The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Did Paul McCartney die on Nov. 9, 1966?
Jean Gauntt, the Immortal Baby, 1939
Prof. Wingard's Death Ray Hoax, 1876
Stotham, Massachusetts: the town that didn't exist, 1920
BMW's April Fool's Day Hoaxes
Taco Bells buys the Liberty Bell, 1996
The Hoaxing Hitchhiker, 1941
Mule elected G.O.P. committeeman, 1938
Fake Fish Photos
The Nobody For President Campaign, 1940 to Present
How to Order Comments
A couple of days ago someone mentioned that the comments would be easier to read if they were in chronological order, so that you wouldn't need to go to the bottom of the page to view the start of a discussion. I hadn't thought much about it before, but this seemed logical to me, so I reconfigured the comments to appear in chronological order.

But now Razela has noted that the old way, when they were in reverse chronological order, it was easier to see the newest comments. Which is also true.

Each way of doing it has pluses and minuses. Unfortunately it has to be either/or. The software doesn't allow individual users to set their own preferences. So, because I can't see which way is obviously better, I've decided to let everyone vote, and then whichever way the vote turns out (after a few days), that's the way the comments are going to be configured. Permanently.

Categories: Miscellaneous
Posted by The Curator on Wed Nov 17, 2004
Comments (14)
Woot!! I get mentioned by Alex! Can I put this in my resume?
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  02:39 AM
Be my guest. But I've got to warn you. I've got 'creator of the Museum of Hoaxes' on my own resume, and the most common reaction it elicits is a blank stare.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  11:24 AM
Just put last page first!

.left to right from words write to start lets idea great have I alsO
Posted by Loxx..  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  12:06 PM
I've been places where I can rank items ascending, descending...and it defaults to one or the other, depending on the page. So essentially, each person can change it, IF they want.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  01:50 PM
I think it's easier to star reading from the top and go scrolling all the way to the bottom, instead of scroll all to the end and be reading and scrolling up.... isnt't it awkward to read a comment (top to bottom) and then jump up....

Xeerz
Posted by BSantos  in  Portugal  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  02:35 PM
you gotta vote for Reverse chronological order! It saves so much more time by not having to click the buttons at the bottom.
Posted by John  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  05:49 PM
I heard that reverse chronological order is a draft dodger. Also, it hates freedom.
Posted by Chronological Orders for truth  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  05:52 PM
I think your poll script is broken. It let me vote 5-6 times.
Posted by AAB  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  06:02 PM
oh what next! maybe the acutal postings should go in Chronological Order so that when you first go to http://www.museumofhoaxes.com the very first entry alex ever posted will ALWAYS be the first! (it was about pt barnum). That way you have to press the buttons to get to the most recent one. Reverse chronological order just makes sense. VOTE REVCHRON
Posted by John  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  06:02 PM
The poll script isn't broken. I hadn't bothered to set it to restrict the # of times people can vote because I didn't think anyone would be motivated enough to cheat on something like this. Guess I was wrong. It's changed now, but can I trust the outcome of the poll? I may have to make an executive decision.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  06:50 PM
I don't think it would be very user friendly to have the oldest comment first. What happens when it gets to be numerous pages? Say it gets up to 10 pages - I would have to keep clicking next page until I got to page 10. How annoying would that be? Its easier to have the newest post first that way you can just scroll down to the last one you read and then read up. Unless I've been on vacation or something, 99% of the time I don't have to click on another page to read the most recent comments which I think is convenient. And user friendly. User friendly is the way to go.

That's my opinion smile
Posted by Saribellum  in  Another Time  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  08:30 PM
I'm calling election tampering!!! I think we are going to need a recount. (ok, it's my fault, I voted twice and then felt guilty about it)

Actually, one thing that might help it is to double the amount of comments on each page. 20 comments per page would really help alot of the longer comments pages, regardless of which direction the posts are actually listed in.
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  09:40 PM
There are already 20 comments allowed per page, but I'm leaning towards upping that to 40 and having the comments in chronological order. For the occasional post that attracts more than 40 comments, people will have to live with having to click the 'last page' link to see the most recent comments.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Thu Nov 18, 2004  at  11:03 PM
I trust you, Alex, and the poll now shows overwhelmingly that most readers prefer the CHRON idea, as opposed to the REVERSECHRON mode, which was my preference. The latest tips were helpful, e.g.- clicking the "last page" - Thanks, Paul. Also, 40 comments per page would be cool, as long as the print font doesn't change.
Posted by stork  in  the spiracles of space  on  Fri Nov 19, 2004  at  12:45 AM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.