JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: q_q_ on September 21, 2008, 06:27:08 AM
-
it's nice to have some pretty smilies for kids to play with..
But, this forum update has a serious problem.
As before.
If somebody wants to reply to post x, quoting it, he clicks quote.
That's fine, that's good.
but if post x contains a quote, the quote gets lost
Here is an example. Anybody that tries to reply to this post, quoting it. i.e. replying by clicking quote. Will LOSE the following text
THIS TEXT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED!!!!!!!!!
I read an interesting article in the daily express
Indeed, it is an interesting paper
-
it's nice to have some pretty smilies for kids to play with..
But, this forum update has a serious problem.
As before.
If somebody wants to reply to post x, quoting it, he clicks quote.
That's fine, that's good.
but if post x contains a quote, the quote gets lost
Here is an example. Anybody that tries to reply to this post, quoting it. i.e. replying by clicking quote. Will LOSE the following text
Indeed, it is an interesting paper
see, the text about Daily Express, is lost.
It also takes an extra mouse click and hand movement to view one's posts,
and (less of a problem but still a deterioration -albeit a minor one), one cannot post twice within 30 seconds.
The main problem though is in the quoting.
-
see, the text about Daily Express, is lost.
That's what's good about the updates. I quoted your post and your previous quote which is irrelevant has automatically been deleted. It saves space.
-
That's what's good about the updates. I quoted your post and your previous quote which is irrelevant has automatically been deleted. It saves space.
No, one uses one's intelligence to save space by removing what is unnecessary.
Including the quote was very important, otherwise you can't see the context. In this case, one cannot see what newspaper is being referred to. The newspaper name is written in a particular sentence of the first post. My example demonstrated how context is lost by this stupid dumbing down feature
It would have been worse if it was 2 posts above. or a thread of 2 pages. It would be impossible.
-
it's nice to have some pretty smilies for kids to play with..
But, this forum update has a serious problem.
As before.
If somebody wants to reply to post x, quoting it, he clicks quote.
That's fine, that's good.
but if post x contains a quote, the quote gets lost
Here is an example. Anybody that tries to reply to this post, quoting it. i.e. replying by clicking quote. Will LOSE the following text
Indeed, it is an interesting paper
I am an old bird and I like to play with the smilies in moderation :-[. I noticed what you are talking about with the quotes it seems to be a glitch that truncates the part of the post that is not highlighted. I am sure something can be done to fix it. Lets bring it to Shlomo's attention.
-
I am an old bird and I like to play with the smilies in moderation :-[. I noticed what you are talking about with the quotes it seems to be a glitch that truncates the part of the post that is not highlighted. I am sure something can be done to fix it. Lets bring it to Shlomo's attention.
It can be easily explained as a "feature". It's clear what it does from my example. Nothing to do with "highlighting". Anybody technical will understand. It only wants one layer of quotes.
The philosophy of the software designers here is one of dumbing down, consistent with the smilies(targetted at a young, thick, childish or playful audience). But it's the quotes that is a proper problem. It's very obvious to me what is going through the software developers "mind" in producing something for kids or idiot end users. You do see it as a problem, (you happen to call it a "glitch"). You could be right that it's a glitch. But whatever it is, we agree it's a problem. And you'd like it brought to Shlomo's attention as I do. That's the significant thing..
Hopefully this thread will draw it to shlomo's attention.
I've just PMed him too.
-
I agree with qq, hopefully Shlomo can work out this glitch.
-
The philosophy of the software designers here is one of dumbing down, consistent with the smilies(targetted at a young, thick, childish or playful audience). But it's the quotes that is a proper problem. It's very obvious to me what is going through the software developers "mind" in producing something for kids or idiot end users. You do see it as a problem, (you happen to call it a "glitch"). You could be right that it's a glitch. But whatever it is, we agree it's a problem. And you'd like it brought to Shlomo's attention as I do. That's the significant thing..
That's an interesting point of view however I think its just a matter of giving the buying public what they want and not so much a case of thumbing down. For example years ago CompuServe and AOL were almost on even footing AOL had all the features geared to a younger user CompuServe stuck with a more Conservative outline and lost market share to the point that they were bought out by AOL. The fact of the matter is that young folks use computers outside of business far more than older folks and most programs are geared to what they like. Also most people developing software are in their 20's and 30's so its a young peoples business and whatever is produced will reflect a younger mentality. Granted their are some folks in the business who are older but the vast majority are not. The smiles are a extra and they can be funny and used to make a point when used accordingly or be completely avoided. The quote thing is a problem because unless our members proofread they will be using quotes that are pointless in some cases. Let's hope Shlomo can correct the problem without to much work.
