Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

rickey939 · Feb 4, 2007, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Weezer

Again, any response on green stars at 1,000 and multi-colored at 10,000?

That will not be changed.

Weezer · Feb 4, 2007, 05:41 PM

why not? Whats the argument against it?

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 05:43 PM

I guess there goes my white stars.

Or bday cake or candles showing up on people's bday.

No baseballs either!

ohwell.wav

Rumor · Feb 4, 2007, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Weezer

why not? Whats the argument against it?

Because there is a new ranking structure in place.

Person Man · Feb 4, 2007, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

It can be done. In fact, mods and admins see them while others don't. But the problem with your idea is that it completely defeats the purpose of disabling them.

That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.

The only reason to remove them was that we wanted to recognize people's posts while discouraging post whoring. If it's just an option, all the post whores will turn it on and it'll be the same as before. There is an argument to be made that this does not really discourage post whoring, and I am not opposed to turning them back on, but I think this new system could achieve a good balance of having clear status ranks (more stars = more posts) but also not having people's numbers go up for every single post they make.

I don't know. One can still find out how many posts someone has by clicking on the user info for that person. I'm not sure how giving people the option to display them for everyone or not would encourage post whoring any more than the way things stand now. It could be made an option, with the option turned off by default, and the post whores wouldn't have any idea who had them on or off.

What I will probably do is just leave it this way for a few weeks (so people can try this out) and then run a poll to see how many people really care about post counts being so visible.

Will your poll make the distinction between turning them on for everybody or making it a user option as to whether to show them or not?

Person Man · Feb 4, 2007, 06:06 PM

On another note, I see that the "view post" option is gone for people on ignore lists.

As it stands now, if I want to view an ignored poster's post (and keep them on ignore), I have to take them off the ignored list, view the post, and then put them back on.

One could make the argument that it defeats the purpose of having someone on ignore, but when I put someone on ignore, I intend to be able to see what they are saying on occasion.

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

On another note, I see that the "view post" option is gone for people on ignore lists.

As it stands now, if I want to view an ignored poster's post (and keep them on ignore), I have to take them off the ignored list, view the post, and then put them back on.

One could make the argument that it defeats the purpose of having someone on ignore, but when I put someone on ignore, I intend to be able to see what they are saying on occasion.

analogika · Feb 4, 2007, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

On another note, I see that the "view post" option is gone for people on ignore lists.

As it stands now, if I want to view an ignored poster's post (and keep them on ignore), I have to take them off the ignored list, view the post, and then put them back on.

One could make the argument that it defeats the purpose of having someone on ignore, but when I put someone on ignore, I intend to be able to see what they are saying on occasion.

True.

I'm not sure though whether that's merely annoying, or whether it actually builds character.

- - e r i k - - · Feb 4, 2007, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Weezer

why not? Whats the argument against it?

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

I don't think colors are a good idea for normal user levels, because the moderator/admin colors should really stand out. Addicted and Clinical already dilute that a bit, but more than that would be too much, I think. (And there are far fewer users who are Addicted/Clinical.)

(from the Beta testing forum)

Eug · Feb 4, 2007, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Weezer

Again, any response on green stars at 1,000 and multi-colored at 10,000?

I still don't see the fascination of this.

Personally, I'd be happy if everyone over 500 posts had the exact same rating.

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 07:33 PM

Ah so basically no colors cause the admin wanna stand out.

Buncha showey mofos.

houstonmacbro · Feb 4, 2007, 07:53 PM

I like it ... was pleasantly surprised when I came back after a week or so.

Question, what happened to the number of posts for a user. I am not seeing that any more...? Or am I just not looking in the right places?

analogika · Feb 4, 2007, 07:59 PM

The latter.

The right place to start looking would be in this thread.

zac4mac · 08:03 PM

definitely cleaner... let's see what this looks like

Z

Ouch "senior user"? That'll teach me to post my age...

houstonmacbro · Feb 4, 2007, 08:01 PM

Was that a trick answer? I am serious. I do not see where a user's number of posts is. It used to be quite visible.

houstonmacbro · Feb 4, 2007, 08:03 PM

I'm also finding that some of the links don't work (FF 2.0) when you click on a user's information link. The box appears, but clicking on the link yields nothing.

analogika · Feb 4, 2007, 08:12 PM

There is nothing "trick answer" about telling you that your question has been answered several times in this very thread.

You have a post count of 388, btw.

It's in your profile.

C.A.T.S. CEO · Feb 4, 2007, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro

I'm also finding that some of the links don't work (FF 2.0) when you click on a user's information link. The box appears, but clicking on the link yields nothing.

I'm not having a problem with it

houstonmacbro · Feb 4, 2007, 08:17 PM

Gotcha. I guess it is HOW you click. If I click 'hard' it goes to the links. If I click 'softly' (I am not on drugs here...) it doesn't.

Also, what was the rationale behind changing the number of posts a user makes to not display at or near the post. I am not seeing why it was a bad thing to have it easily visible?

analogika · Feb 4, 2007, 08:19 PM

READ. THE. ****ING. THREAD.

