[Suggestion] Views update after check against last-viewer

[W13]

Some topics have gotten popular and people are really proud of their "High Topic Views" ... this sucks for me because they've got a macro running that keeps clicking their topic.

Please build a "last topic viewer" field in the database - so if "Bob 1000" viewed the topic last, and if he views it again immediately (in succession), then the topic view counter won't go up.

[Kfir]

This can be great if it could be done.
+1

[bfarber]

I'm not so sure that the overhead is worth it. I mean, views are intended to be a number of hits against the page - it's how (practically) any software handles views.

[Kfir]

I'm not so sure that the overhead is worth it. I mean, views are intended to be a number of hits against the page - it's how (practically) any software handles views.

It's not that necessary, but it could be useful.
Sometime you find yourself visiting your own topic over 50 times a day and when you look at the views you see lots of views but no replys at all, and it's confusing.
But if it's hard to code then you may schedule it for future release when you are less busy with nexus ans such.

[bfarber]

Well, it's not *that* hard comparatively, but it adds a bit to the page overhead (no matter how you do it) that most people wouldn't really deem necessary I'd think.

Guess we'll see how the topic and feedback play out.

[Louis M.]

I guess it depends on the overhead it adds. What kind of time limit for viewing the pages are we thinking of? I don't really judge a thread on the number of views, I base it more on replies. I guess I look at the substance of the thread and not the reads.

I am not sure this is really needed from my own point of view.

[Mark]

Surely the query when you view a topic grabs all the data from the row so it wouldn't need a new query just add a new column to an existing one - which isn't going to add much overhead at all.

[bfarber]

One problem (off the bat) is that topic views, when "Update topic views immediately" is set to "No" (which we recommend), are stored (temporarily) in another table - with the idea that we DON'T want to update the ibf_topics table on every single page load (too many locking issues come up on high traffic sites). So we'd have to add the column there and in ibf_topics both. Then, if the setting is on No, we'd have to run an extra query to grab the last viewer from the table. Or all viewers within the last x time frame, then loop through them to see if any are the current viewer.

If it's something like just the last_poster to check the last_viewer, it's not that much overhead, but it's still more work for an extremely low (and inconsequential) benefit in my eyes.

[Mark]

Couldn't you only add the temp views count if the last viewer was not the the current user?

[bfarber]

But....you're defeating the purpose of the temp views counter in that case (i.e. the ibf_topic views table would be updated on (nearly) every single topic view, which is what the temp views counter was designed to eliminate).

[Please Delete]

Isn't there a mod that tells who looked at what topic and how many times?

I believe there is, so if you install that and Mr Doe clicks his topic 300 times then your members will know to make a deduction for that artificially inflated number.

[Louis M.]

With many other suggestions out there that will add substance to the software I don't really see how this will benefit communities. I understand that the more peopel that read a thread the more important it might be, but that is not always true. If the topic is that important, pin it, edit the tile, whatever. If someone can explain to me I would greatly appreciate it!

[BryanH]

Personally I don't feel like this is very necessary, as bfarber points out. Not worth the potential overhead.

[Luke]

Here's an idea... what about use IP address, but only with the "Update topic views immediately" option set to "No". When updating a view simply append the IP address to the end of an ip_addresses text column, and add "WHERE ip_addresses NOT LIKE '%<IP_ADDRESS>%'" to prevent further increments from the same IP Address. When it runs through the temporary views table to update views, it would simply dump the list of IP addresses and start over. That way the same IP address can only increment a topic once per update, which I believe is 6 hours or so? And if you did it this way, you could use the same query that already exists.

Or if using "LIKE" is too much, just store the last IP Address that viewed that topic, and match that. Could still be useful for flood control.

[W13]

How about a "Turn Topics Views Feature OFF" :-) That'd reduce load, AND people will worry more about replies than views.

This little switch in the ACP can totally remove the topics views - and stop counting views of course.

[Louis M.]

I don't see turning off topic views entirely as a solution. I said earlier that I don't use them to base my decision solely, as I don't use replies either as a sole judgment on a topics value.

If we are matching against IP addresses, you may start blocking legitimate views on a topic. I can think of a number of situations that this would occur in. What if you have multiple members from a single company? In my case I have a number of viewers on one of my sites and we all come from the "same IP" since we all access the board at work. If someone wants to inflate the view count it is not hard to proxy around.

I think that we are trying to find a solution that will be overkill for a relatively minor issue. I think the system we have in place is pretty good right now. I don't see a major need to change it.

[bfarber]

I think that we are trying to find a solution that will be overkill for a relatively minor issue. I think the system we have in place is pretty good right now. I don't see a major need to change it.

Honestly, that's my view too. I really don't see this as an "issue" and don't see why it deserves too much time, thought and/or attention.

[Luke]

I don't see turning off topic views entirely as a solution. I said earlier that I don't use them to base my decision solely, as I don't use replies either as a sole judgment on a topics value.

If we are matching against IP addresses, you may start blocking legitimate views on a topic. I can think of a number of situations that this would occur in. What if you have multiple members from a single company? In my case I have a number of viewers on one of my sites and we all come from the "same IP" since we all access the board at work. If someone wants to inflate the view count it is not hard to proxy around.

I think that we are trying to find a solution that will be overkill for a relatively minor issue. I think the system we have in place is pretty good right now. I don't see a major need to change it.

It wouldn't be a problem if you matched the IP address after the last IP used. If someone else viewed the topic, it would work the next time. But if the same person viewed it 100 times in a row, it would only count one time.

Honestly, that's my view too. I really don't see this as an "issue" and don't see why it deserves too much time, thought and/or attention.

I don't see it as an issue either :P. I was just pointing out a possible solution to the problem.

[Louis M.]

It wouldn't be a problem if you matched the IP address after the last IP used. If someone else viewed the topic, it would work the next time. But if the same person viewed it 100 times in a row, it would only count one time.

I don't see it as an issue either :P . I was just pointing out a possible solution to the problem.

You don't see this as an issue but a problem? /boggle

I am a programmer for VB.Net and C#, not php, but I am learning. If I was a programmer for this program there is no way that I could justify the time and resources for this "issue".

[Luke]

You don't see this as an issue but a problem? /boggle

I am a programmer for VB.Net and C#, not php, but I am learning. If I was a programmer for this program there is no way that I could justify the time and resources for this "issue".

You don't get it, so let me restate what I said/meant.

While I understand the topic starters frustration, and pointed out a simple solution, I can also understand Brandon's point of view. It's called seeing both points of view objectively, and being helpful at the same time.

As I said, adding a single 15 character column to the temp view table and appending an IP address to the update query, and at the same time checking against that would be a somewhat effective solution. It wouldn't be a total solution, but it would prevent someone from the same computer or network (same ip) from flooding a topic for view. Such a change would take five minutes tops to implement, and to be honest, I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. On the other hand, there are countless things like this, and they all add up, so again I can see Brandon's point of view. The best thing I can do is make suggestions where I think it may be helpful, and whether it's taken into consideration or not doesn't bother me.