Linking theory states that as users request nodes from the database, they'll create interconnections. If a soft link exists, the user may follow it to the destination, strengthening it. Links that aren't followed will eventually disappear.

It's not as useful on PM as it is on E2, but it could help things out.

No!

The lastnode_id isn't intended just for that... someone as smart as vroom wouldn't be jamming all the links with that param, so that you know what's the current node you're in... AFAIK, it's intended to keep track of the navigation flow inside the website..

This is used for keeping track of how the user goes from node to node, and then the webmaster can fix the navigation system, based on the data he about how users navigate.

No! this should stay...

I'm with chady; we need lastnode_id, for it's the only way to quickly determine the value to give an [id://] link. While some have previously suggested that the node id should be printed as part of the text of a node, that hasn't happened (and doesn't look like it's going to happen).

Yes, we can link to other nodes using titles, however, given the number of duplicate titles in the archives, lastnode_id is arguably the best tool we currently have for being specific in out links to other nodes.

I realize you suggested this as an option, but I'm pretty sure the value would have to appear somewhere in the content anyway. Perhaps one way to implement it might be to have that option decide whether the value appears in the query line or as a hidden field. but that just shuffles things around. So, I really don't see any benefit. It's still there and you're still downloading it.

Personally, I haven't had much of a problem tracking nodes that I've already seen. Sure, I've re-read certain ones, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I would imagine, though, that one of these would offer some ways to help you track your visits to the Monastery more specifically.

--f