Weird, has this ever happened?

[Guest]

I just had an April 2005 story, Never Say Goodbye, that I edited post as NEW today. What happened? Has this ever happed to you? Of course the H the story already had transferred as well and is now being pummeled.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

No, it hasn't happened to me. Though I wanted it to when I edited one story, but it didn't. It stayed old.

 

[Liar]

A hiccup in the system, I guess.

Although, like Thee, it's a hiccup that I would welcome. The only time anybody read my stories is when they are on the new list...

 

[rgraham666]

I was just noticing that, neo. I opened the story and knew I'd read it before.

Weird.

 

[Trombonus]

No, it hasn't happened to me. Though I wanted it to when I edited one story, but it didn't. It stayed old.

Likewise. In fact I've got an edit waiting in the wings as we speak.

 

[Guest]

Thanks all.

Then, I think I shouldn't wonder much about the "new again" old story is on the New Stories page— H beat-down or not, at least it's being read.

 

[Weird Harold]

I just had an April 2005 story, Never Say Goodbye, that I edited post as NEW today. What happened?

I'd guess it's a typo in the process of approving your revised version. I don't know how "NEW" status is flagged exactly -- there are several diferent ways it could be programmed --but the flag should have been turned off when your revision was approved for posting.

If the NEW flag is a simple True/False Boolean, it would also be possible for it to change because of a glitch on the server's drive that put random information in that particular byte, but It's far more likely to be just a missed step in the approval process.

 

[Darkniciad]

I'd guess it's a typo in the process of approving your revised version. I don't know how "NEW" status is flagged exactly -- there are several diferent ways it could be programmed --but the flag should have been turned off when your revision was approved for posting.

If the NEW flag is a simple True/False Boolean, it would also be possible for it to change because of a glitch on the server's drive that put random information in that particular byte, but It's far more likely to be just a missed step in the approval process.

That's my thoughts, missed step, because the default would be "new" in order to speed things up, one less click. Although that does lend itself toward glitches as well, because the error traps would likely interpret any unrecognized information as the same default of "new".

 

[Weird Harold]

That's my thoughts, missed step, because the default would be "new" in order to speed things up, one less click. Although that does lend itself toward glitches as well, because the error traps would likely interpret any unrecognized information as the same default of "new".

It' not even a question of "error-traps" if it's boolean flag. Byte sized Boolean True false flags are defined as Zero and NOT-Zero. Officially &HFF or "-1" is the value for TRUE but at the most basic machine laguage of execution, the test is amost always "IF Flag == 0 THEN Process as FALSE, ELSE process as TRUE" and no code is wasted on determining the actual value of "Flag."