Bronwyn,

Thanks for that tip. Being the iconoclast I am, unfortunately I have broken that particular icon on my display, and it no longer works for me. Hehe. (BTW, from a web page design point of view, have you noted the identicality of that icon with the 'user list' at the top and bottom of the comments pages? Identical icon, but takes you to different pages, if you aren't noting the content of the mouse-over bubble on the icon below each post. Just a small point.)

Seriously, though, I realise I expressed myself poorly when talking about getting to a user's posting history from the 'Users currently online' display. Whilst you can easily enough get to your own user history via the icon you mention, should you see a userID come up on the display of a particular poster in who's posts you have an interest, you can quickly reach THEIR user history to find out in what connection they may have recently posted.

Now of course this can only be done if their userID is actually displaying on the 'Welcome to the Forum' page. It is the paucity, to an unknown extent, of the userIDs on display that restricts this convenience of direct access to user histories. In the absence of a full display of users currently online, you will only find posts by users of interest to you by scanning all threads exhaustively, by stumbling upon them, or, I suppose, by ordering the index page displays in order of recency of posting and checking out that reduced field.

I would have thought it in OLO's best interests to have as extensive a display as legitimately possible of users currently online. The old 'people drive into full service stations' principle, you know. Subliminally enhances the perceived relevance of the Forum.

PS Yesterday I noted R0bert's post, the 48th and currently last post to the "What we have here, is a failure to communicate" thread, had had the red posting flag turn to black at least 45 minutes early. Wonder why?

Forrest

"Seriously, though, I realise I expressed myself poorly when talking about getting to a user's posting history from the 'Users currently online' display."

My fault too, for misreading. I did think at the time you would surely have figured that out for yourself, though then decided to risk stating the obvious in case you hadn't!

I still don't really see what the problem is though. But, as has happened several times now, I may again be missing something in your post!

Surely, the only time you would wish to check a poster's history is when you are actually engaging with them in debate, in which case their icon will be there right in front of you. Won't it? What am I missing now?

Bronwyn: "Surely, the only time you would wish to check a poster's history is when you are actually engaging with them in debate, in which case their icon will be there right in front of you. Won't it?"

Not necessarily Bronwyn.

There may well be posters on OLO with whom one may not be about to engage in debate, but who's views one may be interested in.

For example, OLO userID 'DIS' might be such a one. I breach no confidences if I reveal that that userID is Sir David Smith, former Official Secretary to five former Governors-General. He indeed reveals his identity himself within his posts on OLO. I sometimes see him, presumably, viewing posts. (I have to guess which ones.) He is a man of few words. Occasionally he may post something. It's normally well worth while being one of the first to see it if he does. His OLO articles are always a good read.

At least one former Governor-General. and one High Court Justice, have been believed by me to post on OLO. Likewise, without necessarily presuming to engage them in debate, it is interesting to observe what they may perhaps have been viewing, or indeed saying, with respect to some specific issue. You may not yet have stumbled upon the topic upon which they may have posted, and thus not have immediate access to the 'Find out more about this user' icon.

However, should it be that one did wish to engage in debate with a specific poster, would it not be simple prudence to first observe their manner of delivery and the consistency (or otherwise) of their views in other posts expressed? You're right in thinking the patchiness of this OLO feature is not a big deal: I just find it odd that sometimes one's userID does not display when one is online and has the OLO cookie set to recognize one's presence. You would think it in OLO's best interests to have as large a display of users currently online as possible.

Ah, Forrest, you take OLO far more seriously than I do. I treat it as a pleasant and relaxing diversion, you seem to see it more as some sort of highly complicated military exercise!

I prefer to engage with the argument that appears before me on the screen. I'm not swayed by a poster's credentials or lack of them, nor am I interested in 'stalking' other posters and anticipating their responses. (I realise 'stalking' is not quite the right term to describe what you have very openly explained, but it seemed to be the one that overwhelmingly came to mind as I read your post!)

I think the posting history is as accessible as it needs to be. Raising it to the level you outline, in the interests of satisfying the needs of what I think would be a very small minority, will only further slow and clutter the system for everybody.

Pelican,

Getting back to your original observation: is it possible that someone else had been using your computer less than 120 minutes before you noticed you were seemingly still logged-in to OLO after having not been on the OLO site yourself for several days?

All such a third party would have to have done is perhaps clicked on a bookmark and landed on the OLO 'Discuss' page, and the cookie on your computer would have automatically registered the presence of your computer (ie. 'you') on OLO at that point. There need not have been any attempt to post.

I don't know whether your computer is accessible to other people in a home or office situation, but such could explain what you saw.

Bronwyn,

Stabbed in the portico while stalking around the Forum! The pain! The pain!

Taking it all too seriously! Oh dear, and here was I thinking I was already lightening up. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2063#43768

What must I do? How can I get dumbed down so I wont notice these irritating little inconsistencies? Tell me, tell me, tell me. It's so lonely down here on these technical support threads. Everything else just pales into insignificance compared to the problem of being too serious. Seriously!

Should I try to be more, well ..... feral, or something?

Forrest

Please don't go 'feral', whatever you do. We've already got a few of them around here and we don't need any more.

When I first struck up a conversation with you, I was actually having a bit of a go at the length and opaqueness of some of your posts. But I have since come to see them as total gems. So, no, don't change and, certainly, no 'dumbing down'.

You might just need to keep a reign on that 'stalking' though. If you don't, the duel on the High Veldt might be repeated in the portico and you might be the one taking the metal!

You do take things seriously but, yes, I agree, you are 'lightening up'. You are also a perceptive reader of others' posts and have an interesting and self-deprecating sense of humour, which I particularly appreciate, as I'm sure do many others.

So, in my humble opinion, you should stay exactly as you are, dear Forrest. And long may our paths continue to cross on OLO!