Second looks

Why not allow us who are the members on ATS a way to see the screen names of those who view our threads?

I mean, I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to know who is reading and not replying.

We the members should be able to see just who exactly might be always keeping an eye on our threads.

In the bible, Lot's wife was destroyed for looking at what it was they were being kept from. There is something other to that tale than how one would first take it on, say, a literal sense.

Are all those viewers who dont reply the actual above top secret being kept secret from us?

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Mabus]

Ever consider that Many of those "views" could merely be Visitors? ... who haven't yet registered.


Those who "read" yet "can't reply" as they're not registered members. (?)



Hmmm....

reply to post by Annie Mossity


Anonymous ATS, anyone can reply to any post or thread.

I think it would be a huge massive gigantic server query to list who has read your thread. I doubt that anything like that can be implemented.

Some topics will get literally thousands of replies, and if the site could update you with a list every time there is a new viewer, then it would cause lots of bandwidth issues. Imagine a list of member names being updated every sec, for every thread anyone views.

The simplest way to know if someone is viewing your thread is to just look at who posts.

You mean people can actually read my posts????

I thought this was a personal diary site.

-----

I think this was discussed a long time ago and rejected because of the need for valuable screen real estate.

Frankly, I don't think I want to know if anyone reads my threads. What if I learn that they don't.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by whatukno


can, will, do...

3 entirely different options, choices, scenarios.


"view"

Don't worry. Just be assured...we're keeping a close eye on your threads.

With great stealth.......

WOW Mabus I can actually understand you!?

Mabus I read every one of your threads. This is one of the few that I totally understand. I don't doubt my intelligence I just think you must be super intelligent.

I read most every thread that is written but don't reply if someone else has already made a post that demonstrated my point. Why repeat a point already made? Others times I may not be in the mood to reply or just don't want to reply.

Why do you want to know who views your threads? I'm trying to understand why it would matter.

I do not enjoy a tread when 30 people all have the same reply. It's a waste of my time and effort to wade through repetitious responses just to find an occasional gem of a reply.

Keep those threads coming Mabus........you are very interesting.

I have at times wondered the same thing, then realised that there would be server space issues etc... then on the other hand, many thread views are 'repeat' views by those already posted, so it could trimmed down to just memberes that have viewed at any time, and not every time each member viewed.

On this though, my request would be a notification of those who flag a thread. I have had threads flagged with no reply and I often wonder who it was. I also feel like other members are thinking I am flagging my own threads.

reply to post by dizziedame


dizziedame took the words right out of my mouth. Which usually gets done by someone in threads long before i get there. So i read the whole thread, agree with some, disagree with others, and move on to the next one, (ATS is a biiiiig place with alotta readin to do).

Now as others have also stated (see did it again) the query bandwidth on the server would be astronomical with the amount of logged on users, much less the anonymous people perusing your writings. Im thinkin its not viable. Good idea though.

Silver

For a board the size of ATS it would be a waste of database space, you would literally have to store one SQL column with data on who viewed the thread (1 byte = 1 character), then another column to count the number of unregistered guests viewed the forum (1-Infinite, 1 byte = 1 Character).

It's useless information for what would be done to make it happen.

[Edit -- Spelling]

[edit on 16.9.2008 by Shugo]