, redundant option?

---

It's not a redundant option I'm afraid. Once you have read a post, it's no longer 'new' by definition.
There are times when I've read a post and subsequently decided that I want to come back to it at a later time, either to add comment or re-read the post and any replies. I've used the 'Mark as new' option as a convenient way (amongst other methods) of ensuring I can easily find it later.

@rongtw wrote:
For a new and improved forum ,,,, its pretty poor

Maybe in 12 months it may work as intended after several fixes

I'm certainly hoping so, but I have this horrible feeling that certain things will not get addressed as certain management staff see certain things as being resolved "in life", which translated means only if there is a large enough outcry

The forum does have a few extras which are quite useful, unfortunately they aren't always used to optimum benefit - some of which it down the very poor and deficient Help section.

[#8]

@Anotherone

The specific thing he was complaining about was this from his link

[#9]

My apologies. Although I followed his link to the appropriate  Unread Topics/Posts page, I think my brain had "skim-read" his remark and I was thinking about the "options" for individual posts/threads.

It seems to me that this sort of functionality could be useful on this page ONLY IF it was properly addressed by Batch processing (as it is on some other pages on this forum) where there are "Check boxes" (and an option to select/deselect all) so that one can mark the selected posts appropriately.

[#10]

I've regarded the feature as unwanted for some time, but not bothered to report it and so add to the growing pile of more important fixes like Help, Search, Post count etc.

Jack is doing some sterling work by putting a 'sticking plaster' fix in place for many annoyances, but Plusnet Management need to realise that this should be short term measure and get a grip on lithium properly fixing problems in the core code.

The old SMS Forum eventually succumbed to multiple 'quick fixes' making the code base very tricky to maintain or expand, but here we are moving rapidly along a similar path?

M

[#11]

Further to my comments in Message 9, the title of the thread needs amending - which is no doubt why my brain ended up "skim-reading". This is not about marking individual posts/threads as New/Read but about marking board-fulls of posts "new". I'd suggest the title should read -

"A Question about marking a whole board of posts as New."

[#12]

Moderator's note by Mike (Mav)

Thread title changed as requested

[#13]

Sorry I do not see why this thread’s title needed changing the only issue with it was ‘… a New’ instead of ‘… as New’. If the message is read and the URL provided is viewed then the whole thing is self explanatory as I see it.

[#14]

@Anonymous The title in itself could have be taken to be referring to individual posts and not the whole board. I ended up misreading/interpreting it to my embarrassment  so don't you think others may?

@Mav thanks. I trust Mook can see what I'm getting at.

And further to my previous comments in message 11 and 9, this issue related to batch processing on this module was raised by me and Bob Pullen back in March on the Test/Staging site. There was some recent comments in July and I've just chased it for progress.