# Thumbs up, bro!

This topic is 2470 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

Though I doubt you'd share, I'd be super curious to know what traffic has been like since the layout change. It seems to me like the forums have become a fairly useless wasteland. That and the original articles are the only reason I ever came to this site (for what, maybe 6 years now...). Hacker News, Reddit, Kotaku, gamasutra and my RSS feed are WAY better sources of industry news or "one stop shopping" than gamedev ever was or currently is in. But you guys got probably 80% of my day's worth of web traffic. Now you get maybe 5%

IMO, if you're focusing on news I think you've totally misunderstood what makes this site worthwhile.

I think that without the forums, this site dies. Outside of my workplace, there has never been another resource that I could find that has been filled with such experts in this field as gamedev has been. It will suck if that continues to fade away.

Totally unrelated: it's been strange to me how much the loss of my old user score from the old rating system has disincentivized me from coming back. I'd guess I'd always used that as some kind of self-worth to the community... w/e

Please fix the forums... (recent threads up above the fold on the homepage so I can just hit F5 while I'm at work without necessarily being logged in)

In the new botique web era, niche wins, same-same catchall loses.

-me

##### Share on other sites

Totally unrelated: it's been strange to me how much the loss of my old user score from the old rating system has disincentivized me from coming back. I'd guess I'd always used that as some kind of self-worth to the community... w/e
You do have a "reputation" now, under your username and display picture on the left. Not quite the same, but I believe the old ratings were used to set the initial reputation values. You get (or lose) reputation based on feedback given for individual posts.

##### Share on other sites
Ah, rep... aka 'another feature which got broken'... note how yours is 946 and mine is in the mid-60s, not bad considering I had close to 1970 on the old system... I complained about this when the site rolled out (not so much because I was hit but because it was massively inconsistant) and all it got was a vague reply and that was all..

##### Share on other sites

Ah, rep... aka 'another feature which got broken'... note how yours is 946 and mine is in the mid-60s, not bad considering I had close to 1970 on the old system... I complained about this when the site rolled out (not so much because I was hit but because it was massively inconsistant) and all it got was a vague reply and that was all..

Yeah it's bs. Certain mods got close to 1000 rep when the new system was implemented. Yet, regular members either got 0 - 60 but had a much higher rating in the old system.

It's a conspiracy! The illuminati of GDnet are tryin to keep us down.

##### Share on other sites
In fact on the rep system; it's now completely usless.

The main complaint about the rating system (beyond its existance) was that it was just a number with no idea as to what posts etc caused the rating change.

New site launches and huzzah! per post ratings, now we can feedback per-post which not only serves to let the poster know something is wrong with it but also indicate to other users that the post probably isn't very good.

At "some point" the ability to see how a post was rated was removed; so now we are back to basically the old system, but with a bunch of people with a large amount of rep and some with smaller for no other reason than their data happened to come across better from the old site and once again the ability to see what posts caused the problem and what post aren't worth paying attention to is gone.

It should be noted that, like other changes, this was dropped on the site without the mosd even having a small amount of heads up (I only found out when I came to rate up a post, the page refreshed and the rating buttons were gone but the post still had 0 (zero) next to it.. in fact, why even have that number there now?).

You know what... some how, in some way, you've managed to make the rating system WORSE on the site... and for that achievement I salute you, gg...

##### Share on other sites

[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1302966331' post='4799141']
Ah, rep... aka 'another feature which got broken'... note how yours is 946 and mine is in the mid-60s, not bad considering I had close to 1970 on the old system... I complained about this when the site rolled out (not so much because I was hit but because it was massively inconsistant) and all it got was a vague reply and that was all..

Yeah it's bs. Certain mods got close to 1000 rep when the new system was implemented. Yet, regular members either got 0 - 60 but had a much higher rating in the old system.

It's a conspiracy! The illuminati of GDnet are tryin to keep us down.
[/quote]
*Points at my rating* I'm not GDNet+, or staff, or a moderator. My rating started off higher. Why? The old rating *started* at 1000, and let you go up or down from there. The new rating system *starts* at 0, and goes up or down from there. So to transfer, they just took your current rating and subtracted 1000. For everyone, including staff and mods.

My old rating in the mid 1600s became the same thing minus 1000. So my rating on the new site started at somewhere in the 600s. The old staff who were 2000 or so, became 1000 or so. My guess, but I'm not 100% sure, is that the people less than 1000 were brought to 0, instead of negative, giving them a "fresh start". Some users have since then, gone into negative on their own. Also, a few users the staff mentioned accidentally got skipped over when they made the transfer and got reset to 0, they weren't sure how. You could PM a mod to fix it, if you believe yours is actually incorrect.

(YourOldScore - 1000) = yourNewScore

##### Share on other sites

At "some point" the ability to see how a post was rated was removed;

It wasn't removed - just ruined.
They made it so the rep of a post only shows positive or negative if it's at or above 3.

