"Recently visited" on the individual page adopts a rather strange approach!
I ticked 5 visits and, less than 1 minute later, added a 6th which I had forgotten to tick - but only the latter appears as "recently visited" with date and time added. Surely all "recently visited" going back e.g 1 month should appear rather than simply the last "update"? Or alternatively the last "n"

It indeed is the last update. We have the data for last "n" as well of course, but never yet gotten to implementing it.

Have now changed it as well at this website, the UNESCO one has done so also. Eswatini it is!

Happy to report that since the upgrade there are nearly quota errors with google. Let's see when mapbox will complain, but for the time being we should be okay.

Having done a review one is offered the choice of "edit" or "view".
It was very useful to be able to "view" the review immediately to check formatting BEFORE it got published
"View" doesn't now seem to work - presumably until the review is published "n" days later - or is it across some re-caching period - either way it is less good than it used to be!

Another issue is that the drop down list to select a T List site (but not the drop down list for WHS) to review extends beyond the RHS of the display - the up/down scrolling can still be reached of course by scrolling right but why is the drop down page so unnecessarily wide - loads of empty space so it doesn't need to be?

just tested it myself from both the editor as well as your summary screen:
* edit works fine.
* summary works fine.

however, you need to >>save<< first. you cannot view an unsaved entry.

regarding twhs i cannot reproduce either. i think you are using the wrong scroll bar. but ... you shouldn't be scrolling at all. there is a search field at the top and a few letters should already get you to the relevant site.

Yes - of course I had saved. The "saved version" is there to edit in "edit format" but NOT to view in proper layout format as used to be the case!


The trouble with "searching" is knowing the exact title of a site e.g "The Naletale Cluster of Dzimbabwes" - and spelling it correctly. It can be a lot easier just to scroll down to Z for Zimbabwe and choose 1 of the 2 T list entries - or at least it "used to be"! If people aren't supposed to choose from the drop down then why have it?

I do have the same issue with some reviews, Nan, from the Pending Reviews list in my admin screen.


You do not need to know the exact title, just "zim" would have taken you there.

Actually my "pending review" has now appeared in view format (a couple of hours after I first saved it) - so it seems that it is a "caching" delay.
It used to be the case that one could do an edit and save and see the result straight away. At least if one "knows" that one doesn't have to await "publication" before seeing what it looks like then one can act accordingly

Caching should be off when previewing a review. Will check. And can confirm that it's not working as intended.

The dropdown select will be configured to a max width. Need to check what to do.

TWHS preview is fixed. Was only applicable to TWHS without reviews yet.

Have just discovered that it is a bit too "easy" to alter a previous rating when using a mobile with its "squeezed" layout - the problem doesn't arise when scrolling on a PC or even a tablet
Was looking at Jakob Frenzel's review of Saltaire . I am "logged on" automatically and, scrolling through, I accidentally touched my rating stars and completely removed them. It was only that which alerted me - I could just as easily have added/removed some !!! It could be partly because I am left handed - all web sites are designed for right hand scrolling. But it does seem a bit too easy to to remove/add stars without knowing it.
I know that reducing the number of "steps" to make a rating is a good objective - especially of benefit to those (new members now?) making an initial rating of a lot of sites but perhaps a confirmation step should be added ?

Any idea how to show a review is for a "tentative" site better when the site is later inscribed? Surely the reader would identify if it it is mentioned but the unknown site boundaries at the time of the review this would be a useful identifier.

Left handed, too. And same thing happened to me, too. Will put a checkbox to freeze a user rating, so you have to click twice going forward, at least when you load an existing score.


Technically none of those ratings are moved from TWHS to WHS automatically (if I recall correctly). Els can migrate them. But normally its up to each user to migrate / revise the review on inscription. I would argue an unrevised review may not be as helpful. But discuss with Els.

In the past Els has moved reviews when a T List site became inscribed - i.e usually during the WHC! I have a fair number and have never moved them myself!! Some reviews are of course done just a few days before the WHC so as to "catch the wave""
I don't change the review either - it is as it was when I did it - it would be like trying to rewrite history to change it!!. E.g Kujaata was reviewed by me in Jul 2010 and, in the text I consider its chances of inscription etc.
It is up to reviewers really to make clear when they visited and reviewed - though I know that some early reviews I did around 15 years ago don't have either a "system date" (which was only added later) OR a clear date of visit since I wasn't thinking "long term" in those days.