-
yes, though note that i am not saying we shouldn't have the smilies..
and for te sake of correctness, I would point out that somebody writing software, whether he is 12 or 22, is a techie and is not going to include smilies for his own personal fun either. It's done for a certain audience. And by the way. AOL and I suppose compuserve too, are both aimed at non techie audiences. And btw, when I refer to kids, i'm referring to a state of mind really. There are serious/mature kids or kids that aren't amused by smilies. But i'm not against the smilies.. We have kids here, and I can live with them getting their fun with things like that. And this is all secondary philosophical musings .
the primary point is the quoting.
-
the smilies are fun, but you do have a point...we may need to cut down on a bunch of them and keep relevant ones.
-
the smilies are fun, but you do have a point...we may need to cut down on a bunch of them and keep relevant ones.
that really is not my point at all.
Though on that point, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea, but it wouldn't stop kid-minded individuals being immature, they would just express themselves, their immaturity in other ways. A problem of kid-minded people being kids, and what to do about it, is a far more difficult problem to solve.
The only reason I brought up the smilies was within an argument to cjd.. I was reluctant to bring it up because people would misinterpret it. And they have.
My first 2 posts make my point most clearly. Smilies have nothing to do with it.
Though it's a potentially useful "subthread".
-
It's not a glitch, nor is it a problem. It, also, has nothing, at all, to do with the smileys.
I turned on a feature where it automatically removes the quoted quotes because there were some who would quote the entire thread over and over and over again (taking up a huge amount of space which is rude and takes up an enormous amount of space in the database) after I asked people not to do this repeatedly. This same setting has already been turned on in the Hebrew forum for quite some now.
I understand that people naturally have difficulty with changes. If you want me to turn the quote removal off, all you have to do is ask or talk to me about it. I've worked very hard to provide a good experience and a secure web site for everyone.
-
I have alot of sympathy for that reasoning.
Here's a suggestion..
Instead of you alone taking on the burden of telling people to quote better..
How about we as a community criticise bad netiquette as it appears (and even in a FAQ. - i'm sure shlomo you're familiar with usenet "where" similar articles on how to quote are written all over the web)
But we have to be consistent..
A big problem along the lines of posts taking up FAR too much space, are people who have HUGE signatures.
A thread of 3 pages becomes 15 pages.
It was far worse when Yaakov used to post here continuously, each post with a huge picture in the signature.
For a start, I suggest that moderators, to set an example, shouldn't have huge pics in their sig..
And nobody should..
And it should be understood that these things make posts take up unnecessary space, and threads unnecessarily long.
I can tell, from the big signatures, that we have alot of people here that don't have a natural clue. They naturally do not get it. They are naturally technically inept..
Nevertheless, even an old man that is completely computer illiterate, can be shown how to use a computer. Similarly, these people can be made to understand that a big signature is unnecessary, and the problem of it.
I am actually very pleased to hear that you shlomo also feel that threads were unnecessary long (your reason bad quoting.. But no doubt big signatures would factor into that too, it's the same concept).
If the moderators quote properly, and police it, it can be done easily..
The moderators here are very dedicated and do a fantastic job.. It's really no big deal for them and the rest of the JTF community, including myself, to correct people and tell them they are overquoting or their sig is too big.
-
I know. I agree with you and you are not alone.
I've limited the size (600 pixels wide and 150 pixels tall) on all future images in signature lines about a week ago. There can be no more than 1 image, 1000 words (I thought this was PLENTY) and no more than 5 lines in signatures. Obviously, it will not effect current signatures but once a person tries to change them, it will then enforce the new rules. We have to be considerate to those who aren't as fortunate to have large monitors or high resolutions and I have received a LOT (a LOT!) of complaints on this. I hate putting in these types of rules but what else can I do?
Ok, I turned quote removal off. As long as the moderators will help me with this, then I have no problem turning it back off. But I want to warn you. If it gets out of hand again, I will reactivate this feature. I hope you understand.
-
It's not a glitch, nor is it a problem. It, also, has nothing, at all, to do with the smileys.
