Celivia, very well said. Please excuse me if I've misunderstood you but you do know that you can sort by most recent post I hope. Click on the "Last Post" heading to reorganise the sort. The painful bit is that preferences like that don't stick. They don't stay between sessions or during longer periods of inactivity.

If enhancements are done some options to configure preferences in our profiles would be great. I'd also like the option to limit the number of Articles listed in the Articles window sorted by last post and showing all discussions. What I'd be trying to do is see all discussions posted to within a period (the last 2 days or so).

R0bert

RObert, you got what I meant and I never realised that I could sort by most recent post. Must've been blind!
I'd like to see this option stick as well.

So I agree that it would be great if we could personally configure some of these options. I wouldn't need the categories, just one list of most active threads moving to the top as soon as someone commented there.

"I'd also like the option to limit the number of Articles listed in the Articles window sorted by last post and showing all discussions. What I'd be trying to do is see all discussions posted to within a period (the last 2 days or so)."
Would be great, I second that.

Forrest Gumpp,
I also want to suggest to pretty please limit the email alerts: one email alert is sufficient per thread until I visit that thread I subscribed to.
If I haven't opened that email alert, don't send me more of the same.
It's annoying to have all these email alerts piling up especially if one is interested in following several popular threads.

Spikey raises an interesting point in emphasising the value of a coloured background effectively authenticating a quote.

In making earlier reference to the Ubuntu Linux Forums, I had indicated that I thought that this was exactly what the vBulletin software used for those fora provided. Not quite exactly so, it seems.

In the vBulletin software you can in fact edit the content of a quote, both in an honest fashion - deleting unwanted content and using the conventional indicators such as '....', '[for sense]', etc, - and dishonestly, by editing the text to say something different to the original. However, there exists a convenient means of checking a quote.

With every colour-backgrounded quote there is an iconic link to the post from which the quote has been made. A user can only initiate the colour-backgrounded quoting feature by actually visiting that post to use the 'quote' button contained therein, such button only being available, incidentally, whilst the quoting user is logged-in.

So, in vBulletin forum software at least, colour-backgrounding is merely a convenient indicator of the quote being intra-forum in origin, but for authentication a user must use the iconic link (which opens the source post in another tab, at least in Firefox) and then compare quote with original post.

I suspect, however, it would not be difficult, from a software engineering point of view, to design a quoting feature that permitted selection of text only, refusing to supply the colour background if any character is added, omitted, or changed. In a discussion forum like OLO. as distinct from a technical forum like the UF, such a feature may be of more importance.

When I received, in answer to a query on the UF as to how to use the quote feature in an opening post, an illustrative quote with the content "spurious quote" the feature became a worry! See that exchange here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=944720 . That was when I found I could alter content of a quote.

I only ever saw a gender marker as an option to the user, like email notification.

Gang,
I believe that a few well placed 'patches' would resolve some of the issues mentioned.

One patch could add a 'comment' facility to the bottom of each post which would identify the post being commented on by indentation. This would allow others to run sub threads.
e.g. primary article
Response by A commenting on article
Response to A by B
Response by C commenting on primary article.
Response to C by D
Response to C by A
Response to A by C etc

In this way if E decides to respond individual posts and F can ignore all the side threads and simply read the responses to the primary article without wading through the side comments. Which I find extremely frustrating. I often would like to respond to say to A‘s response but because there are many ‘irrelevant’ responses in the way the debate has wandered to another point, A has given up and gone away.

This system is used by ABC’s “Unleashed” site. (code cutting and testing should be relatively simple.)

I would also suggest that a ’blind’ message be added (this would be a module and may require version treatment. {associated costs-yuk})
A site whereby posters can leave personal messages for other posters without direct contact accessed by existing password. Messages can be flagged for editorial attention to stop personal abuse. This is a system used by Oped in the US.

Gender id …unnecessary. It is the important both genders ARE EQUAL.

Editing of existing posts would mean quite a bit code rewriting (YUK cost!) and later proof issues difficult.

I believe text of removed post replaced with ‘Violation warning unacceptable language ‘Violation warning unacceptable comment’ against the posters name.
And ‘Poster removed - rule violation’. This would send real warnings to posters that editorial control is strict. This process is widely used on sites in the US and does act as an effective deterrent. In this way rebirthing of posters know others would see signature traits and alert editor if the poster errs again.

Examinator

"And ‘Poster removed - rule violation’. This would send real warnings to posters that editorial control is strict. "

So then we would know if someone is absent because of suspension not because they've gone to Bali for a week.

I like that.

david f raised, obliquely, a feature on some fora known as 'private messaging'. This is a means whereby members of the same forum can discuss a subject that may have arisen in a thread, but of which the further pursuit might risk hijacking the thread from its proper topic, or at least be distractingly off-topic.

Perhaps private messaging is a feature OLO could provide in any software revision of the Forum.

In the interim, or should OLO decide against private messaging, there exists a workaround. The OLO Forum members who wish to pursue a particular discussion privately simply each register in another forum that does have private messaging facilities having similar privacy security to that of OLO. All that needs to be done to enable this workaround, beyond joint registration on the other forum, is for both parties to each reveal their userID on the other forum in a post on OLO, open another tab in Firefox, bring up the other forum and log in, then click on whatever button it is that gives the option of sending a private message to 'userID', the other party to the discussion.

Needless to say both parties are required to observe the other forum's rules with respect to the nature of the private messaging content. Inappropriate or abusive content, if complained of to the moderators of the other forum by either party, can result in the offending user being warned, or if necessary, suspended. Confidentiality as to real identity is preserved for those who chose not to reveal such.

This is exactly the course I suggested to Fractelle, when and if she decides to migrate operating systems from Windows ME to Ubuntu Linux. Such practical suggestions, or questions as to hardware, as may be required can then be passed along without the restrictions of a word limit or diversion of an OLO thread. Because any such private discussion would revolve around Linux issues, I suggested the Ubuntu Forums, as these forums have the private messaging feature.

Its up to both users whether they think confidentiality is secure on the other forum.