# What Does Everyone Think About The New Site Layout?

This topic is 2480 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

No one is suggesting that the community be completely self moderated, however at the same time I maintain that the community should be able to indicate to someone that they are stepping outside of what the community wants.

If only there were a way for people to tell people that they were carrying themselves poorly. Perhaps this feature could be implemented in such a way that the thing that offended them could be included in how the offenders are told so they know specifically what was said. Perhaps there could even be a link to the original post in that so they can go back and look in context. To make sure they really feel the impact you could make it visible to the whole community. It should of course be closely tied somehow, perhaps it could exist in the same thread as the original post.

If only there were some way to have this sort of functionality in the new system!

The old rating system was brought in towards the start of 2005, some years before you joined it would seem, and I recall a very quick improvement in the overall quality of the forums as suddenly both positive and negative actions had some form of recourse from the community. This was a good thing, this has now been removed. As a student of human nature this worries me frankly.
[/quote]
Again it comes down to what you want the reputation to signify. Do you want it to be a number to stick on how agreeable and popular you are, which no person past high school should care about, or do you want a number that signifies how helpful or technically inclined you are, which isn't well served by negative feedback outside of moderation in extreme situations.

##### Share on other sites

It said quite plainly in the "rate this user" dialogue what it meant. I am sorry that so many people don't read the dialogue before clicking it or assume that it means something that it isn't meant to.

You're right. It very clearly said something along the lines of "helpful or friendly" which is not, at all, just the "technical competence" that you have mentioned.

Overall, I basically agree with MikeP. While I do like the concept of rating posts rather than users, I feel like not being able to rate posts DOWN is, overall, a detriment to the community in my opinion.

##### Share on other sites
Having had a couple days to think about it, reading the rationale behind some of it, and with the UI tweaks, I think I can now change to 'Do Want'. Tenatively.

Tuppence on ratings: whilst I like the idea of being able to search for highly rated posts, and can see why that would be useful alone, I think there is utility in being able to downvote a post to indicate to other users (the asker, people coming via search engines) anything that's inaccurate rather than simply not so very helpful that it gets rated up from 0 - a sort of floor effect.

##### Share on other sites
It makes me sad to see that haters won't be able to rate down anyone anymore when they feel uncomfortable with someone else's opinion.

##### Share on other sites
Frankly I couldn't care less about whether or not post votes influence reputation, but the inability to vote stuff down is stupid. At the very least you should be able to correct your own mistakes or change your damn mind.

##### Share on other sites
Also apparently there are quotas to how many upvotes you can do in a day, since I just ran into mine. I didn't even vote that many posts. What the heck is up with that?

##### Share on other sites
It feels more cluttered than the old system.

Would like less information being available by default. Post headings are enough for me, if the poster don't make good headings then bugger em.

##### Share on other sites

The largest problem with the old system is that people were using the ratings as a disagree button, as an indicator of helpfulness/technical knowledge, and as an attitude meter. Having three very loosely related things tied to a single number makes it impossible to know why someone has a low rating. If people were in some way held accountable for why they rated someone down then the rating system would be better.

I never used it like that. I only rated people down who were being legitimate buttheads.

##### Share on other sites

Also apparently there are quotas to how many upvotes you can do in a day, since I just ran into mine. I didn't even vote that many posts. What the heck is up with that?

Have not been able to dig up this setting in the ACP at all. How many votes did it say you did? Or if it didn't tell you how many would you say you've done (best guess if you can't be precise)

##### Share on other sites
The way I saw it (okay, I'm not an old member) the people were rated more because of their style, not the actual content (I'm talking about rating in the lounge). Ant that is an important thing IMHO. Posts on gamedev always seemed so professional. The kthxby shit only comes from newbies and disappears quickly. So as poorly formatted posts and trolling.

The only time I was rated down was because of my style, not my opinion. I had crazy/stupid opinions, but I wasn't rated down. I was a harsh prick, I got rated down. Trolling gets rated down most of the times. Okay, I'm not one of the old guys, but I always experienced that.

I only rated down people if they deserved it: being an idiot troll (no matter of their opinions: shit, mine changes all the time!).
Or being lazy helpless "give me code" "I have no idea to solve it" type people, and only if they don't change (there are some helpless guys who flood the forums will tons of trivial questions. I rate them down, they are not helping others just asking for help from others)

And yes, I want my 1428 back, it looks damn good.

##### Share on other sites

Have not been able to dig up this setting in the ACP at all. How many votes did it say you did? Or if it didn't tell you how many would you say you've done (best guess if you can't be precise)

10 I think he mentioned on IRC.

##### Share on other sites

Another question. Are the contests gone?