I turned on a feature where it automatically removes the quoted quotes because there were some who would quote the entire thread over and over and over again (taking up a huge amount of space which is rude and takes up an enormous amount of space in the database) after I asked people not to do this repeatedly. This same setting has already been turned on in the Hebrew forum for quite some now.
I understand that people naturally have difficulty with changes. If you want me to turn the quote removal off, all you have to do is ask or talk to me about it. I've worked very hard to provide a good experience and a secure web site for everyone.
The reason for the truncated posts dawned on me just before while I was out doing some yard work and smiled when I came in and saw the reason posted by Shlomo. He thinks of everything. Once a posts quotes get 3 or four deep its hard to see who is quoting what anyway. q_q- I hope you didn't think we were arguing but just discussing your one of my most favorite forum members.
-
<snip>
q_q- I hope you didn't think we were arguing but just discussing your one of my most favorite forum members.
Argue and discuss mean the same thing to me. It's not a negative thing.
I don't like compliments.
By the way.. Your signature is HUGE!
It's 2 big pictures.
It really expands the page..
By the way.. People that may not be familiar with proper quoting should take note of how I snipped, only quoting that which was relevant, when quoting cjd.
-
I like the new smileys. 8)
-
I have msged most of the moderators.. unfortunately they all seem to be culprits!!
hopefully we will have their help in this..
-
I like the new smileys. 8)
I don't. but I accept that the majority of people like it.
I prefer the old puritane smiley-schemas.
-
q_q_, I really want to be very respectful to cjd and the other moderators. You can't imagine how much they have done for the cause.
-
My 2 cents worth...
I think that Shlomo made a good decision. I noticed that people were quoting and sub-quoting the same thing over and over. It makes no sense to include the whole post in every post which just concerns one or two paragraphs in the original posting. I have tried, in the past, to edit out the parts which are not essential to make my point.
I like smileys and I am not a youngster by any means. Also the age of software engineers is far larger than was estimated above. In my field there are engineers in their 20s and engineers in their 40s {Like me}. The computer software industry really blossomed in the mid 80's {When I was 18}. What I like about smileys is that they provide a graphical representation of an emotional state. We all know that a picture is worth 1000s of words. A mature person will use all the tools at their disposal to make their posting more understandable and appealing to the reader.
I understand the reason that the forum doesnt allow flood posting. Because we have had so many Trolls who post so much garbage it is essential that if a person floods we assume they are a troll. What is so hard about waiting 30 seconds to make another posting?
muman613
-
My 2 cents worth...
I think that Shlomo made a good decision. I noticed that people were quoting and sub-quoting the same thing over and over. It makes no sense to include the whole post in every post which just concerns one or two paragraphs in the original posting. I have tried, in the past, to edit out the parts which are not essential to make my point.
I know you try to avoid confrontation so there's little point in me telling you this..
but if when it happens, you too can help correct people regarding this. Tell them they have quoted a load of unnecessary things and to snip appropriately, then that would be good.
I like smileys and I am not a youngster by any means.
I said it was about kid-like minds. You are quite mature-minded but I guess it's possible that maybe you have bad episodes sometimes. I haven't seen you using smileys very often though.
The smiley thing is not terrible though.
You do have a rather large sig. About 13 lines.
Shlomo mentioned a sig of about 5 lines max.
I don't understand why people read this thread and continue posting in it with LONG signatures after it was already been mentioned.
It's not that long.. But it is significantly long, and unnecessarily long.
you can easily get your message across - that your nick is muman613, with regular sized letters and not ascii art.
<snip>
[/quote]
-
I like the new smileys. 8)
I don't. but I accept that the majority of people like it.
I prefer the old puritane smiley-schemas.
Thanks pheasant! Perfect sig!
-
I like the new smileys. 8)
I don't. but I accept that the majority of people like it.
I prefer the old puritane smiley-schemas.
The old smileys do look more serious so they go better with a more serious discussion. It's still possible to put an older style smiley in with an img tag though even if you don't switch your user cp over. (http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/happy/happy0058.gif)
-
I am leaving my signature as it is until election day here in America and at that point I will leave only the lighthouse and my original tag line that I had since the original JTF Forum. I will try to shrink the lighthouse to the mandated pixel size then. I didn't realize it was causing such a distraction. Now days I read more than I post anyhow so its only one or two posts a day until then.
-
I am leaving my signature as it is until election day here in America and at that point I will leave only the lighthouse and my original tag line that I had since the original JTF Forum. I will try to shrink the lighthouse to the mandated pixel size then. I didn't realize it was causing such a distraction. Now days I read more than I post anyhow so its only one or two posts a day until then.
sounds good
-
I like the new smileys. 8)
I don't. but I accept that the majority of people like it.
