The Deathlist Howto

[harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy 1,689]

The list is set by a selection committee which includes a person (or maybe it's persons) present when the original list was put together at Warwick University back in the mid 1980's. I wasn't there at the onset, but have since managed to weasel my way on to the committee.

 

I was there at the onset, but have since managed to weasel my way off the committee.

 

Welshman was there at the onset, and is a weasel.

[CarolAnn 926]

The 0 year was back when the selection process was far less scientific, people just picked candidates because they seemed like a good fun choice, not necessarily because they were likely to die. "Frank Bruno - killed by punch" is an example of the early qualifying criteria used.

 

You have just succinctly explained my criteria for my lists. I thank you.

[themaninblack 2,112]

OK, here are my questions:

How does this year compare to others? Is 12/50 a good figure? Which year had the highest score? And the lowest?

When is the new list announced?

See the front page.

 

Here.

Thanks a lot! That was really interesting. So this is one of the best years ever... I can't believe there was a year with a score of 0!!

Can't wait for next years list. So who puts it together? The mods? Is there somebody with the last word if there is a disagreement? Sorry if these are really obvious questions...

 

For some reason if you look over the previous years there's a mention of 10 hits being a record that is equalled but when I look at the years before that the most I can see is 9. Where is the phantom 10th hit?

[Dia de los Muertos 7]

Thanks all, that all makes sense :-)

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

For some reason if you look over the previous years there's a mention of 10 hits being a record that is equalled but when I look at the years before that the most I can see is 9. Where is the phantom 10th hit?

 

In 2003 we got 14, which looks like it will remain the record.

[themaninblack 2,112]

Here are the tallies for each year:

 

1987: 1/31

1988: ?

1989: 3/32

1990: 3/42

1991: 0/40

1992: 5/37

1993: 5/56

1994: 9/50

1995: 9/50

1996: 7/50

1997: 9/10 (this is where there's a reference to 10/50 'record')

1998: 8/50

1999: 10/50 (refers to 'equalling' the record)

2000: 10/50

2001: 10/50

2002: 10/50

2003: 14/50

2004: 12/50

2005: 12/50

2006: 13/50

2007: 10/50

2008: 12/50 (so far...)

 

So where is the mystery '10th' hit? It's either 1994 or 1995...or maybe there wasn't and so there needs to be an adjustment in the history.

[Dia de los Muertos 7]

And the new one is out tomorrow? How exciting!!

[themaninblack 2,112]

2008 is incidentially the first year in which the top 3 positions were correctly guessed.

 

2008 was also a more evenly spread year for deaths, whereas 2003 had bursts in the middle of the year...

[Lard Bazaar 3,799]

Right, techno-anoraks, I have a problem that I don't know how to fix.

 

I have created a main folder to keep my music in. This folder has sub-folders. When I am trying move things from the sub-folders to the main folder, it says I don't have permission. I am the only user on this laptop, and my user account is as an administrator. I have disabled the User Account controls and it still won't let me rename the folders. I have checked the permissions for the main folder and I have full controls. Being a PC-oaf, I don't know what to try next. Does anyone have any ideas?

 

Thanks in advance

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

Right, techno-anoraks, I have a problem that I don't know how to fix.

 

I have created a main folder to keep my music in. This folder has sub-folders. When I am trying move things from the sub-folders to the main folder, it says I don't have permission. I am the only user on this laptop, and my user account is as an administrator. I have disabled the User Account controls and it still won't let me rename the folders. I have checked the permissions for the main folder and I have full controls. Being a PC-oaf, I don't know what to try next. Does anyone have any ideas?

 

Thanks in advance

[Canadian Paul 97]

What ever happened to us being able to visit anonymously? I had that setting on "on" for the longest time, and now I'm visible again and can't seem to figure out how to turn it back on again.

[Vaagheid 141]

edit:

 

removed

[Canadian Paul 97]

What ever happened to us being able to visit anonymously? I had that setting on "on" for the longest time, and now I'm visible again and can't seem to figure out how to turn it back on again.

 

log out.

 

You'l get the invisible option when you log in again

 

Sweet, thanks! It worked on my other forum too.

[TAFKAG 70]

This has probably already been posted but you know how useless the search facility is...

Christopher Cazenove fights for life after collapsing at home

I beg to differ; the search facility is fine if people would just take a few seconds to learn how to use it. Click 'search', then 'more search options' below it, type '+christopher +cazenove' in the resulting field, and you'll discover that you are the first person to ever mention him in 140,000+ posts.

 

The only drawback is that it doesn't recognise three-letter words, so tracking down posts about the likes of Liz Smith is a bit of a problem.

[Monoclinic 39]

This has probably already been posted but you know how useless the search facility is...

Christopher Cazenove fights for life after collapsing at home

I beg to differ; the search facility is fine if people would just take a few seconds to learn how to use it. Click 'search', then 'more search options' below it, type '+christopher +cazenove' in the resulting field, and you'll discover that you are the first person to ever mention him in 140,000+ posts.

 

The only drawback is that it doesn't recognise three-letter words, so tracking down posts about the likes of Liz Smith is a bit of a problem.

 

Another drawback is you cannot instantly do another search. So when you call up all the possible threads that contain the name you search (which in turn assumes that all names have been spelt correctly, no aliases used or one line puns with no reference to said name) you can't then search within that thread for your name unless you twiddle your thumbs for 30 seconds. Then going back to the original list you have to click several times to fool the computer.

 

Cutting the waffle, I'm with VT, the programming isn't great re. timing. Then beggars and choosers and all that.

[TAFKAG 70]

This has probably already been posted but you know how useless the search facility is...