(no, seriously - there *might* have been discussion over one or two things that have changed in the makeover, don't you think? I mean, YOU had the sense to find this thread...)

mac128k-1984 · Feb 4, 2007, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

The only reason to remove them was that we wanted to recognize people's posts while discouraging post whoring.

I agree and I think not showing post counts is a great idea.

houstonmacbro · Feb 4, 2007, 08:44 PM

What exactly do you mean by post-whoring? Just posting for the heck of it to run up their numbers?

Brien · Feb 4, 2007, 08:47 PM

Posts are over-rated.

Moonray · Feb 4, 2007, 09:02 PM

Nice work. Just this:

With the dark background on the left and right hand sides the contrast in the middle area appears too low. If you go for a non-black text color make its contrast to the background bigger than the contrast anywhere else
The yellow moons in the forum list should be vertically aligned to the top of the text right of them (like the bullets in this very list) since they attract the eyes and would be the natural point to start reading
The all yellow stars are nice. However they would be nicer if they would look less like flat yellow cookies and more like gold stars which would mean shifting the color a tiny bit to red and adding a bit more reflection to their middle.

-

gorgonzola · Feb 4, 2007, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

I don't think colors are a good idea for normal user levels, because the moderator/admin colors should really stand out. Addicted and Clinical already dilute that a bit, but more than that would be too much, I think. (And there are far fewer users who are Addicted/Clinical.)

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ah so basically no colors cause the admin wanna stand out.

Buncha showey mofos.

Actually, this quote was somewhat misrepresented, as right before it, I said this:

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

I think there's nothing wrong at all with some color (the stars are a tiny part of the page, and they add some highlights). I'd vote for green like it was before, but if you don't want to do green then we should think of something else.

But I should have been more clear about this. By "normal user levels" I actually did not mean all user levels for non-mod/admin users, I meant that each user level shouldn't be distinguished with its own color. I have nothing against the highest levels having some different color scheme, and I think it might even look nice. Green was originally chosen because it's very clearly different from the red and blue admin/mod stars; things like purple or orange or light blue are more ambiguous. The former Addict and Clinical ranks were not exactly normal user ranks in the sense that they were very high up, and so it made sense to use something different to distinguish them.

If people really like the high ranks being green or multicolor, I don't have anything against it (and had even suggested that we do this). When effgee gets back we'll talk about this more.

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro

What exactly do you mean by post-whoring? Just posting for the heck of it to run up their numbers?

Yes.

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

Actually, this quote was somewhat misrepresented, as right before it, I said this:

I was just joking anyhow gorg.

G5man · Feb 4, 2007, 10:05 PM

This is a nice redesign, great work whoever worked on the design of this!

C.A.T.S. CEO · Feb 4, 2007, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by G5man

This is a nice redesign, great work whoever worked on the design of this!

gorgonzola, effgee, and Adam Betts

- - e r i k - - · Feb 4, 2007, 10:54 PM

Mostly effgee.

sek929 · Feb 4, 2007, 11:00 PM

I'm so...scared

Looks nice guys!

I'll miss my green stars though...

Stogieman · Feb 4, 2007, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

It can be done. In fact, mods and admins see them while others don't. But the problem with your idea is that it completely defeats the purpose of disabling them.

The only reason to remove them was that we wanted to recognize people's posts while discouraging post whoring. If it's just an option, all the post whores will turn it on and it'll be the same as before. There is an argument to be made that this does not really discourage post whoring, and I am not opposed to turning them back on, but I think this new system could achieve a good balance of having clear status ranks (more stars = more posts) but also not having people's numbers go up for every single post they make.

What I will probably do is just leave it this way for a few weeks (so people can try this out) and then run a poll to see how many people really care about post counts being so visible.

Here's an idea, put the post count in a spoiler tag.

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 11:44 PM

There ya go!

Buckaroo · Feb 5, 2007, 12:33 AM

I notice that the new setup is a little slower, or there is some lag compared to the old style. It might be my imagination. I don't know if you can do anything to fix it.

rickey939 · Feb 5, 2007, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

I notice that the new setup is a little slower, or there is some lag compared to the old style. It might be my imagination. I don't know if you can do anything to fix it.

If anything, I find it faster. The "big image" threads may take a little longer to load as the Javascript "re-sizer" does it's thing. Could that be it?

Eug · 01:10 AM

I hope that all non-mod stars stay yellow. In fact, I'd goes as far as to say I'd prefer that nobody has the off-kilter stars, including people who have posted over 15000. Quite frankly, I don't understand why my 7500 posts makes me a 5 out of 5, especially when I'm sure several thousand of them are sarcastic junk posts in the Lounge.

P.S. I could have sworn that when I clicked on my name, once it went to my profile directly, instead of giving me the popup. Either I'm psychotic, or else I might have mis-clicked or something, or else there is a bug.

P.P.S. Sometimes when I edit a post a second time, the first edit doesn't show up, unless I manually refresh the page. Mind you, this was also an issue with the older version of MacNN too.

EDIT:

Confirmed. I tried clicking on my name again, and instead of getting the popup, I was taken directly to the profile page. There doesn't seem to be any consistency to this.

