Approved comments by date submitted (EDT):
July 7: 263
July 8: 331
July 9: 399
Thanks for all your contributions.
It’s gone up like Obamacare numbers.
So, the numbers are about what you’d expect?
[…] Source: Steve Sailer […]
Commenting history is stupid. The info is not worth the ugliness and clutter on the page (especially on mobile).
Steve is at times a good writer, but why do all the approved comments have to be banal and superfluous? (I’m using the words banal and superfluous to get approved.)
Comments are now showing up in older (pre-switch?) posts, Steve.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/neal-stephensons-camp-of-the-sinners/ (click “Show Comment”)
To get comments for the latter post, you need the following URL, which produces a slightly different layout:
Thanks. What are the implications?
Sorry about sounding obtuse, but Ron’s putting all the new features in the commenting system, while I’m just concentrating on generating material to inspire comments. And I’m too old to quickly grasp new software systems. So, your comments, pro or con, on the new commenting feature are much appreciated by both me and Ron.
I would still love if I could get emails informing me of new comments without having to open (or worse, download) an app. As I promised I will get around to using these apps, but it might take some time. (Like, forever, or maybe a few months will suffice. I cannot know it. I’d need to put in some effort, and this could happen any time now, or maybe never.)
There is a great new feature: commenting history. I love it. I’d love it even more if didn’t start from oldest to newest, but rather the other way around.
There’s an error in my previous comment. “now” should have read “not,” so not getting comments on older posts was the problem. Curiously, the comments are indeed showing up now in posts old and new, so the erroneous comment turned out to be prophetic, and happily so.
Comments are closed.