I prefer the old puritane smiley-schemas.
I agree with you pheasant.
-
They are easy to change.
Click on "USER CP" on the top
Go to "Look & Layout Options"
Change "Current Smiley Set" to whatever you like the most.
-
My 2 cents worth...
I think that Shlomo made a good decision. I noticed that people were quoting and sub-quoting the same thing over and over. It makes no sense to include the whole post in every post which just concerns one or two paragraphs in the original posting. I have tried, in the past, to edit out the parts which are not essential to make my point.
I know you try to avoid confrontation so there's little point in me telling you this..
but if when it happens, you too can help correct people regarding this. Tell them they have quoted a load of unnecessary things and to snip appropriately, then that would be good.
I like smileys and I am not a youngster by any means.
I said it was about kid-like minds. You are quite mature-minded but I guess it's possible that maybe you have bad episodes sometimes. I haven't seen you using smileys very often though.
The smiley thing is not terrible though.
You do have a rather large sig. About 13 lines.
Shlomo mentioned a sig of about 5 lines max.
I don't understand why people read this thread and continue posting in it with LONG signatures after it was already been mentioned.
It's not that long.. But it is significantly long, and unnecessarily long.
you can easily get your message across - that your nick is muman613, with regular sized letters and not ascii art.
<snip>
q_q_,
I avoid confrontation when no confrontation is required. Of course there is a time to stand up for what is right. But I am surprised you are so concerned with signatures. I do not know the internals of the forum code but I would be willing to bet that a signature does not take up space in the database like quoting did. I suspect this because when I change my signature in the control panel, it changes in all posts I make. This leads me to suspect that the signatures are output by the PHP code which sends the HTML to the browser. I have written some PHP code of my own and know how this works.
So if it is not that it takes up space in the posting database why should we be so worried about how big our signature is? And I will agree with you that sometimes peoples signatures are too big. My sig at 13 lines is not so bad. I think the ASCII art sends a message of its own. In this day and age when everything is all graphics I want to say that ASCII art is still alive :)
I will certainly take your suggestion to moderate when people over-use the quoting feature and suggest that the poster modify their post to reduce the verbiage.
Thank you,
muman613
-
I have to disagree with you, q_q. This new feature saves a ton of time and effort and makes it harder to accidentally mistype a quoting posts.
-
Perhaps we should set up a poll and vote.
-
Shlomo, I urge you not to change it. The previous way was extremely messy and led to countless messed-up quote posts.
-
<snip>
I avoid confrontation when no confrontation is required. Of course there is a time to stand up for what is right. But I am surprised you are so concerned with signatures. I do not know the internals of the forum code but I would be willing to bet that a signature does not take up space in the database like quoting did. I suspect this because when I change my signature in the control panel, it changes in all posts I make. This leads me to suspect that the signatures are output by the PHP code which sends the HTML to the browser. I have written some PHP code of my own and know how this works.
So if it is not that it takes up space in the posting database why should we be so worried about how big our signature is? And I will agree with you that sometimes peoples signatures are too big. My sig at 13 lines is not so bad. I think the ASCII art sends a message of its own. In this day and age when everything is all graphics I want to say that ASCII art is still alive :)
I will certainly take your suggestion to moderate when people over-use the quoting feature and suggest that the poster modify their post to reduce the verbiage.
Thank you,
muman613
a) You overquoted yourself. You even quoted things about smilies that you didn't refer to
b) The thing about signature size is not because of Megabytes. Or the posting database. It's because it means the threads get longer than they need to be. A thread that should be 3 pages can become 6 in an extreme case.
I also like the message of ascii art over modern images, and modenr images over animated gifs. Technical Minimalism when that is all that is required.
But not at the expense of an elongated sig.
Shlomo himself mentioned a sig length of max 5 lines.
-
But nobody has made an issue of Muman's sig but you.
-
Shlomo, I urge you not to change it. The previous way was extremely messy and led to countless messed-up quote posts.
CF, you never had much need for good quoting because you never really got into any deep discussions.
ps: note your signature. This is the point of this thread.
-
They are easy to change.
Click on "USER CP" on the top
Go to "Look & Layout Options"
Change "Current Smiley Set" to whatever you like the most.
Yes this is true.
