Two close votes and only one person has viewed the question?
How did this happen?
asked Apr 17, 2010 at 5:41
-
17Freehand drop shadows? What were you thinking?– balpha StaffModCommented Apr 17, 2010 at 5:53
-
1@balpha: I had to make up for the fact that I didn't know about freehand circles before..– Billy ONealCommented Apr 17, 2010 at 6:34
-
6I literally cracked up when I noticed the drop shadows!– EarlzCommented Apr 17, 2010 at 7:35
-
2+1 for freehand drop shadows, even though they were visibly added after the circles :D– PekkaCommented Apr 17, 2010 at 9:03
-
@Pekka: How else would you add them?– Billy ONealCommented Apr 18, 2010 at 3:07
-
@Billy by drawing the shadows first, and the circles on top of them.– PekkaCommented Apr 18, 2010 at 8:28
-
@Earlz: Haha, me too. And I very rarely actually laugh at stuff I see on the internet.– Lightness Races in OrbitCommented Jun 23, 2011 at 23:35
-
+1 cause I've noticed this, and also for the pluralization.– Andrew GrimmCommented Dec 28, 2011 at 1:26
-
The link to the image is broken.– JRNCommented Dec 28, 2017 at 4:46
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
Likely due to caching. Close-vote counts are probably not cached, since that information is extremely important and prone to change rapidly. This, however, is not the case with views which could be cached and updated in longer periods.
-
4Yet another reason why there should be a list somewhere of everything that is cached on the site :)– EarlzCommented Apr 17, 2010 at 7:35
Since other questions are being pointed here as dupes, I'll update this question. From a technical standpoint, this was a separate issue than we have currently with caching. Since this question, we greatly changed how ViewCount is stored/processed/updated.
Starting last night new questions are cached significantly less than old questions, the current rules are:
- A question under 10 minutes old will only cache its view count for 30 seconds
- A question over 10 minutes old will cache for 5 minutes (we have a lot of view counts to cache...)
This should improve the UI since a new question is where this caching is more apparent/strange looking.
Keep in mind this doesn't solve the issue, it just improves it. It would cause mass chaos to update the database on every view hit, so we collect a few before doing a batch update on each web server (30 on most sites, 300 on SO). It's still possible (mainly at slower times of the day) to see some mis-match like the above screen shot, due to those close voters having views in a buffer that hasn't got enough views to flush yet for example, or just the 30 second caching itself.
answered Feb 27, 2011 at 12:26
