Broken link to an old post

[jefmcg]

Post would give Permalink, assuming you are able to see the post number in the thread to use it.

I'm not sure what you mean. You post gets this link https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/broken-link-to-an-old-post.199508/#post-4250487, but if it was a multipage thread, the link would look like https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/broken-link-to-an-old-post.199508/post-4250487

Both work, so wouldn't it be simpler to make all post links not page dependent, then we could change posts-per-page without breaking everything.

 

[classic33]

Origional
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/tea-part-2.39457/post-2643005
As it is now
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/tea-part-2.39457/post-2643005

Permalinked, with spaces added.
[URL = "https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/tea-part-2.39457/post-2643005" ] Your own text here [ /URL ]

I'm not sure what you mean. You post gets this link https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/broken-link-to-an-old-post.199508/#post-4250487, but if it was a multipage thread, the link would look like https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/broken-link-to-an-old-post.199508/post-4250487

Both work, so wouldn't it be simpler to make all post links not page dependent, then we could change posts-per-page without breaking everything.

Maybe that's the "something in the software" required. But you need to be able to get that number to do it.

 

[Shaun]

Yes, this is a consequence of changing the number of posts per page (which I did to reduce scrolling for mobile users.)

I'll have a look at this when I get chance; there may be a database query that can swap the links for direct post links.

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[ColinJ]

I had a think about why you would reduce the posts/page and deduced that you would have done it for that reason.







And also that you had not anticipated this knock-on effect!

 

[classic33]

I had a think about why you would reduce the posts/page and deduced that you would have done it for that reason.







And also that you had not anticipated this knock-on effect!

Didn't know whether to believe me or not on the posts per page part at first though?

 

[ColinJ]

Didn't know whether to believe me or not on the posts per page part at first though?

It wasn't so much not believing you as me having a dodgy memory! Once you had persuaded me that the number of posts/page HAD changed, I asked myself why Shaun would make a change like that. The only thing that made sense to me was reducing scrolling requirements on small devices.

 

[Shaun]

I'm looking into this now and there appear to be around 2,000 links that may be affected. I can't remember the exact date I made the change, but should be able to narrow it down by testing the links in batches. Once I've found the broken links I'll set about repairing them, but it's a manual process so will take some time.

 

[classic33]

I'm looking into this now and there appear to be around 2,000 links that may be affected. I can't remember the exact date I made the change, but should be able to narrow it down by testing the links in batches. Once I've found the broken links I'll set about repairing them, but it's a manual process so will take some time.

Have fun!