I just spent over 30 minutes typing a post, only to hit "submit" and see "THREAD CLOSED."

Gamera · #1 Oct 5, '08, 5:45 pm

How is this acceptable? How can an open thread that I am answering get closed while I am typing, without me knowing it? Am I supposed to type only sentence-long posts for fear that a long, heartfelt post will be summarily closed while I am working on it? What a colossal waste of time.

Nickkname · #2 Oct 5, '08, 5:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

How is this acceptable? How can an open thread that I am answering get closed while I am typing, without me knowing it? Am I supposed to type only sentence-long posts for fear that a long, heartfelt post will be summarily closed while I am working on it? What a colossal waste of time.

You shouldn't have spent 30 minutes typing a post, I guess.

Really, what do you expect? You made a post before the thread was closed. Do you expect a little window to suddeny pop up and say, "Thread Closed?" The Internet dose not work like that.

**Jennifer G.** · #3 Oct 5, '08, 6:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

How is this acceptable? How can an open thread that I am answering get closed while I am typing, without me knowing it? Am I supposed to type only sentence-long posts for fear that a long, heartfelt post will be summarily closed while I am working on it? What a colossal waste of time.

Being fully "connected" to a website is actually a misconception. A forum is a piece of software that uses a client-server architecture (that is, two seperate computers - the user, and the website computer). When you go to a website, the site "forgets" that you're there until your computer sends information again - it can store a cookie on your PC and keep a session state in memory, but that gets more technical. (That is, when you hit a button that says "Send"). It might go something like this -

10:30:05 am - User clicks "Reply".
10:30:06 am - A moderator closes the thread. There is no way for the user's computer to know this.
10:32:00 am - User clicks "Send". The information needs to travel to the website's server, and finds out that the thread has closed (something it didn't know), and informs the user.

In theory, the website server could send a message to the browser that the thread has closed, but there's many variables that can change (you might not have that page open, or another user might have your IP address after you've logged off, and for security reasons). Another reason the server doesn't constantly check your PC to see if you're still on is that it would eat up bandwidth (and the site would really slow down).

In simple terms, the Internet is quite reactive, not proactive. There is software out there that could pop a message showing the thread's status, but this hasn't been built into the vbulletin software. That might be a suggestion to post on the vbulletin website/forum. (even this would require constantly checking the database more than once per second)

Gamera · #4 Oct 5, '08, 6:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nickkname

You shouldn't have spent 30 minutes typing a post, I guess.

I know, right. Next time I'll know better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nickkname

Really, what do you expect? You made a post before the thread was closed. Do you expect a little window to suddeny pop up and say, "Thread Closed?" The Internet dose not work like that.

Well why can't it? Why would that be so hard? Woudn't it make sense?

Gamera · #5 Oct 5, '08, 6:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jennifer G.

Being fully "connected" to a website is actually a misconception. A forum is a piece of software that uses a client-server architecture (that is, two seperate computers - the user, and the website computer). When you go to a website, the site "forgets" that you're there until your computer sends information again - it can store a cookie on your PC and keep a session state in memory, but that gets more technical. (That is, when you hit a button that says "Send"). It might go something like this -

10:30:05 am - User clicks "Reply".
10:30:06 am - A moderator closes the thread. There is no way for the user's computer to know this.
10:32:00 am - User clicks "Send". The information needs to travel to the website's server, and finds out that the thread has closed (something it didn't know), and informs the user.

In theory, the website server could send a message to the browser that the thread has closed, but there's many variables that can change (you might not have that page open, or another user might have your IP address after you've logged off, and for security reasons). Another reason the server doesn't constantly check your PC to see if you're still on is that it would eat up bandwidth (and the site would really slow down).

In simple terms, the Internet is quite reactive, not proactive. There is software out there that could pop a message showing the thread's status, but this hasn't been built into the vbulletin software. That might be a suggestion to post on the vbulletin website/forum. (even this would require constantly checking the database more than once per second)

Hmmmm. Well, that makes sense. Thanks.

**Zooey** · #6 Oct 5, '08, 8:13 pm

I have no explanations beyond those given.
I will say that I have been there too (more like 15 minutes, but same principle.).

