hey idk if any of you are having problems viewing threads… anything that says Re: (already established thread) appears to be an empty thread link … when clicked nothing shows up…
maybe its just my computer but just wanted to ask to be sure
[quote=“jsqu03, post:1, topic:22415”]hey idk if any of you are having problems viewing threads… anything that says Re: (already established thread) appears to be an empty thread link … when clicked nothing shows up…
maybe its just my computer but just wanted to ask to be sure[/quote]It’s that way for everyone. Hopefully we get past it soon.
Someone else that works with databases will be able to explain this better than me, but this is a database issue involving post #'s. Here’s what I think is happening.
In December, Metro makes post # 26018 about Dubois wearing baby blue undies.
Last week, that post is lost in the database crash.
But there’s some kind of table that keeps the post #/topic active, even if the content is lost and the post can’t reproduce.
And so, after the crash, we start where we left off in terms of post #s. Sooner or later, someone hits #26018 again, and instead of the new post registering, that reply, by itself, is bumped to the top, only the post is empty and the rest of the thread is missing.
If this cannot be fixed, it will eventually sort itself out once we eventually go past the last post # that we lost in the crash.
I’ll ask Mac if, in the alternative, we can just skip ahead a few thousand post #'s…
Apologies for the issue.
[quote=“NinerAdvocate, post:3, topic:22415”]Someone else that works with databases will be able to explain this better than me, but this is a database issue involving post #'s. Here’s what I think is happening.
In December, Metro makes post # 26018 about Dubois wearing baby blue undies.
Last week, that post is lost in the database crash.
But there’s some kind of table that keeps the post #/topic active, even if the content is lost and the post can’t reproduce.
And so, after the crash, we start where we left off in terms of post #s. Sooner or later, someone hits #26018 again, and instead of the new post registering, that reply, by itself, is bumped to the top, only the post is empty and the rest of the thread is missing.
If this cannot be fixed, it will eventually sort itself out once we eventually go past the last post # that we lost in the crash.
I’ll ask Mac if, in the alternative, we can just skip ahead a few thousand post #'s…
Apologies for the issue.[/quote]
So you’re saying it’s metro’s fault?
isn’t it always?
[quote=“J Felt, post:4, topic:22415”][quote=“NinerAdvocate, post:3, topic:22415”]Someone else that works with databases will be able to explain this better than me, but this is a database issue involving post #'s. Here’s what I think is happening.
In December, Metro makes post # 26018 about Dubois wearing baby blue undies.
Last week, that post is lost in the database crash.
But there’s some kind of table that keeps the post #/topic active, even if the content is lost and the post can’t reproduce.
And so, after the crash, we start where we left off in terms of post #s. Sooner or later, someone hits #26018 again, and instead of the new post registering, that reply, by itself, is bumped to the top, only the post is empty and the rest of the thread is missing.
If this cannot be fixed, it will eventually sort itself out once we eventually go past the last post # that we lost in the crash.
I’ll ask Mac if, in the alternative, we can just skip ahead a few thousand post #'s…
Apologies for the issue.[/quote]
So you’re saying it’s metro’s fault?[/quote]
No, he cleary blames Obama in his post.
I can’t view the second page of threads anywhere either in a forum… Same issue?