Subtle Changes to the Forum?

[CF74]

The images were also turned into clickable links so they will open in a new window if someone wants to see the full image.

-Reality

Just wanna say that you guys have really improved this site over the years and it's very much appreciated. And a Big Big Thank-you for all that you do behind the scenes that we don't even know about. :bravo:

 

[Seven]

Look at Seven, gunning to be a Moderator :laugh2: .

Impossible. I don't donate. Wouldn't stand a chance according to your rules plus I wouldn't take on the responsibility knowing full well there ain't a chance in hell I'd donate that kind of time..............this is where folks under-appreciate. They'd rather 'suggest' at others hard work and effort over spilled milk.

Until Reality says that members are not allowed to offer suggestions regarding the site, posters are free to do just that.

Until Reality posts we can't have an opinion unless we donate.....ditto, bub.

It's odd that you say that Theo is arguing for the sake of arguing when you appear to be doing just that.

Oldest spin in the book. I'm sure theo is appreciative, tho.

 

[Seven]

But you kind of did come in hurling insults.

Was kind of heavy on the descriptive aspect of my first post............for those I have offended, I apologize.


I'm just grateful to have a meal. Doesn't have to be mignon or duck under glass followed up with a black cherry tar-tar. If, by chance, that was given to me, well, one shouldn't complain because they had but a salad fork. What am I supposed to eat with?!


JMO, and only MY opinion, of course.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

About the [View Full Quote] change:

I very much appreciate how we users can turn on and off the viewing of signatures. Very rarely do I view signatures and I like having the choice to turn them off (and occasionally to turn them on). Yet I know that many others really get into signatures ("believe") and it is great that they have that opportunity too.

I don't know if it is practical from the programming / software perspective, but I think it'd be ideal for users if they were able to turn a "truncated quotation function" on or off ... or perhaps choose for themselves at which number of characters quotations are truncated. If I were able to make this decision for myself (without impacting others), I'd set the quotation truncation "off" or to a high number of characters (8 to 10 times higher than where it is set now).

If it isn't practical to turn quotation truncation into a user defined function, then I'd ask you to consider increasing the number of characters allowed before truncation.

Instead of using a "number of characters before truncation" limit that keeps threads very tidy, I'd suggest that the goal should be to set a word limit that prevents threads from getting too messy. I'd suggest multiplying the current character limit by 2.5 or 3.

The number of characters allowed before truncation is quite important -- it changes the user experience, it will change user behavior, and it will change this site. IMO, this site is at its best when bright people share opinions and discuss the considered opinions of others ... that's something that should be encouraged. I believe that a very short character limit (before truncation) will get in the way of these exchanges.

I am aware that with the current modification, full text quotation is only a click away. This little step, the click, isn't trivial. It is no more trivial than the step of scrolling through extended quotations, which became a burden to others.

Totally agree. This is far more irritating to me than the one person in 50 or 100 who quotes entire articles. Most people get not to do that. This full quote thing is all over every thread.

We don't get a vote, though.

Edit: Take your post above, which was truncated in this reply... It wasn't long at all, yet it's been shortened. Seems to me this will encourage more chat-room like posts rather than longer, more thoughtful ones which will be cut off.

Oh well.

 

[Reality]

Totally agree. This is far more irritating to me than the one person in 50 or 100 who quotes entire articles. Most people get not to do that. This full quote thing is all over every thread.

We don't get a vote, though.

Edit: Take your post above, which was truncated in this reply... It wasn't long at all, yet it's been shortened. Seems to me this will encourage more chat-room like posts rather than longer, more thoughtful ones which will be cut off.

Oh well.

This is a perfect example of why this change was implemented .. You bolded a small part of the quote when that is the only part you should have included in your quote since that was what you are referring to. Of course it would not have provided the "increased added affect" if you had only done that ..

I believe that a very short character limit (before truncation) will get in the way of these exchanges.

I am aware that with the current modification, full text quotation is only a click away. This little step, the click, isn't trivial. It is no more trivial than the step of scrolling through extended quotations, which became a burden to others.

-Reality

 

[Hostile]

Totally agree. This is far more irritating to me than the one person in 50 or 100 who quotes entire articles. Most people get not to do that. This full quote thing is all over every thread.

I have no idea what is so irritating about it. I honestly do not get it. Then again, 90% of the time I have probably read the entire long post that is being truncated and already know what the point is. If I have perchance forgotten, the text is still there. One click and it reappears and stays there. That's the thing, it doesn't keep disappearing. If it did that I could understand the drama. When you quote a long post the text doesn't disappear while you are trying to respond making you jump through hoops.

All this does is truncate the quoted post to give more prominence to the reply and make scrolling easier. Especially for a mobile device which we are aware are becoming far more popular all the time.

It's cleaner. Nothing else has changed.

 

[theogt]

This is a perfect example of why this change was implemented .. You bolded a small part of the quote when that is the only part you should have included in your quote since that was what you are referring to. Of course it would not have provided the "increased added affect" if you had only done that ..



-Reality

Hmm...I didn't even realize he had highlighted that portion until after this post.

So, I guess now we have to click on every post to see if there was something highlighted.

 

[Reality]

Hmm...I didn't even realize he had highlighted that portion until after this post.

So, I guess now we have to click on every post to see if there was something highlighted.

Which is no different than if they didn't include any quote causing everyone to wonder who they are replying to. Just because a user doesn't do something, does not make it the software's fault. Instead of leaving out the quote in this case, he simply added a large amount of text that was not needed.