Like this:
if(postRating < -2) ShowRating(postRating+2) else if(postRating > 2) ShowRating(postRating-2) else ShowRating(0) 

Which results in:
• PostRating . . ShowsValue
• -5 ................... -3
• -4 ................... -2
• -3 ................... -1
• -2 .................... 0
• -1 .................... 0
• 0 ..................... 0
• +1 ................... 0
• +2 ................... 0
• +3 .................. +1
• +4 .................. +2
• +5 .................. +3

Which, I completely agree, ruins the value of the whole thing.
I do think that they should hide the first -1 rating (makes the site seem friendlier), but two -2 ratings should then show up as -2, not -1.
And positive +1,+2, etc... there's no reason whatsoever to hide that!

##### Share on other sites

[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1302921828' post='4799007']
You can also use "My Content" in your profile dropdown when you log in to see all the threads you have participated in.

Read the bug tracker lately? As in, ever? That feature is bugged and has been since at least January 12th. See above post.
The answers in this thread are like being told to hop on one foot, after buying a pair of shoes and only getting one in the box.

[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]

At "some point" the ability to see how a post was rated was removed; so now we are back to basically the old system, but with a bunch of people with a large amount of rep and some with smaller for no other reason than their data happened to come across better from the old site and once again the ability to see what posts caused the problem and what post aren't worth paying attention to is gone.
Yep. Makes it worthless to rate down some bad programming advice in a thread so the OP can see not to follow it.

[/font]

##### Share on other sites

Which, I completely agree, ruins the value of the whole thing.
I do think that they should hide the first -1 rating (makes the site seem friendlier), but two -2 ratings should then show up as -2, not -1.
And positive +1,+2, etc... there's no reason whatsoever to hide that!

Maybe, but the problem with that is it relies on X number of people with enough knowedge to see a bad post and down rate it before it becomes visable which adds to the chance of someone who DOESNT know better following the advise.

Clamping negative rep, sure I can see that as the number follows you around, but the ability to mark a post as 'bad' in a technical form is, imo, very important...

##### Share on other sites

[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1302977307' post='4799195']
Which, I completely agree, ruins the value of the whole thing.
I do think that they should hide the first -1 rating (makes the site seem friendlier), but two -2 ratings should then show up as -2, not -1.
And positive +1,+2, etc... there's no reason whatsoever to hide that!

Maybe, but the problem with that is it relies on X number of people with enough knowedge to see a bad post and down rate it before it becomes visable which adds to the chance of someone who DOESNT know better following the advise.

Clamping negative rep, sure I can see that as the number follows you around, but the ability to mark a post as 'bad' in a technical form is, imo, very important...
[/quote]

I thought this per post rating system was meant to cut down on '+1' 'posts, I did not know about this change was it mentioned to the community? I now know the reason for why I had to effectively make a '+1' post after the vote was a complete and utter waste of time.

Maybe this whole charade will be profitable for the staff as they can now release a book of 'How not to do a website _upgrade_'

##### Share on other sites

It wasn't removed - just ruined.
They made it so the rep of a post only shows positive or negative if it's at or above 3.

It doesn't work like that. I'm currently looking at post in another thread that is at +7 and still shows up as 0.

##### Share on other sites
If you ask me, the new site seemed to work better the first day than now.

Now:

- Find My Content doesn't work.
- Per post reputation doesn't show up (and allows down rating*).
- Fron't page is uglier.

* Downratings allows haters to seek for all your post and rate them down in retaliation for something you said they didn't like. You'll never know because YOU CAN'T SEE THE RATINGS! This is unbalanced in respect to up-ratings because no sane person would go and rate all your post up for something you said they liked.

##### Share on other sites

If you ask me, the new site seemed to work better the first day than now.

Now:

- Find My Content doesn't work.
- Per post reputation doesn't show up (and allows down rating*).
- Fron't page is uglier.

* Downratings allows haters to seek for all your post and rate them down in retaliation for something you said they didn't like. You'll never know because YOU CAN'T SEE THE RATINGS! This is unbalanced in respect to up-ratings because no sane person would go and rate all your post up for something you said they liked.

The reputation count has been restored.. tracked it down to a hook we had installed.

##### Share on other sites

Still useless. Actually, this is worse than useless. Even the old system of posting on GDNet: CSI and being ignored is better than an automated message from a system that looks like issues are never updated and are never, ever closed. Even if you aren't using it like a bug tracker, the tracker still looks like a bug tracker and not using it sends the message that you aren't doing anything with bugs.

Since the bug tracker is not being actively used to reply to issues, permissions have been restricted to staff and moderators. The CSI forum has been reopened. The feedback tab is still the mechanism people can continue to submit reports through. Individual support requests can be done through the Client Area.

- Michael Tanczos

##### Share on other sites
Find my content is fixed and Phantom's rep has been restored.

##### Share on other sites

[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1302977307' post='4799195']
It wasn't removed - just ruined.
They made it so the rep of a post only shows positive or negative if it's at or above 3.

It doesn't work like that. I'm currently looking at post in another thread that is at +7 and still shows up as 0.
[/quote]
Ah, never mind then. My information was from something a staff said in the issue tracker about how he *thought* it worked; however, I haven't been able to get back in the issue tracker to find out the exact post (as Michael said above, permissions restricted).

