IGNORED threads unavailable

I frequently mark threads "IGNORE" and then sometimes want to go back and look at them. Previously they have been at the bottom under the threads that I am not ignoring. Today, I ws at the 2021 ROOT Group and the only threads that are available to be are the active ones. I have no ignored threads below.

Is there something new going on?

This isn't a bug. You can find your ignored topics by going to the Talk page and opening up the More section in the left hand column.

It's been discussed somewhere else recently.

>2 jjwilson61: No, opening up all the ignored topics is not the same as being able to see the ignored topics from a single group.

I didn't say it was the same, but you can still find the ignored threads there even though they aren't broken out by group as you'd prefer.

why aren't they at the bottom? the help wiki says they are supposed to be at the bottom.

Because the developers decided in the redesign of the Talk pages to move them to their own location. It's pretty unintuitive to sort them to the bottom of each topic list.

>6 jjwilson61: I agree that having them all accessible in one place is handy, but I think they need to add the ability to filter by group and perhaps other factors.

>2 jjwilson61: tried what you said, but this won't work because there are just too many!! I can't sort by group so, in essence, I've lost all those threads. if I start and just use those I admin it is still pages and pages.

Why was this change made??"

>6 jjwilson61: what does that mean?

>6 jjwilson61: what gives you the right to close this issue when I'm not happy with the answers and still have questions?

I don't see you on the staff list for LT. Are you in this list?

Staff
Tim. Founder and Developer. timlibrarything.com
Abby. Librarian and head of LTFL. abbylibrarything.com
Kristi. Project Specialist. kristilibrarything.com
Chris H (CH). Director of UX and Developer. chrislibrarything.com
Chris C (CC). Librarian and Developer. ccatalfolibrarything.com
Kate. Librarian. katelibrarything.com
Lucy. Developer. lucylibrarything.com
Meg. Librarian. meglibrarything.com
Pedro. Systems Administrator. pessoalibrarything.com
Jeremy. Legacy Librarian jeremylibrarything.com

>2 jjwilson61: If this isn't a bug, do I have to contact Tim and tell him that the system is not working as it should? To me, that's a bug.

>11 cyderry: It is working as it should, just not the way you want it to.

See https://www.librarything.com/topic/328654#7413417 for an official LT response.

We used to be able to see the ignored topics both ways.

Taking a useful feature away seems like a bug to me.

>13 MarthaJeanne: A poor design choice isn't a bug. This would be better as an RSI.

>14 amanda4242: what is an RSI?

>15 cyderry: Recommended site improvement. There's a dedicated group for them where you can suggest changes you think will make the site better. There's no guarantee the recommendation will be taken up, but then there's no guarantee bugs will get fixed either.

https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/559/Recommend-Site-Improvements

Any member can close a bug - that's why there's a "closed by member" status.

The system is working as it should, which is why this is not a bug. Suggesting that the previous functionality be restored, or that one of the suggested workarounds like sorting ignored threads by group be implemented, would be a RSI.

The previous discussion, with Tim discussing why the behavior is as it is now, begins here:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/328654#7396791

In that thread conceptDawg was amenable to rethinking, because some members use ignore differently from how it was envisioned (which was as a "I don't want to see this topic" feature, where some people are using it as "I don't want to see this right now, but want to be able to easily find it later"). Chiming in there would be more useful than snarking at other members because they aren't staff.

>17 lorax: I wasn't being snarky. I want an answer to my problem, was trying to wait patiently and come back to find that the issue was closed without my knowing which meant to me I wasn't going to get an answer. Telling me it's not a bug is not an answer.

If the wiki says that the ignored threads are supposed to be at the bottom and they are not, that is a bug. Whether it is a correction that needs to be made to the wiki or to getting the threads at the bottom, the solution still needs to be made.

>18 cyderry: The answer is that things have been changed. The feature you want is no longer available. Ignored topics are functioning how they were designed, so it is not a bug. You and others would like the ability to sort and/or filter ignored topics, which is why I suggested an RSI.

>19 amanda4242: Can you tell me how I do that?

I've already wasted 4 hours trying to find a thread that before I could have found in 30 seconds or less. Please don't tell me I have to try to figure out how to do an RSI when I do9n't even know what that entails.

Please leave open until I get an answer that I'm satisfied with.

>20 cyderry: To make an RSI, go to the RSI group and start a thread with your suggestion. It's the same process as starting a thread in any group.

https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/559/Recommend-Site-Improvements

>21 cyderry: You are not going to get an answer which satisfies you because the feature you want is no longer available. That may be a bad design choice, but it is not a bug. I have updated the Wiki (which hadn't been updated in a decade, btw) to explain how ignored topics currently function.

>21 cyderry: This isn't a fix; but if you know what the topic of the thread was, you can search for it from the group page. Ignored threads are still findable via search.

ETA: you don't need to know the whole topic, maybe even a word or two from any of the posts in the thread.

>21 cyderry:

I'm sorry, cyderry, but because this is not a bug, the thread should remain close.

As as been stated, the fact that you do not like the way this works (and, believe, me you are not alone), does not make it a bug.

>22 amanda4242: Thank you for making the change so that the wiki now shows the correct information.

I appreciate the link to the RSI.

>25 cyderry: You're welcome. While there is much helpful information on the wiki pages, many of them are woefully out of date so they shouldn't be taken as gospel.

cyderry (#18)

I find it impossible to read the list of staff in #10, with the rhetorical "are you in this list?", as anything other than snark or perhaps just plain old rudeness.

A lack-of-feature, or even a feature that you liked that has been taken away, isn't a bug - believe me, I've been wishing for years that we still had the author nationality statistics in their original form, but you don't see me insisting that its absence is a bug.

To be fair, removal of part of a feature that then makes that feature unusable for someone does sound like it could be considered a bug. Especially if that feature is central to how you use LT, as it would for the admin of a group.

I think sometimes the definition of bug might be construed a bit too narrowly around here.