After several days of getting confused, I realized that the comments were displaying with the most recent at the top, oldest at the bottom — which is the opposite of the way I was used to on the old blog.
So I switched it, to where the newest is at the bottom (at least, I think that’s what I did; I’m not fully at home with WordPress yet).
Please tell me which way y’all prefer it. I can adjust.
Related Posts
Newest first please.
I agree with Lassie the libertarian.
Newest first.
yes, newest
Agree, newest first.
How do I go about having a photo posted? Can I just e-mail you one?
Damn, I’m outvoted. I liked it the old way.
I like the newest-last model. Probably because it reads more like a book that way.
But post something about how to get a profile pic up, please!
Randy,
That’s not Lassie. That’s Fenway, our Golden Retriever. Full name: Edgecomb’s Fenway Frank.
Bud… to get a little photo to appear next to your name, visit http://www.Gravatar.com and create your profile using whatever email address you typically include in your posts. The photo will be picked up automatically from then on.
Thanks Doug! (Bet my Border Collie’s smarter than your Golden! ;-D)
The problem with newest-first is that if posters start posting back and forth to each other, it reads out of order. But if that’s not an issue, and the comments are many, then newest-first feels more “timely”. – imo
Oldest on top so I can scroll down–hit space bar even. I hate the other way. I get confused easily. I’m a top down thinker.
Automatically, I’m inclined to say newest first. Not sure why; maybe the familiarity with the effect of gravity on physical objects leads us to be accustomed to finding the latest leavings on the top of the pile…
I see that Travis Fields makes a good point about posters dialoguing with each other, which indicates an interesting and inviting aspect of the blog, whereby readers are involved not only with the blog, but with each other’s posted opinions, as well.
Regardless of the merit of Travis’ point, reading posts can be confusing either way, as comments traded between posters to the blog, and responded to by Brad are often separated by interspersions from yet OTHER posters, whose comments appear chronologically, but not always relevant to any development of the discussion between previous posters.
Which is to say that the blog sets up a protracted, disjointed conversation no matter which way the comments go, and if one is interested enough to participate, one will figure it out on the fly…
Upon reflection, despite my initial inclination, I vote for newest last, as such a way seems more chronologically sensible in that it conveys more precisely to the “online forum” the manner in which I was taught to assimilate written information.
I caught your latest Y’all (in boldface, no less) with a particular glee, after having read Kevin Fisher’s latest article in FT. I admit that it has always bothered me in exactly the way that Mr. Fisher expressed. Y’all just doesn’t seem to translate well to the written word, unless it’s as part of dialogue in a southern novel, so it did always throw me off…
Now, not so much. Especially if your thumb is (metaphorically) to your nose as you write it. It seems you’re freelance now, so I delight in your freedom to say whatever the hell you want to, in whichever manner you choose. Your blog has always been engaging in the past; it seems off to a great new start now.
I hope it all works out for Y’all.
Newest first, please. Oldest first is fine reading a whole conversation, chronologically, but most of the time one is more likely to just dive in to see what’s been said lately.