Guess what time it is? It's time for the DG County Fair! Now in it's sixth year, enter your blue-ribbon photos or mouth-watering recipes for a chance to win a gift subscription! Click here here to get all the details, dates and entry rules.
Today Gita wondered why my link to a news site with before and after pictures of hurricane Sandy worked while hers didn't even though they looked the same. Frustrating and puzzling. So I am using this thread to explore some ways and whys this can happen, like a test thread!
Edited to add
Found out after I started this thread that Daves Garden has an entire forum called Test http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/f/test/all/
"This forum is for people to try their hand at formatting messages, uploading photos, troubleshoot technical problems, and generally figure out how the forums work. You won't find much discussion here - other than people "talking" to themselves as they view their test results and try out various solutions."
Since this is exactly what I was trying to do, I am asking Admin to move this thread to the Test Forum
Coleup, Gita - This could happen for a number reasons.
1. Using different browsers, foxfire, internet explorer, chrome, safari...
2. Different browser settings (not allowing cookies, certain hyperlinks)
3. A "miss dial", akin to calling a familiar phone number but your mind types a number wrong
4. Different firewall settings.
5. If the link was copied from another page it's possible that just the text was copied and not the link. When it was pasted it is still recognized as a link only it's a fragment of the real link.
Any one of these or combination might lead to different experiences with hyperlinks.
I suspect #5, which is kind of like #3...human error.
After going to Jen's link Gita made a link to the pictures that did not work.
was just killing some time before bedtime on NE Gardening Forum.
flowAjen posted this link of pictures...they are sort of interactive...you will see...
The black line you will see across each picture can be moved by YOU--to see
the "before and after" of the storm, Sandy, of how that area looked.
Very sobering...Check it out.
You're right on keeping the thread open for other topics of the same manner. I think we are beating a dead horse with the links. I can barely follow this thread anymore with all the dead links and circular discussion.
Occam's Razor: the simplest answer is often correct
I am semi-computer illiterate when one starts talking about all this kind of stuff.
I know my way around in all aspects of DG--but nothing new...
I agree with Paul--this Thread is not necessary, Judy. What would you want people to add to this?
Your mind is very analytical--mine just says--"Oh well! I'll try something else"...NO biggie!
At the most--I would c/p it in my URL and see if it opens from there.
I know this time of year we are hard up for some new Threads, but they have to have general interest.
I expect the Holiday cactus discussion Thread #6 will soon be more active.
Paul--would you like to start a new Thread? Something to set fire under our butts?
I'll throw my 2 cents' worth in on this topic of thought-process. I'm with you Gita, in that my heart usually tells me "Ah well, it doesn't work, move on to the next thing that does...', HOWEVER, my mind likes to pick apart WHY it didn't work... and to be totally honest, I enjoyed reading through Judy's "thinking out loud through the problem" to figure it out and finally come to a solution. I used to love to take apart my Dad's alarm clocks as a small child (and oooh did I get my hide tanned a LOT for that!!), 'cause I just "HAD" to see how it worked, and WHY it worked etc. I do like to know how and why stuff does and does not work, and I do not like "loose threads", as it were. This mystery clarifying process can be good fun for some! =) (not to mention, I am mostly computer illiterate, and learning anything new about computers is always interesting for me).
Gita - if I do I'll be sure to post. I enjoy leaving topic starting to the more experienced gardeners.
I think this was a worthy topic but don't think it'll be active enough to be relevant. Maybe make a sticky for proper DG use technically speaking. For example, how to quote. Upload a picture (size restrictions). All that jazz. I'm sure it is listed some where in DG but if we had a collection of it in MAG I think it would better suit us.
Another example: topic use gets cut at around 200 posts. I don't know why this happens, does DGhave a limit to posts within a ttopic? It can be so difficult to follow a topic that is on #5 or #6 that often times I don't bother and then ask a question that has been answered multiple times already, which can be frustrating to the participants. My favorite button in the forums is "skip to unread". Which means DG keeps track of the last time you were on the page and roughly where you stopped reading.
The "around 200 Post cut" is a courtesy for those who are still on dial-up.
I cannot imagine that many people are--but now and then we hear of someone
who is and has a hard time downloading pictures and such.
Most people link part #1 to part #2, etc...by linking them with the "we came from here"
and"follow us to here with a new link added.
Many may live "in the mountains" and do not have the fancy internet options available.
Or--maybe cannot afford these services...just a thought.
I think your idea on "How To" is an excellent idea--and coleup would be a good one to
add all the tutorials.
Similar help can be asked for and found in the "DG Forum" or on the "Computer talk" Forum also.
If you have never checked out the DG Forum--DO! It covers a huge amount of stuff that goes on on DG.
Kindof--almost "behind the scenes' look.
Gita- It didn't occur to me about dial-up. I forget sometimes the expanse of the network and the limitations that still exist in some areas. Easy to do when I often check DG from my cell phone with the push of one button.
I understand your comments about the linking "we came from here" and "follow us to here." I am accustom to reading the forum first to check it out and then backtracking to the original. Then once you get to the beginning of a thread you don't feel like reading every single one at a time and have to do it all over again.
May I suggest a change in accepted procedure for continuation threads.
The first post for the topic have all the links listed from previous continuation threads.
"We came from here:
1. great topic start
2. great topic start part #2
and so forth."
So at the beginning of each new thread the links for all the prior ones are listed and labeled. I would assume that they are listed in order but it wouldn't hurt to have labels along with the links.
Just an idear.
Mid-Atlantic Gardening: HOLIDAY CACTUS GENERAL DISCUSSION - PART #6
"http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1243875/ Here is where I came from..."
I hope that nobody takes offense to these posts, I just wanted to express my opinion. It will require more keystrokes for the original poster/topic starter but it will save newbies and those with dial-up or limited connection the time required to load 5 pages instead of one. They can visit the last topic #5 if they just want to read about a sub-topic or conversation or start at #1 if they want.
Take offense???? WHY? These Threads are all open to anyone's suggestions and ideas.
Free speach--while NOT treading on DG Administration's toes.
Some, like me, are more forceful at it--or more confident to what I am suggesting is correct (???)--
and some are more gentle about it. Some have the gift to do it more diplomatically.
Paul--Judy already has done what you suggested on some threads--listing ALL the links all the way to part #1.
I think that is very helpful. Reading back to part #1 and then #2, and #3, etc... is mind- numbing.
Glad to see we've reached peace outedness.
We all use the computer but I suspect like me many of us have learned a certain number of tricks and shortcuts that work for us, at least most of the time.. but Paul's first answer showed me, there are nuances I fail to appreciate.
Paul, I'm happy to have your input trying to clarify things. I agree with your suggestion that a 'problem thread' will just get lost down the line and die out. We just don't have enough activity to sustain it and keep it on the first page.