Replies are being eaten?

[TDK]

I am 100% sure I replied to this thread:

https://community.st.com/t5/stm32-mcu-products/do-not-use-hal-spi-transmit-for-high-performance-dma-may-not-be/m-p/570578#M217483

As evidence, I am "subscribed" to it and get notified of new posts, which happens only if you reply, or if you click the subscribe button which I never do.

However, when I go to that page, I don't see my contribution anywhere in that thread. Am I missing something? Do replies get eaten occasionally?

@waclawek.jan Any ideas or similar experiences?

[TDK]

Thanks for the responses and trying to duplicate. The new forum certainly has some teething problems. At least the title-only posts have been eliminated, I guess?

I did notice at one point that I was logged out for no reason and had to log back in to make a post. Not sure what problem a login timeout would be trying to solve. Shrug.

[Krautermann]

I can confirm I am experiencing the same problem too. This needs to be fixed asap as people can think that their reply are not being recorded, making them post the same thing again and thus when the system is trying to avoid spam, it's creating unintentional spams from users.

[Lina_DABASINSKAITE]

Hello @TDK , 

I am sorry to hear about this! I have adjusted the timeout settings from 30min to 45min. Please let me know if you will face the issue again and on what circumstances. 

Thanks,
Lina

[TDK]

> I have adjusted the timeout settings from 30min to 45min.

What specifically is the reason for wanting people to log in every 45 minutes? The downside is obvious--extra work for users and posts occasionally being ignored when timed poorly--but what benefit does it provide?

[waclawek.jan]

45 *days* of *inactivity* timeout would be about adequate.

There is no reason whatsoever to log out from the forum for active users, the need to log in is a nag significantly reducing its usability.

JW

[Lina_DABASINSKAITE]

Hello @TDK  and @waclawek.jan , 

Thanks for your inputs. I get your frustration on this one. To limit the time of inactivity is advised for security reasons. Currently I can push it to the maximum of 200 minutes and investigate what is the next best possible extension.

BR,
Lina 

[waclawek.jan]

> To limit the time of inactivity is advised for security reasons.

Can please the person who told you this come here with arguments (hints: there are none).

JW

[Tesla DeLorean]

Eats resources at the server, perhaps impacts licensing costs, ie total users, concurrent users, "security" doesn't seem like a good one, this isn't a bank portal, the user is authenticated in relationship to a single browser and IP instance.. should be readily apparent if those things have changed.

The metrics for those online don't seem to match the volume of questions, or answers.

[Tesla DeLorean]

Currently I can push it to the maximum of 200 minutes and investigate what is the next best possible extension.

I'd say leave people who ask or answer questions on indefinitely until the status-quo changes, ie close browser, change systems. It's not clear why thousands of lurkers are even logged in, I'd have thought a look to the look, feel and visibility could have been handled with cookies.