Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jun 26, 2009.
I have a spectacular aura someone once told me.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Ehm, there's no real need for any of these.
While I wouldn't mind the embedded media thingy, I still don't really see a real need for it as it just takes one click to see a youtube video for example.
Image hosting? Hm, well there are image hosting websites such as imageshack...so it would probably just be a waste of space.
Integrated chat box. Ehm, an other thing I wouldn't put on here. Would just increase the people's means to propagate their hatred and show off their bad nature which isn't as notable on a forum board but much more in a chat room. Plus, it's hard to moderate what people do in chat rooms, contrarily to forums.
Bigger avatars? Well, I wouldn't mind that. I think the current avi size is a titbit too tiny. Haha.
Signatures? Oh, please, don't. Unless those signatures will be kept on a mere text level. But if you plan on allowing the integration of flashy pics and what not, then...please, don't.
Reputation system? Wouldn't that just increase the chances of unnecessary discrimination and..."flame" wars?
Doesn't the "multiple skins" idea solve most of the issues? If you had a magic wand, and your desire was to please everyone, that would seem to do it. I don't know about the feasibility though...
Other than that (selected ideas):
*Signatures - nay, turns into spam.
*Chat box - sure, why not? Cuts down on clutter, keeps posts mostly targeted to topic.
*Rating system - (readers ratings, stars, etc) yes, unless we are afraid of driving the sensitive away.
I'll second (or third or whatever) a rep/ rating system.
OH OH i remembered one which is veaary important...we need to have more pics allowed per post..like unlimited could be fine..pictures are very useful sometimes and can convey an idea a lot better than words..
also i suffered more than enough from the automatic log off thing..i open multiple tabs..crack my knuckles and think deeply to reply to a thread worth the effort..after finishing my masterpiece and i click post..it tells me that i need to log in again..and what do you know..MY WHOLE REPLY IS GONE!!:geek:
:bawl:it happenned to two of my well thought replys yesterday and a couple more times before..
Possibly an "unlimited" allowance would lead to less-well-thought-out (and illustrated) posts.
I'm not aware of an automatic log off, but on the occasions when I've lost my connection due to network faults logging in from the resulting prompt has posted my reply anyway.
Another solution would be to CTRL-A and copy the reply by reflex (particularly if it's a long one) and THEN attempt to post it.
If a log-in is required then all you have to do once relogged is CTRL-V and it's pasted from the saved version.
A spell-checker may be a useful addition Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
how did you reach that conclusion?
i second that
Quite easily, thank you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's simple - the more you can post pictures to illustrate your point the less care will be taken over the words.
People tend to believe that "a picture is worth a thousand words", and so it is: if it's the right picture. I suspect that there would be a glut of "nearly right" pictures with commentaries along the lines of "sort of like this but not so squiggly/ black/ straight/ weird" or whatever.
My apologies, it wasn't aimed at you (specifically), so much as a general comment that happened to occur as I replied to your post. There are any number of posters who would have sufficed to trigger (and illustrate) my suggestion.
Spell checker? Ehm....nothing against it there, however you can install a spell-check on your browser....
if there are signatures, there should be a 'hide all signatures' button in your personal statistics area thingy. reading the same shitty quotes a thousand times is bloody annoying. the area under user names is completely adequate imo.
Well, that automatic hide sig feature would be actually quite decent, but in spite of that I'd like to see a character limit for sigs and no pics in there either.
It's not the sensitive that would be the problem, but the sheer number of vindictive assholes and illogical idiots we have around here. Any rating system around here would be seriously bunk because people would rate the person, not the post and they'd do it with a particular fervor... like punishment instead of encouragement. This is sciforums we are talking about.
^ that's exactly what I thought.
You have a point there, sweetheart, but still... It would be kind of fun. I do however, have a serious concern with the "mob mentality" chasing off some of the fun members... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh granted. I do anyway (since I'm a lousy typist despite being good at spelling).
But so many don't bother or find an excuse not to. I only suggested it in the hopes of reducing spelling errors overall. Forgive me, I'm a Lynne Truss fan. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A wonderful book
Eats, Shoots & Leaves is hilarious. I actually thought of it yesterday when reading through the complaints about colored text, as I recall she discussed colors somewhere in the book.
I haven't yet bothered to dig out my copy and find that section to post, though. I think it's hiding under the furniture somewhere, as I don't see it on the shelves.
perhaps only friends would be able to score each others posts? or you have a scorer's group, people you enable to score your posts. perhaps you could click it to see it broken down into moderators, friends and others.
Would that not be self-defeating in a sense? For example the woo woos tend to clump together for mutual support (despite possible differences on the, ah, scientific bases of their "work"). If woo woos vote for woo woos etc how will that display anything approaching a true rating?
While I understand Liebling's concerns, and to an extent share them, an overall (everybody gets a vote) system would at least show how that user is rated by the community as a whole. If (to give an example from a recent thread) PJ and Buffalo start to consistently give each other bad ratings (nothing against either of these guys, I've never interacted with them) and no-one bothers to counter would that not give some indication of how far off-piste they've wandered?
perhaps you'd have a score from enabled group and score from all sciforums. that way you can check the opinion of people whom you respect, and determine aren't flaming, and also get the wider community opinion. if the woo woos wish to sabotage the usefulness of their own score it doesn't bother me.
That would be an idea, if it's implementable.
Leave it up to software guys! Oh wait, Microsoft springs to mind...
Separate names with a comma.