To make you feel (?) better, may I offer:

,

,
and

They, too, have all been

where you are now. They

understand.

Harmony1988 · #7 Oct 5, '08, 9:18 pm

Lol, it happens mate, it's not like the moderators were out to get you, just bad timing I guess.

Among Strangers · #8 Oct 6, '08, 5:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

How is this acceptable? How can an open thread that I am answering get closed while I am typing, without me knowing it? Am I supposed to type only sentence-long posts for fear that a long, heartfelt post will be summarily closed while I am working on it? What a colossal waste of time.

I've had that happen too. It's weird when it happens, then you figure it out and feel a little red faced. All you can say is, Oh well. Ya gotta figure that your post probably would not have changed the mods mind about closing the thread anyway, right? So .... best it was closed before your post instead of right after, right? You'd hate to get the rep of a Thread Killer, right?

JugglingReferee · #9 Oct 6, '08, 8:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nickkname

You shouldn't have spent 30 minutes typing a post, I guess.

Really, what do you expect? You made a post before the thread was closed. Do you expect a little window to suddeny pop up and say, "Thread Closed?" The Internet dose not work like that.

You're wrong:

Actually, it is a missing feature in the software. Who are you to judge how long someone should or shouldn't spent on their response?

The software can properly inform the user that the thread is locked without losing the contents of the reply. The OP may wish to start a new thread with his words.

JugglingReferee · #10 Oct 6, '08, 8:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jennifer G.

Being fully "connected" to a website is actually a misconception. A forum is a piece of software that uses a client-server architecture (that is, two seperate computers - the user, and the website computer). When you go to a website, the site "forgets" that you're there until your computer sends information again - it can store a cookie on your PC and keep a session state in memory, but that gets more technical. (That is, when you hit a button that says "Send"). It might go something like this -

10:30:05 am - User clicks "Reply".
10:30:06 am - A moderator closes the thread. There is no way for the user's computer to know this.
10:32:00 am - User clicks "Send". The information needs to travel to the website's server, and finds out that the thread has closed (something it didn't know), and informs the user.

In theory, the website server could send a message to the browser that the thread has closed, but there's many variables that can change (you might not have that page open, or another user might have your IP address after you've logged off, and for security reasons). Another reason the server doesn't constantly check your PC to see if you're still on is that it would eat up bandwidth (and the site would really slow down).

In simple terms, the Internet is quite reactive, not proactive. There is software out there that could pop a message showing the thread's status, but this hasn't been built into the vbulletin software. That might be a suggestion to post on the vbulletin website/forum. (even this would require constantly checking the database more than once per second)

Not true! SMF forum software successfully will inform the user when a thread has been altered, after the user has clicked on "Submit Reply" while retaining the contents entered by the user, prior to posting.

It is an issue of inadequate software release.

JugglingReferee · #11 Oct 6, '08, 8:27 am

The solution is to, prior to clicking on "Submit Reply" is to:

while editting your reply, press Control-A (to select all of your entered text)
press Control-C to copy the text to the clipboard
If your reply is denied, you can copy the text to a new reply, a new thread, or even save to a text file on your computer using Control-V (to paste)

kevinsgirl · #12 Oct 6, '08, 9:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

The solution is to, prior to clicking on "Submit Reply" is to:

while editting your reply, press Control-A (to select all of your entered text)
press Control-C to copy the text to the clipboard
If your reply is denied, you can copy the text to a new reply, a new thread, or even save to a text file on your computer using Control-V (to paste)

Ditto!

If I type a long post, I always highlight and copy it to my clipboard in the event that something gets screwed up.

**Forum Admin** · #13 Oct 6, '08, 9:22 am

It's just an aspect of how the Internet is designed. The base design is for intermittent transmission of data over multiple paths. Maintaining connections and states in that environment is a difficult proposition.

But even if we were to maintain connections, normal security protocols would be to cut the connection after 15 minutes of non-use.

Anyway, I think this issue has been addressed in a fair amount of detail. I'm going to close the thread. If anyone wants to re-open this, let me know.