http://www.idkfa.com/v3 idkfa: syndicated http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=4036&msg_id=4083 I fixed a bug with the un-reader that would try to update a boundary after it had been marked for deletion. Sorry if this caused issues for people. Please feel free to report if you have errors on these features. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) idkfa Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:08:12 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=4036&msg_id=4083 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=4036&msg_id=4036 SPDCA: The other direction. I convinced myself that idkfa needed to have an "unread" feature. That is to say: after I spend incredible amounts of time getting the "read" part right, I felt I might find value in going the opposite direction. So now, instead of a "speedreading" feature, we also have a "un-reading" feature for marking certain posts as unread. Like the speedreader, it's plugged into the search feature. Basically: search to find a data set you're happy with, whether it be an item, a thread (one of the icon links, if you're interested), a single post, etc., you can choose to mark it as read (speedreading) or unread (un-reading). This helps me in a few ways: When I want to test this feature, I can now un-read without having to go into the database. If you want to save something for later, you can mark it as unread. If you did a "speedread," but mistakenly marked something as read when you didn't want to, you can undo your mistake. I realize this probably isn't an absolutely necessary feature. But it makes the seen/unseen mechanism more complete, and gives you control over it to make it conform to the way you want to read a post. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) idkfa Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:42:34 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=4036&msg_id=4036