-Reality

 

[Hostile]

Hmm...I didn't even realize he had highlighted that portion until after this post.

So, I guess now we have to click on every post to see if there was something highlighted.

Have to? No. There's no have to. If you look to both sides you will not see a gun pointed at your melon. If you do, you've got worse problems than a truncated post.

Need to? No one would need to if the person would simply delete the rest of the post and quote only the part they were really interested in commenting on. You're supposedly all for truncation but only after more characters are added. But if someone does this at the very last paragraph of a 24 inch column will it make any difference? It is still going to be cropped off where the original poster could simply crop the top off and quote what he found interesting to respond to.

In other words, perhaps more posters will clean up the quoted posts and make this a moot point so that their point gets across. We can dream.

Regardless, once you click the full view the quoted post is fully displayed. Unless fingernails are breaking by that one click I really just don't see what the big damned deal is.

 

[theogt]

Have to? No. There's no have to. If you look to both sides you will not see a gun pointed at your melon. If you do, you've got worse problems than a truncated post.

Need to? No one would need to if the person would simply delete the rest of the post and quote only the part they were really interested in commenting on. You're supposedly all for truncation but only after more characters are added. But if someone does this at the very last paragraph of a 24 inch column will it make any difference? It is still going to be cropped off where the original poster could simply crop the top off and quote what he found interesting to respond to.

In other words, perhaps more posters will clean up the quoted posts and make this a moot point so that their point gets across. We can dream.

Regardless, once you click the full view the quoted post is fully displayed. Unless fingernails are breaking by that one click I really just don't see what the big damned deal is.

You're right that I don't have to. I'll likely rarely ever click the "show full quote" button and things will just get lost in translation.

 

[Hostile]

You're right that I don't have to. I'll likely rarely ever click the "show full quote" button and things will just get lost in translation.

Which NEVER happens without truncation.

 

[theogt]

Which NEVER happens without truncation.

Sure, it happens in other aspects. But we're discussing the functionality of this particular change. I'm not sure pointing out that this change causes a problem that also exists in other circumstances really moves the discussion in any way.

It's obvious you guys have made up your mind on the issue, so there's really no point in further discussing the issue. It's really not THAT big a deal. It was just a suggestion -- and apparently one that isn't totally uncommon.

 

[ZeroClub]

I used to frequent a site where it was customary for posters to truncate other peoples' posts before commenting on the posts. The downside to that custom were the near constant arguments about how Poster A took Poster B's statement out of context. Those allegatons happen at the Zone too already, of course, but it was at least 10 times worse at the other site. It got tiresome.

My guess is that Mods and Regular Visitors read threads differently and that's the reason why there seems to be a disconnect. Regular visitors are more selective about what they read in a thread, while mods basically have to read everything.

 

[ZeroClub]

Have to? No. There's no have to. If you look to both sides you will not see a gun pointed at your melon. If you do, you've got worse problems than a truncated post.

Need to? No one would need to if the person would simply delete the rest of the post and quote only the part they were really interested in commenting on. You're supposedly all for truncation but only after more characters are added. But if someone does this at the very last paragraph of a 24 inch column will it make any difference? It is still going to be cropped off where the original poster could simply crop the top off and quote what he found interesting to respond to.

In other words, perhaps more posters will clean up the quoted posts and make this a moot point so that their point gets across. We can dream.

Regardless, once you click the full view the quoted post is fully displayed. Unless fingernails are breaking by that one click I really just don't see what the big damned deal is.

I'm testing to see if it is possible to post sub rosa messages and images.

The image is of kicker Matt Bryant.

Here's the kicker.

 

[ZeroClub]

Here's the kicker.

I think this means that there may be a need to check for sub rosa messages with some regularity ... particularly with so many messages being truncated.

For mods, that may be a bigger hassle than it is worth.

 

[WoodysGirl]

The amount of text being truncated has been lessened by request, but the function itself is going to remain.

Change can be difficult, but as with anything, people will get used to it and adjust.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I think this means that there may be a need to check for sub rosa messages with some regularity ... particularly with so many messages being truncated.

For mods, that may be a bigger hassle than it is worth.

What do you mean?

 

[ZeroClub]

What do you mean?

people can post things that mods can't read or see unless you click on the [View Full Quote] each time it appears.

If you go back to the post where I quote Hostile (I wrote "Here's the kicker" as a response), and click on View Full Quote - where I quoted Hostile - and you'll see that I included some extra words and an image. Short of someone alerting you, the only way you'd know it was there is if you clicked on the link.

------------------

I do appreciate the decision to increase the number of characters before truncation. It only goes to show how open Reality and the mods are to visitor input and that's one of the reasons why this site is as good as it is.

 

[theogt]

The amount of text being truncated has been lessened by request, but the function itself is going to remain.

Change can be difficult, but as with anything, people will get used to it and adjust.

It should go without saying, but I hope you guys don't get the feeling that user suggestions are a sign that anyone doesn't appreciate the work you put into the website. At least for myself, I try to show the appreciation by donating a not inconsiderable amount every year.

 

[Hostile]

It should go without saying, but I hope you guys don't get the feeling that user suggestions are a sign that anyone doesn't appreciate the work you put into the website. At least for myself, I try to show the appreciation by donating a not inconsiderable amount every year.

Not at all theo. Not at all. It is simply an adult conversation about how to make the place better. We know that.