Re: [Pan-users] Scoring broken?

[Per Hedeland]

I filed a bug for this - 427471.

--Per

Per Hedeland <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>Richard Gold <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>Per Hedeland wrote:
>>> I think I've seen some messages about scoring problems, but I didn't pay
>>> much attention since I don't use it much - I do however use it
>>> occasionaly for "kill file" functionality, i.e. set some authors to
>>> -9999 in the hope of not seeing their posts. This definitely doesn't
>>> work right in current versions (checked in 0.125 and 0.126) - when I
>>> enter a group with no unread articles, the -9999 articles are included
>>> in the header pane even though I don't have "Match Scores of -9999"
>>> ticked in View -> Header Pane - the Score column is empty for those
>>> posts.
>>>
>>> If I actually select one of those articles, the -9999 appears in the
>>> Score column, but that's a bit late... (And if I try to "Ignore Author"
>>> it, Pan kindly informs me that I already have a matching entry...) If I
>>> exit and restart Pan at that point, the articles are gone when I enter
>>> the group. So, it seems scoring isn't applied to newly-fetched articles,
>>> only to those already "present" when you enter a group.
>
>>My workaround is retrieve headers, exit pan, restart, and then the 
>>filtered articles are no longer there.
>
>That will work (if you don't have "Get new headers when entering group"
>on - of course I do...), but it's obviously an absurd thing to have to
>do.
>
>>I would also like to see a button, menu command, or keystroke 
>>combination to "apply filters now".
>
>Hm, there is an "add and rescore" button when you add a score entry, and
>changing the settings under View -> Header Pane seems to take effect
>immediately - other than that, I don't know when such a button/whatever
>would be needed - if scoring worked as it should. If I remember right,
>in old-pan "Get New Headers in Selected Group" would also (re-)apply
>filtering to the already gotten headers, it doesn't now, and I don't
>really think that it should - but maybe it's somewhere in that area that
>the scoring of new articles got lost?
>
>--Per Hedeland