Just realized this was never answered I don't think. Like many things, they are gone for a while but will come back as we continue to work on the site. It's also more a question of having someone to take charge of them more than it is infrastructure,

Overall I like the new layout. However, I think the forum posts would look much better without the dark lines between them. Please see the following image to see what I mean:

I just went back to the old site for a look and the post seperator bar is almost twice the size there than it is here, so it's already an improvement. We need demarcation between posts. Running them all together isn't going to make things easier to read.

##### Share on other sites
I ask again, maybe I'm wrong, but is the line-spacing bigger than the old one? Something between 1 and 1.5 (units in Office Word).

##### Share on other sites
[attachment=966:text spacing.png]
New forums on the left, old on the right. IMO the difference is there but negligible

##### Share on other sites
[attachment=967:text spacing.png]
left:old, right new.

Maybe it's just details, but the new is approximately 10/9 times more spacey. And that does count I think.

EDIT: Sorry, i wanted to edit the post, not to post a new one.

##### Share on other sites

...approximately 10/9 times...

No idea what this means, but I still don't see any appreciable difference

Don't forget that failing to convince me doesn't mean I won't be outvoted by the rest of the staff, but IMO this text-spacing thing is not an issue worth any attention

##### Share on other sites

No idea what this means, but I still don't see any appreciable difference

10% increase in the size per line. Left side seems to contain 11 newlines compared to the right's 10 in the same space, despite using fonts of apparently identical height (although differing wideness). Wouldn't hurt to bump it down a bit... you've currently got:

ipb_styles.css:2678
.post_body { margin-left: 235px; line-height: 100%; } .post_block.no_sidebar .post_body { margin-left: 0px; } .post_body .post { margin-top: 3px; padding: 10px; line-height: 150%; /* <--- chrome says this is being matched, and it looks bloody ugly */ } 

The intertubes tells me browsers default to 110-120%, and I wouldn't mind it as low as 100% with this font. A preview (current 150% vs 100%):

##### Share on other sites
Plus the current font looks smaller than the old, despite the same height (9 px in the image I posted). I seem to be finical and old-is-perfect/new-is-sux, but it does count to me. I don't see too well, so I have to increase the size of the new font to make it as readable as the old one. So even bigger vertical space...

Don't do anything about it, if I'm the only one with this of course.

Edit: left click on an image should open in in a new tab IMHO.

##### Share on other sites

[attachment=967:text spacing.png]
left:old, right new.

Maybe it's just details, but the new is approximately 10/9 times more spacey. And that does count I think.

EDIT: Sorry, i wanted to edit the post, not to post a new one.

Trying to do a more apples to apples comparison here. First, a post on the old site vs. the same text using the default font on the new site:

[attachment=968:compare.jpg]

Next, a post on the old site vs. the same text and Verdana on the new site:

[attachment=969:compare1.jpg]

##### Share on other sites

Trying to do a more apples to apples comparison here...

I just tried what you did myself but opened the old post version in a separate window and then sized it down to match the horizontal space we have for posts on this forum and then I finally noticed a difference. Again, small but at least this time I could see it instead of thinking I was imagining it.

The intertubes tells me browsers default to 110-120%, and I wouldn't mind it as low as 100% with this font.

I suppose I would be willing to try out 125% and see what people think. The 100% is definitely too close together. People who complain about the white site burning their eyes out late at night are going to have the same problem focusing tired and bleary eyes on closely-spaced text even if it's on a darker background.

##### Share on other sites

Since you're comparing multiple lines, did you size the width of the old forum post to match the fixed-width of the new forum post?

No, since that wouldn't affect the vertical line spacing. I just adjusted it so that the total number of lines per paragraph was the same.

##### Share on other sites
rats didn't finish editing my last post fast enough. If you compare with the same widths, you'll see that the old version does fit in the same amount of text in a noticeably lesser amount of vertical space.

[attachment=971:spacing.png]
This is the old post sized the same width and then matched from the top of the text

In other words, I stand corrected

##### Share on other sites

Trying to do a more apples to apples comparison here.

Hmm. Is your zoom on both sites at 100%?

Even with more newlines on the old left theme (whoops, overcompensated), it's shorter by a good bit at 100% zoom with chrome.

##### Share on other sites
Okay, I'm lame, but how can I change the displayed fonts with my browser?

##### Share on other sites

Okay, I'm lame, but how can I change the displayed fonts with my browser?

Depends on the browser. I'm using chrome's built in developer tools to temporarily change mine for experimentation. There are plugins (and sometimes browser support) for "user/custom stylesheets" or greasemonkey scripts which can be used to make more permanent changes on your own end if it's not going to be fixed site-side.

EDIT: Old vs New links for people wanting to do their own comparisons/fiddlings, since I have them handy.