Another Admin Test

[Jim Dow]

Testing upload of image to forum and response time.

[Courtland]

Image and post were updated immediately.

[Jim Dow]

Image and post were updated immediately.

Testing manage attachments after thread is created.

[Courtland]

I see the post immediately again with the images.

[SAD]

I will add a random thought I had regarding this user's issue...

I'll start with saying that I am confident that the forum is behaving 100% as designed and experiencing no problems. The problem lies with the end user's behavior, the end user's browser settings, OR the end user's internet service provider.

Given that the expected behavior of the "New Posts" has been explained more than once, and the end user has not responded in a concise way to describe the exact steps they are taking... Outside of a net-meeting-screenshare, I'll simply leave this alone and address the other two......

Browser:
Each browser out there has some sort of setting which determines how it behaves in respect to determining the "status" of a previously visited webpage. This is particularly important when it comes to "pages" that are not really pages in the static sense, but those that are generated dynamically each time - i.e. "New Posts" is not a page, but the result of a query. This forum is technically a web application as opposed to a website. Applications are sensitive to this setting....

Due to the fact that there are a myriad of browsers (and versions of each) out there, I'll only address 1 - i.e. 9 on Win 7....

From within Internet Explorer…… Tools Menu -> Internet Options -> General Tab -> Browsing History Section -> Settings Button…. Once the sub-window opens, look at the Temporary Internet Files section. The "Every time I visit the webpage" should be selected.

This is a "suggestion" for how the web browser treats a previously visited web page. Should be noted that web server configuration has some impact on this. Most application servers ~should~ be configured on the server side to expire content immediately upon serving it… Such that if end users have some inappropriate setting (for visiting a web application), the web server can override this browser setting.

ISP:
There is a third potential issue. In an effort to reduce bandwidth consumption, the ISP could be downsampling the pages before they are delivered to the end user - and subsequently injecting javascript into them to allow the end user to restore the page to how it was intended to be served to the end user.

Overall, the page would basically ~look~ normal, but the ISP could be compressing the content before it is sent to the end user. The most noticeable side effect to the end user is the unreliable display of dynamically generated content (i.e. web application pages that result from a database query such as "new posts").

This type of action by an ISP is most common with wireless/cellular carriers. But I would not be surprised if it was happening with other providers (for example cable modems). Normal behavior at the first part of the billing cycle. But as the end user's account approaches some threshold of their allotted monthly bandwidth (like 85% of their allotted 20GB per month) this "feature" is turned on.

I personally have experienced this on the Sprint network. Visiting "new posts" would show a list of bolded (unread) threads. Read first one. Re-click "new posts" and the same list would be presented. The one I just read would still be bold - showing as unread - despite the fact that I just read it.

Additionally would affect display of threads I just created. Create thread in "XYZ sub-forum"... After thread is posted Re-click "XYZ sub-forum" header. Thread I created would not appear (server sending me cached page). Control-reload the page and it would appear.

Should be noted that this behavior would be ~most~ forums I visited. Not just this forum. Also should note that the ISP cannot do this to pages served encrypted (https protocol).

This feature happens at a very low level on the provider's network (proxy/firewall) and calling customer support is useless - they have no idea what it is… And generally the personnel who man those phones (even the escalations team) have no idea the capabilities of the infrastructure components on their network.

The above ^^^ is probably way too much typing for this early in the morning LOL.

[Essness]

I agree with SAD.
I made the point in an earlier post, 10,000 members and one is having a problem. This does not make the forum "unreliable" it more likely suggest issues on the users side.

[chain_dogg]

Test.......


http://www.funnypictures24.com/funny2/funnysmiley101.gif

[Festus2]

I will add a random thought I had regarding this user's issue...

The above ^^^ is probably way too much typing for this early in the morning LOL.

SAD -

You've outdone yourself this morning ---I've never seen you so..."verbose" :D

[SAD]

SAD -

You've outdone yourself this morning ---I've never seen you so..."verbose" :D

Must have been the coffee....

My background is in IT.... I generally dont deal with the desktop or web server configuration, but with a specialization in records management and eDiscovery, I do manage an enterprise class web-based document and workflow system. Been doing this type of work (along with database and development) for 20-ish years... So every now and then my work live collides with my forum life. :)