Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Avatar God

Member Since 21 Mar 2003
Offline Last Active Jun 16 2011 06:10 AM

Topics I've Started

Filtering Sub-threshold OPs

21 February 2008 - 02:10 PM

Another strange point with the filter system. Threads created by sub-threshold users show up, but are blank if there are no replies. Okay, but then when replies start showing up, you get this (that isn't the OP at the top there, btw). I'm still a fan of my previous suggestions (a placeholder that 'minimizes' the missing post), but I realize that's a little bit of a hassle. Still, something to clue us rating-elitist jerks in would be cool.

Quick Rating Threshold Note

14 December 2007 - 03:06 PM

Just FYI, with a user threshold on (in my case, solely to block out 0 ratings), you still get stuck reading the 0-rated user-posts on the Post Reply pages. It's a little confusing at times, but mostly I don't see any reason for them to appear there. Not a big deal, but I'd never noticed this before, or seen anyone mention it (and I assume mods and staff don't turn on the rating thresholds).

Tracked Topics

10 October 2007 - 09:36 PM

I hate to post a whole new thread when I know there's a perfectly good one farther down the page, but I can't load it (not GDev's fault - don't worry). So, besides the naming conventions (see, I can at least link to it), I would love for the Tracked Topics/Bookmarks page to tell me who the last poster is in a given thread. Currently, I'm only given the time and date - and I'm often more concerned with the who rather than the when of the last post. Regular forum pages list both the time and poster, so I suppose this bothers me both in terms of usability (a bit) and conformity (just a little). Anyway, I would hope the code is reusable and a somewhat easy fix.
Forum: September 28, 2007 5:22:59 AM by Gaiiden Bookmarks: October 11, 2007 3:32:48 AM
Yeah, I know there's a giant green folder if the thread has a new post, but I may not want to go look at the thread if the last post was by, say, vipejc.

Proposed changes to rating threshold system

08 October 2007 - 02:41 AM

The "Can we ban..." thread reminded me of an old issue that was never solved to my liking: the rating threshold. Besides confusing the occasional user, anecdotal evidence suggests that many or most users don't activate this setting - Why? The current system: - Allows you to completely ignore posts by users below a certain rating. - Relies heavily on the effectiveness of the rating system. Problems and limitations of the current system: - There is nothing to clue you in that you're missing a post. - You may forget that you have a threshold set. - You ignore posts that you would like to see (posters you like under your threshold). - You don't ignore posts you would rather not see (idiot posters over your threshold). - The rating system does not necessarily reflect the posts you want to read. As a result, most of us see the best choice as one that doesn't use the threshold system at all. Now, we can't ignore posts on an individual basis because we don't have the AI to guess which post is too stupid be seen by the general public. But that does not mean that the rating system is the next most specific solution. Proposed solution: - Allow users to ignore specific posters with an easy link written on every post and in the profile. - Show ignored posts as minimized boxes with the ignored poster's username, and include a maximize button that will easily show the entire post. Also include a 'Stop ignoring this poster' link. This allows a user to see that an ignored post exists, to read it if it seems important, and to easily un-ignore the poster if merited. - Keep a list of ignored posters in the user's control panel, again with links to 'Stop ignoring this poster.' It appears to be a less clumsy, more targeted system. Thus, I could largely ignore a few of the more idiotic users while retaining the joys of RSC_x, but with a quick, simple option to read a given ignored post if people keep referring to it as useful. So. Is this workable? Do you have different suggestions to improve the rating threshold system? Do you have suggestions to improve the proposed system? Have I left anything blatantly, stupidly obvious out of my quick analysis? Do you like the proposed system?

Gamedev = Google?

24 September 2007 - 08:14 AM

Did someone just forward Gamedev to Google/ncr? Because that was really strange (I had to check that it wasn't April 1st, even). But it seems equally odd that it would only have happened to me.