Christopher Cazenove fights for life after collapsing at home

I beg to differ; the search facility is fine if people would just take a few seconds to learn how to use it. Click 'search', then 'more search options' below it, type '+christopher +cazenove' in the resulting field, and you'll discover that you are the first person to ever mention him in 140,000+ posts.

 

The only drawback is that it doesn't recognise three-letter words, so tracking down posts about the likes of Liz Smith is a bit of a problem.

 

Another drawback is you cannot instantly do another search. So when you call up all the possible threads that contain the name you search (which in turn assumes that all names have been spelt correctly, no aliases used or one line puns with no reference to said name) you can't then search within that thread for your name unless you twiddle your thumbs for 30 seconds. Then going back to the original list you have to click several times to fool the computer.

 

Cutting the waffle, I'm with VT, the programming isn't great re. timing. Then beggars and choosers and all that.

To continue this infinitely fascinating discussion, if you use the previously suggested method you are given all the individual posts in date order, not the threads themselves. No twiddling necessary. I suppose that if even rocket scientists can't get it to work, there's little hope for the rest of us.

 

If you only want to search within a thread, then maybe that is shit. I've not found the need to try.

[Monoclinic 39]

The search function is the dog's bollocks. The search function is bollocks.

 

Previous futile conversation abridged. Subsequent futile conversation padded out to ubertedium.

 

Granted, the way you use the search function does list the posts individually, which if you are searching for a random obscure peleb then it's not going to have many hits. Trying Clive Dunn however is a different story. Which is why I like to see the threads first as it might jog my memory when trying to find a specific post and can eliminate some of the hits if I don't think what I'm looking for will be in that thread.

 

 

After performing the search there is a need to wade through heaps and heaps of our crap

 

 

So from the top, I pick a topic...

 

 

Entering in the same search in the first thread I then meet Mr Flood control...

 

 

And that is why I find problems with the function.

 

Everyone else can wake up now.

[time 8,602]

The search function is the dog's bollocks. The search function is bollocks.

 

Previous futile conversation abridged. Subsequent futile conversation padded out to ubertedium.

 

Granted, the way you use the search function does list the posts individually, which if you are searching for a random obscure peleb then it's not going to have many hits. Trying Clive Dunn however is a different story. Which is why I like to see the threads first as it might jog my memory when trying to find a specific post and can eliminate some of the hits if I don't think what I'm looking for will be in that thread.

 

 

After performing the search there is a need to wade through heaps and heaps of our crap

 

(snip)

 

So from the top, I pick a topic...

 

(snip)

 

Entering in the same search in the first thread I then meet Mr Flood control...

 

(snip)

And that is why I find problems with the function.

 

Everyone else can wake up now.

 

When I get to the 'Search Options' screen, I click the 'Show Results as Posts' radio button, bottom right; this gives the actual posts, rather than just the topic title. There's even more heaps of pages of results, but as they're in reverse date order (i.e newest first) and I can usually eliminate anything prior a certain date, I generally find it easier than just looking at post titles, thinking 'it might be in there'.

 

It still won't let me look for Liz Smith however.

[Paul Bearer 6,102]

How the hell do you know what your first post was?

Edited August 24, 2010 by Magere Hein
Post moved from topic "Is The Deathlist Dying?"

[Tomb raider 9]

How the hell do you know what your first post was?

 

How the hell do people remember where they were when Kennedy was shot...?

 

 

 

(Though I must admit that I've no recollection of my first post either...)

[Magere Hein 1,400]

How the hell do you know what your first post was?

Aha, a HOWTO question.

1. Click the link in the upper right corner labeled "Search"
   
2. Click the link in the drop-down box labeled "More Search Options"
   
3. Click button labeled "More options"
   
4. In the edit box labelel " Filter by Member Name (optional)", fill in your member name
   
5. In the listbox labeled "Sort results by... " keep value to "Last Posting Date"
   
6. In the listbox labeled "Sort results by... " select radio button labeled "ascending order"
   
7. In the panel labeled "Result Type" select radio button labeled "Show results as posts"
   
8. Click the button labeled "Perform the search"
   

Which returns your maiden post as the one on top.

 

regards,

Hein

[Paul Bearer 6,102]

How the hell do you know what your first post was?

Aha, a HOWTO question.

1. Click the link in the upper right corner labeled "Search"
   
2. Click the link in the drop-down box labeled "More Search Options"
   
3. Click button labeled "More options"
   
4. In the edit box labelel " Filter by Member Name (optional)", fill in your member name
   
5. In the listbox labeled "Sort results by... " keep value to "Last Posting Date"
   
6. In the listbox labeled "Sort results by... " select radio button labeled "ascending order"
   
7. In the panel labeled "Result Type" select radio button labeled "Show results as posts"
   
8. Click the button labeled "Perform the search"
   

Which returns your maiden post as the one on top.

 

regards,

Hein

 

Thanks Hein.

[harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy 1,689]

Is it just me or do the 'find members' topics' and 'find members' posts' functions no longer work? To spare us post/thread-whores embarrassment, perhaps.

[Dia de los Muertos 7]

Hey guys, is there a way to block a user so that I don't have to read his posts?

[Magere Hein 1,400]

Hey guys, is there a way to block a user so that I don't have to read his posts?

Yes, there is:

1. In the left part of a post by the user you rather not see, click his or her name. You'll get a menu like:
    
   
    
   Click "View member profile"
    
   
2. You'll see his or her profile. In the left part of it, click options. You'll see another menu like this:
    
   
    
   Click "Ignore User"
    
   
3. After this you'll get to see a list of all users you're already ignoring:
    
   
    
   Click the button labelled "Update Ignored Users", and you've added the suspect to your ignore list.
   

 

HTH,

Hein