4 ms·

Thanks for the reply, although I think you are missing my point. I understand how it works technically, but I think this illustrates a classic debate between d

by johnmw 14y ago

Thanks for the reply, although I think you are missing my point. I understand how it works technically, but I think this illustrates a classic debate between developer and user/customer. As a developer I can see the functional beauty. As a user, I think it sucks and I don't give a damn about "session indexes". As a user I just want to see the next page of cool links. I think most people here are 'users'. So why not just have a stateless solution? (aka just linking to ..page=2 as suggested?)

lutusp 14y ago
> I think you are missing my point. The reverse. :) > So why not just have a stateless solution? (aka just linking to ..page=2 as suggested?) You seem to have missed the point that, if you wait long enough to advance to page 2, the page that logically follows from the page you're viewing no longer exists (along with the page you're viewing). In other words, assuming that the HN content changes between your initial view and clicking "More", the new page 2 may contain what page 1 contained, and people will complain that they're looking at the same items on page 2 that they viewed on page 1 just five minutes ago.
- johnmw 14y ago
  I do understand that. [I'm putting my "User" hat on here.] Lets look at two "user cases" here: 1. I'm on page 2 and I want to look at page 3. I click "More", and I get page 3 but with a few greyed out links I have already seen. 2. I'm on page 2 and I want to look at page 3. I click "More", and I get "Unknown or Expired Link". I firkdanggurbleblast and manually delete the fnid out of the URL and hit enter which takes me back to the first page, then I click on the second page, and then click on the third page, which also contain greyed out links. Which of the above user cases do you think is preferable? As I said previously, I'm really just trying to illustrate the difference between technical beauty and what users perceive as beauty.
- MortenK 14y ago
  You have the same issue on most other link aggregators, but other sites don't throw an error message just because a user presses "more".
- shaundv 14y ago
  It is incredibly frustrating to be penalised for going away from the site for a few minutes to read a long, insightful article. The links to deep articles are why I read HN. At the very least, the expired link page should provide a button to reload the page. The reloaded page will contain articles I've already seen, but it beats having to start on page 1 again, after manually editing the URL, and clicking "more" until I find my place again. Ideally I'd like the site to try to load the index link, and if it's timed out, fallback seamlessly to loading the page by number.
- ankitml 14y ago
  I think its ok. Users wont complain. give them a message that the link has expired just like it is done now. But along with that, serve them the default / latest page=2 . WHy are we debating on 'or' of the option. Expired message or latest page. None of them alone gives satisfactory use experience. Have them both, tell them link has expired and serve them default.
  - sanchitml 14y ago
    Good solution.

by johnmw 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> I think you are missing my point. The reverse. :) > So why not just have a stateless solution? (aka just linking to ..page=2 as suggested?) You seem to have missed the point that, if you wait long enough to advance to page 2, the page that logically follows from the page you're viewing no longer exists (along with the page you're viewing). In other words, assuming that the HN content changes between your initial view and clicking "More", the new page 2 may contain what page 1 contained, and people will complain that they're looking at the same items on page 2 that they viewed on page 1 just five minutes ago.

johnmw 14y ago
I do understand that. [I'm putting my "User" hat on here.] Lets look at two "user cases" here: 1. I'm on page 2 and I want to look at page 3. I click "More", and I get page 3 but with a few greyed out links I have already seen. 2. I'm on page 2 and I want to look at page 3. I click "More", and I get "Unknown or Expired Link". I firkdanggurbleblast and manually delete the fnid out of the URL and hit enter which takes me back to the first page, then I click on the second page, and then click on the third page, which also contain greyed out links. Which of the above user cases do you think is preferable? As I said previously, I'm really just trying to illustrate the difference between technical beauty and what users perceive as beauty.
MortenK 14y ago
You have the same issue on most other link aggregators, but other sites don't throw an error message just because a user presses "more".
shaundv 14y ago
It is incredibly frustrating to be penalised for going away from the site for a few minutes to read a long, insightful article. The links to deep articles are why I read HN. At the very least, the expired link page should provide a button to reload the page. The reloaded page will contain articles I've already seen, but it beats having to start on page 1 again, after manually editing the URL, and clicking "more" until I find my place again. Ideally I'd like the site to try to load the index link, and if it's timed out, fallback seamlessly to loading the page by number.
ankitml 14y ago
I think its ok. Users wont complain. give them a message that the link has expired just like it is done now. But along with that, serve them the default / latest page=2 . WHy are we debating on 'or' of the option. Expired message or latest page. None of them alone gives satisfactory use experience. Have them both, tell them link has expired and serve them default.
- sanchitml 14y ago
  Good solution.