Big Mac · Feb 5, 2007, 02:35 AM

I vote for the return of the special stars for Addicted and Clinical, and I'll tell you why. We have the star system, which already sets a hierarchy (for fun) based on post counts. If we're going to keep the stars, there's no reason not to have the high-end versions. Most of us seem to like it that way, and it's certainly not hurting anyone.

Simon · Feb 5, 2007, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by Person Man

On another note, I see that the "view post" option is gone for people on ignore lists.
As it stands now, if I want to view an ignored poster's post (and keep them on ignore), I have to take them off the ignored list, view the post, and then put them back on.
One could make the argument that it defeats the purpose of having someone on ignore, but when I put someone on ignore, I intend to be able to see what they are saying on occasion.

OMG. There are people who actually use the ignore list?

Simon · Feb 5, 2007, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

I hope that all non-mod stars stay yellow. In fact, I'd goes as far as to say I'd prefer that nobody has the off-kilter stars, including people who have posted over 15000.

Agreed. Actually, I think once somebody has reached 15000 posts his account should be auto-banned.

Stogieman · Feb 5, 2007, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

P.S. I could have sworn that when I clicked on my name, once it went to my profile directly, instead of giving me the popup. Either I'm psychotic, or else I might have mis-clicked or something, or else there is a bug.
EDIT:
Confirmed. I tried clicking on my name again, and instead of getting the popup, I was taken directly to the profile page. There doesn't seem to be any consistency to this.

I've experienced the same thing. Sometimes I get a popup... sometimes I don't. When the popup does appear, I can't get the links to work. The only way I can access the Public Profile is by right clicking the username and selecting "Open link in new window."

ajprice · Feb 5, 2007, 08:02 AM

I think it goes straight to your profile for your own name, and gives the popup for others. Why would you want to add yourself to your buddy list or send yourself a private message?

Kevin · Feb 5, 2007, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by ajprice

I think it goes straight to your profile for your own name, and gives the popup for others. Why would you want to add yourself to your buddy list or send yourself a private message?

IT all depends on how you click on it IMHO.

Person Man · Feb 5, 2007, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

OMG. There are people who actually use the ignore list?

Yep,

Very helpful for people like mojaberdarden

Eug · Feb 5, 2007, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by ajprice

I think it goes straight to your profile for your own name, and gives the popup for others. Why would you want to add yourself to your buddy list or send yourself a private message?

No, I was only clicking on my own name. Sometimes it went to the profile, and sometimes I got the popup. However, the one link I tried in the popup did work for me, unlike for some other people.

P.S. Is there a plan for a new maximum inline image size (rez or KB)? I posted some 1280x720 images with no complaints from the mods, but somebody else posted a MASSIVE image that was removed.

Kevin · Feb 5, 2007, 10:42 AM

I hope so. While the new inline image feature will help, people can imbed obnoxiously large images in a thread which will load before the image downsizing kicks in.

GORDYmac · Feb 5, 2007, 01:24 PM

Any reason why we now have 'nnforums' in the header graphic, while MacNN is still everywhere else (URL, 'Your are here' line, etc.)?

I understand that there are several other areas, but, it's still MacNN. It's still all about the 'Mac'.

Eug · Feb 5, 2007, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by GORDYmac

Any reason why we now have 'nnforums' in the header graphic, while MacNN is still everywhere else (URL, 'Your are here' line, etc.)?

I understand that there are several other areas, but, it's still MacNN. It's still all about the 'Mac'.

There is iPodnn as well, and there is an iPod, iPhone, iTV forum.

Rumor · Feb 5, 2007, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by GORDYmac

Any reason why we now have 'nnforums' in the header graphic, while MacNN is still everywhere else (URL, 'Your are here' line, etc.)?

I understand that there are several other areas, but, it's still MacNN. It's still all about the 'Mac'.

El Caffeino might have had it like that when he was designing the forums, he possibly forgot to change it.

Kevin · Feb 5, 2007, 02:43 PM

Yeah there needs to be a "Mac" in front of that. Otherwise it's just "news network forum"

Kevin · 03:01 PM

PLUS the MacNN's homepage says "Read me first"

The forums say "discuss me first"

Hard to do two "firsts" at once.

Maybe it should be "discuss me next" or "second" ?

Oh and having left lane news in there with all that is kinda lame. It has NOTHING to do with Apple or the Macintosh. And just feels like SPAM.

But so do a lot of the other stuff that isn't Mac related.

I understand the owners are attempting to get people to go to these sites to garner hits and make them money as well.. by using MacNN's hit count and success.... but it's too obvious and tacky IMHO.

I'll probably just end up blocking those images or frame.

The BEST forum software would be one where the user can make the page layout the way they want it to look. Of course the posters here weren't really asked about their opinions.

But still that would be a killer idea.

Oneota · Feb 5, 2007, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oh and having left lane news in there with all that is kinda lame. It has NOTHING to do with Apple or the Macintosh. And just feels like SPAM.

Well, by the same token, MacNN articles that do nothing except quote and link to an Electronista article are both spam-ish (or at least hit-whoring) and incredibly freaking annoying. God I hate when they do that.