Tends to be true of all public sites on the web.
This very much is not your typical "public site" (in the sense that most posts are anonymous).
A simple search should prove that:
Since 1 April 2019:
* Anonymous Monk 70
* Everyone Else: ~1000 (I lost count there somewhere)
-QM
--
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
This very much is not your typical "public site" (in the sense that most posts are anonymous). The claim was about traffic, in the context of readability, not who posts. Do you really think that less anons than logged in users read this site? That seems unlikely given the handful of active monks vs billions of people online.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
> The claim was about traffic
Casual readers come via search engines and are normally directed to sub threads and not to the root node. They are looking for a special answer and won't read a whole thread but rather skip to the next search hit.
Those people want best-first ordering and most sub threads are short and/or linear chains.
And they will face other problems anyway, Google often links to other displaytype like print or xml nodes here.
Your complaints would only make sense for regular readers who understand the tree topology here and want to follow a thread chronologically.
But those will already know how to log in.
Your claims sound far fetched and unfunded.
I'm not against a more intuitive and interactive design, but "best first" is not the most urgent problem.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |