I wondered about linking the date column in PMUS to the thread. Then tye had a more broad suggestion, namely to add a thread link to all bracket links, which includes not only links in writeups and the chatterbox, but most links in infrastructure nodes too, so maybe we should implement that instead.

Meanwhile, unless you want to know or sort by node reputations, you can Super Search for your writeups and get links to the thread.

Update: I actually have a link in my Free Nodelet to Super Search filled out to search among my nodes, like tye suggests below. I don't use it as a replacement for Nodes You Wrote though, but as a starting point to search for some node I remember I wrote.

Using Super Search via the link you provided would be much more than "two clicks". But one can make it as easy as clicking Nodes you wrote by constructing a link for one's self like: ?node_id=3989;a=tye;go=1;as_user=tye.

If I click that link, I get shown a list of my own nodes. If anybody but me clicks it, they get a Super Search form pre-loaded so that if they click "Search" they will then get a list of my nodes. The as_user is required for a link to immediately perform the search in order to prevent, for example, search engine spiders from performing 'super searches' over and over.

LanX might like the following links: His nodes: ?node_id=3989;a=LanX;go=1;as_user=LanX, his root nodes ?node_id=3989;a=LanX;re=N;go=1;as_user=LanX, his non-SoPW nodes: ?node_id=3989;a=LanX;xs=1;Wi;go=1;as_user=LanX (since replies and SoPW nodes are, by far, the two biggest sources of chaff when that isn't what you were looking for).

But I can see reasons for still preferring to use my writeups. I look forward to seeing patches implementing a user setting that enables compact "parent" and "root" links for each id:// link or for adding very compact links to my writeups.

I like the idea of doing the links like "Re^2: Subject" where "Re" links to the parent and the depth indicator links to the root node and "Subject" is the node title with the "Re^$N: " removed. If a node's title doesn't match /^Re(^\d+)?: /, then "Re^?:" could be prepended to the full node title.

For id://...|text links, we probably just shouldn't add the extra links since such didn't previously query information about the IDed node.

- tye        

Thx!

Just three questions:

> ...His nodes: ?node_id=3989;a=LanX;go=1;as_user=LanX,

How can I change this query to see the newest nodes descending instead of the oldest ascending?

> like "Re^2: Subject" where "Re" links to the parent and the depth indicator links to the root node

Wouldn't it be better to stay consistent with the interface of RAT where (P) stands for the parent node?

For instance I find it confusing in the UserSearch that clicking on "Re:SoPW" leads to the parent node! (and clicking "SoPW" for a root node produces an "Permission Denied" of a superdoc).

You could chose ^(P)(T) to enrich [by://] links, like that

Re^2: Extending "Nodes you wrote" (one-click SS)^(P)(T)

And please also consider Parent/Root-links for voteviews:

http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=708738;displaytype=voteview.

Cheers Rolf

I want that for a long time and I never got the tips to work that were suggested when I asked that question back in June 2007.

+5

After following a link from the Nodes You Wrote listing, I almost always then use the in thread link; I rarely use the in reply to link.

I'm not too worried about having to click a second time; however, during busy periods the double delay of loading two separate pages can be a mild annoyance.

So, having a link to the thread would be useful to me; I'd get very little use out of a link to the parent.

I see two main items to consider with respect to this request:

1. Using the default display of 50 lines, would the generation of an additional 100 links incur a greater delay than is currently being experienced (which probably directly equates to the effect this might have on server load).
2. While it may look like two extra columns would fit in the table, others using smaller screens or larger text may view this differently. Have a look at the recent discussion Could we lose (or turn off)the sidebar during preview? where this topic was raised.