But if I use the old type of smilies, the others see the new one (if they choose so).
8) is not = (http://www.blade691.com/board/Smileys/classic/cool.gif)
and
:'( is not = (http://www.blade691.com/board/Smileys/classic/cry.gif)
I think the new ones express extreme feelings.
-
But nobody has made an issue of Muman's sig but you.
See page1, Shlomo said, not in reference to any one specifically, but a general point that applies to everybody. Including you and Muman of course.
"There can be no more than 1 image, 1000 words (I thought this was PLENTY) and no more than 5 lines in signatures. Obviously, it will not effect current signatures but once a person tries to change them, it will then enforce the new rules."
And he mentioned about big pictures in signatures too.
-
I think if you want to be sure what others see, you could use the img tag to attach them, that way people will see what you intend.
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/fighting/fighting0038.gif)
I think this one's funny.
mysmiley.net has a lot of good ones
-
if I use the old type of smilies, the others see the new one (if they choose so).
8) is not = (http://www.blade691.com/board/Smileys/classic/cool.gif)
and
:'( is not = (http://www.blade691.com/board/Smileys/classic/cry.gif)
I think the new ones express extreme feelings.
yes well if you're imbuing your posts with that much meaning coming from smilies then it suggests that the message you are projecting isn't very serious anyway. Or that you aren't able to put it into words, which is not reality. You're extremely intelligent.
Nevertheless, if you insist on relying on smilies like that, you could do textual smilies with spaces so they don't convert. Like ; - ) or whatever. And look for ways to cover a range of emotions . But expecting to rely on flexibility with the latest smilies to convey your message is just ridiculous.
-
CF, you never had much need for good quoting because you never really got into any deep discussions.
HaRav Meir David Kahane (zt"l): Those who do not debate, defame.
ps: note your signature. This is the point of this thread.
Funny, you'd think that if it was a problem, an admin would have told me...
-
yes well if you're imbuing your posts with that much meaning coming from smilies then it suggests that the message you are projecting isn't very serious anyway. Or that you aren't able to put it into words, which is not reality. You're extremely intelligent.
Sometimes it's hard to convey something like tone of voice in written form. That's why smileys help a lot. Also they help to emphasize things, like if you're angry you could post >:(
-
CF, As I said. See Page1, Shlomo told everybody softly without pointing fingers.
It's very explicit. You may need somebody to hit you over the head with a bat before you get the point.
You are intentionally behaving more stupid than you are, by misquoting layers of quotes. (I refer to your post 2 above this one)
This is NOT a deep discussion.
You are not able to get into deep discussions anyway.
There is no need here for you to even attempt using layers of quotes. Which you intentionally mangled here.
You yourself say it's easy to get it wrong. So don't do it.
Quote the person you are replying to, and write your response below it.
Don't mangle it intentionally , especially not so mischievously as you have here, in an argument where you are saying you are against the layers of quotes even being an option.
There are many here, like KahaneBT and myself, that do get into deep logical discussions, and do use layers of quotes.
You have no use for them. So don't use them
-
CF, As I said. See Page1, Shlomo told everybody softly without pointing fingers.
It's very explicit. You may need somebody to hit you over the head with a bat before you get the point.
You are intentionally behaving more stupid than you are, by misquoting layers of quotes. (I refer to your post 2 above this one)
This is NOT a deep discussion.
You are not able to get into deep discussions anyway.
There is no need here for you to even attempt using layers of quotes. Which you intentionally mangled here.
You yourself say it's easy to get it wrong. So don't do it.
Quote the person you are replying to, and write your response below it.
Don't mangle it intentionally , especially not so mischievously as you have here, in an argument where you are saying you are against the layers of quotes even being an option.
There are many here, like KahaneBT and myself, that do get into deep logical discussions, and do use layers of quotes.
You have no use for them. So don't use them
ok ok break it up...break it up!
-
For the record, I really want people to be able to show their creativity and give their account the image and feel that they want. It adds a lot of color and life to the forum and makes things more exciting. And most signatures are actually alright. The reason I placed any restrictions at all on signatures was only because some of our members (who have much smaller screens, slow internet connections, mobile devices, etc) had problems with some of the larger pictures and I want everyone to be able to participate. I think this is fair to those members and I want them to be able to post too.
It's always a very tough challenge to decide where the boundaries should be. And I know the forum is undergoing a lot of changes and upgrades but I'm only trying my very best to help us become a mass movement. I know it's not always easy but I think things are starting to look a lot more professional and will attract many new members.
