What Does Everyone Think About The New Site Layout?
It appears that there's something similar on the Community section, as "Recent Forum Posts". But it's pretty hidden away, and is a bit short with only the last 5 posts shown...
I also miss the old-style Active Topics page, which is where I spend most of my time.
Well; theres the link to new content, which is kinda the same: Here
I also miss the old-style Active Topics page, which is where I spend most of my time.
I completely agree as that is where I would read topics I quite rarely visit the individual forums.
I completely agree as that is where I would read topics I quite rarely visit the individual forums.
See Sicrane's post
I guess this is attributed to your monitor. The background for me is a light gray. I can understand cheaper monitors not being able to distinguish though. (Unless you were talking about outside the actual frame, which is white, but that doesn't really bother me too much as there's nothing there, and I shrink my window to avoid that.
It actually is gray now. I'm not sure if you were here earlier and it was gray for you, but it was solid white for me earlier, and now it is a light gray. The difference is actually quite sizable. I immediately noticed it even though the change was so slight.
I don't know, I kind of like images in signatures.
the other forums I go to restrict the sigs to like 200 pixels or something. You can put whatever you want in there, but only 200 px shows.
the other forums I go to restrict the sigs to like 200 pixels or something. You can put whatever you want in there, but only 200 px shows.
This is a technical website. Images in signatures do not improve that.
It's going to take some getting used to...I think it looks a lot like facebook in some ways. I'm sure things will be improving, and getting polished in the coming days - I trust GDNET staff to get it right. :-)
- Dan
- Dan
[font="Impact"][size="4"]*woop* *woop* RED ALERT! *woop* *woop*<br /> <br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">This should be top priority!</span><br /> <br /> Forget the other piddly bits. This needs an answer ASAP IMNSHO. Otherwise GD will end up just like… well, the whole rest of the interweb.<br /> <br /> I don't want to entirely disable signatures because some people have valid or useful links to Cool Stuph, personal projects, and things that are relevant and of interest. I just don't want 14-year-olds treating it like it's an 800x600px extension of their avatar.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> [size="4"]Yes, signatures really need to be tightly restricted. Personally I feel that if you have more than three lines worth of text, you're missing the point of a <span style="font-weight:bold;">Signature</span>. <br /> <br /> If images remain, they need to be be very small, limited in both height and width to rather small numbers. (As in 30-50x200-300 or so.)<span style="font-weight:bold;"><br /> </span>
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