##### Share on other sites

Find my content is fixed

##### Share on other sites

[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1303011096' post='4799358']
Find my content is fixed

[/quote]

This is how it always is.

Userbase: We've found this bug, and it's a real easy fix. You're method seems correct, but it seems like only 1 line of code would fix it.

Dev: It's not that easy! It's never that easy! blah blah blah it'll be awhile. I'll evaluate it for the next release cycle.

Userbase: But..

Dev: Not buts.. stupid users. I SAID I'LL EVALUATE THAT FIX FOR THE NEXT RELEASE CYCLE. UNTIL THEN LUMP IT. IF YOUR DATA IS CORRUPTING ON SAVE, JUST DON'T SAVE YOUR DATA! HEY- WE'LL MARK THIS ISSUE AS CLOSED, SINCE NOT SAVING YOUR DATA IS A VALID WORKAROUND!

Userbase: Let's burn this place to the ground!

Dev: *changes one line of code, hits F5, and posts fixed binary*

If only the GIMP userbase would do the same.

##### Share on other sites
I don't like the new news aggregate thing that's so flavor of the month right now, but I don't get the hate on the like buttons. It's not like their being there harms anything very much and it is pretty easily ignored.

On turning the site into a game industry aggregator though, please don't go down that road. There are plenty of other sites that do it better, and all it does is make the original content harder to find. Maybe allow people to do it for hand picked articles of high quality, but just grabbing everything the internet has to provide will make it crappy.

Maybe you should work on developing ways to make it easier to generate content rather than working on developing ways to grab other people's content? That solves the low quantity of new content and would be far more interesting imo.

edit: or maybe find a way to keep aggregated news and original content separate. It might be handy to have a small stream on the side of aggregate news and give original content more screen real estate for longer periods of time.

##### Share on other sites

[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1303090472' post='4799693']
[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1303011096' post='4799358']
Find my content is fixed

[/quote]

This is how it always is.

Userbase: We've found this bug, and it's a real easy fix. You're method seems correct, but it seems like only 1 line of code would fix it.

Dev: It's not that easy! It's never that easy! blah blah blah it'll be awhile. I'll evaluate it for the next release cycle.

Userbase: But..

Dev: Not buts.. stupid users. I SAID I'LL EVALUATE THAT FIX FOR THE NEXT RELEASE CYCLE. UNTIL THEN LUMP IT. IF YOUR DATA IS CORRUPTING ON SAVE, JUST DON'T SAVE YOUR DATA! HEY- WE'LL MARK THIS ISSUE AS CLOSED, SINCE NOT SAVING YOUR DATA IS A VALID WORKAROUND!

Userbase: Let's burn this place to the ground!

Dev: *changes one line of code, hits F5, and posts fixed binary*

If only the GIMP userbase would do the same.
[/quote]

Its usually never a matter of whether something is easy to fix or not - it's just when you have a large quantity of stuff you have old issues vs new issues, and the triage process is how you sift through them all to prioritize things. The "Find My Content" issue, for example, is part of a bigger problem with the way the IPS search works - because it was related to the same steps it took to fix "Active Content" I was able to do that fix relatively quickly. But it's not that way with all bugs.. originally this bug took a lot of looking through the IPS source to isolate and ultimately it ended up being a problem with the Sphinx config their software generates. They claim all this stuff related to search will be fixed in the upcoming version - but then their release date for it is listed as "2011". We can't wait that long for a window of time that is uncertain.

Anyway, so this bug was overlooked in the original fix in our current top priority list - we do update our priority list of bugs, but we have to schedule them to be fixed as well and some things we can't get to for a while.

##### Share on other sites
Just a side thing, the max number of + votes per day thing is really annoyingly low. I think I made 2 upvotes last night and this morning I have done 0 and I am at my max upvotes for the day. Makes the feature feel very useless.

edit:
It should also be noted that - votes seem to be limitless leaving a net negative flow of reputation through the system.

##### Share on other sites

Just a side thing, the max number of + votes per day thing is really annoyingly low. I think I made 2 upvotes last night and this morning I have done 0 and I am at my max upvotes for the day. Makes the feature feel very useless.

edit:
It should also be noted that - votes seem to be limitless leaving a net negative flow of reputation through the system.

I modified the voting limit from 5 to 50. Let me know if this limit becomes an issue. =)

##### Share on other sites
For anyone still watching this thread - we've made quite a few changes to the news the last few days based on your feedback. While we have a few more tricks up our sleeve, let us know if you have any further ideas how we can make the news a better source of information for you.

##### Share on other sites
There seems to be a bug where posts with the user-name "SiCrane" don't show up for long.

##### Share on other sites

For anyone still watching this thread - we've made quite a few changes to the news the last few days based on your feedback.[/quote]
Good to know there has been some progress on some of these issues.

While we have a few more tricks up our sleeve, let us know if you have any further ideas how we can make the news a better source of information for you.[/quote]
Here, or using the "feedback" button?