-
CF, As I said. See Page1, Shlomo told everybody softly without pointing fingers.
<snip>
You have no use for them. So don't use them
ok ok break it up...break it up!
Dan. This is quite a serious discussion.. Not something for you to run in and try to divert the subject, it could just cause more repetition, and that would be worse.
This is clearly an important thing that deserves attention. layers of quotes are important to many users.
And those that have no use for them can avoid using them.
-
Shlomo I think when the chat is ready and you're able to officially release it that it will encourage more visitors to actually participate which will help us a lot. Some people don't like message boards but will enjoy the chat feature. You're doing so much in such a short period of time. I think it will make a big difference.
-
I think if you want to be sure what others see, you could use the img tag to attach them, that way people will see what you intend.
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/fighting/fighting0038.gif)
I think this one's funny.
mysmiley.net has a lot of good ones
Thank you ruby
-
you're welcome!
-
CF, As I said. See Page1, Shlomo told everybody softly without pointing fingers.
It's very explicit. You may need somebody to hit you over the head with a bat before you get the point.
You are intentionally behaving more stupid than you are, by misquoting layers of quotes. (I refer to your post 2 above this one)
This is NOT a deep discussion.
You are not able to get into deep discussions anyway.
There is no need here for you to even attempt using layers of quotes. Which you intentionally mangled here.
You yourself say it's easy to get it wrong. So don't do it.
Quote the person you are replying to, and write your response below it.
Don't mangle it intentionally , especially not so mischievously as you have here, in an argument where you are saying you are against the layers of quotes even being an option.
There are many here, like KahaneBT and myself, that do get into deep logical discussions, and do use layers of quotes.
You have no use for them. So don't use them
While I would personally contest whether pages of NK-apology (stating that they aren't really Israel-hating Holocaust-deniers, that they only met with Ahmadinejad and David Duke to make their "voice heard", etc.) really qualifies as "deep logical discussion"), or whether Shlomo intended hidden meanings that nobody else seems to be able to find, those things are besides the point. Believe it or not, I didn't mangle that quote-post (now edited) intentionally. It was a complete mistake on my part--I accidentally omitted the backslash for the first quote that you made. In fact, I only proved my case by making this typing error: I demonstrated how insanely easy it is to mess up a quotation--even a very simple one--with one omission. Therefore, anything that makes it easier for people to cite quotes from other posters on this forum is a good thing, and anything that doesn't makes it more difficult to quickly and correctly cite other posts in a "logical debate". Wouldn't you say?
-
yes well if you're imbuing your posts with that much meaning coming from smilies then it suggests that the message you are projecting isn't very serious anyway. Or that you aren't able to put it into words, which is not reality. You're extremely intelligent.
Sometimes it's hard to convey something like tone of voice in written form. That's why smileys help a lot. Also they help to emphasize things, like if you're angry you could post >:(
if women just kept to one tone of voice(a normal pleasant one, not too high), men would be much happier!
Robocop managed fine with one tone of voice. You could see when he was sad or confident..
Fact is, you can write in that you're angry or sad. In my post about Amona I think it was quote obvious I was sad. One just has to use choose the words that represent what they are trying to convey.
-
Do you think nested quotes when replying should be automatically removed leaving only the last quote?
-
For the record, I really want people to be able to show their creativity and give their account the image and feel that they want. It adds a lot of color and life to the forum and makes things more exciting. And most signatures are actually alright. The reason I placed any restrictions at all on signatures was only because some of our members (who have much smaller screens, slow internet connections, mobile devices, etc) had problems with some of the larger pictures and I want everyone to be able to participate. I think this is fair to those members and I want them to be able to post too.
It's always a very tough challenge to decide where the boundaries should be. And I know the forum is undergoing a lot of changes and upgrades but I'm only trying my very best to help us become a mass movement. I know it's not always easy but I think things are starting to look a lot more professional and will attract many new members.
I agree on the signature issue with you. :)
I think we should make it for all members comfortable.
-
I like stacking quotes but people should take care to use them properly and check the coding. Most Web users have a rudimentary knowledge of HTML and the forum code is even easier than HTML. You can always trim a quote down if you need to or edit your own post to fix it if you mess it up.
-
For the record, I really want people to be able to show their creativity and give their account the image and feel that they want. It adds a lot of color and life to the forum and makes things more exciting. And most signatures are actually alright. The reason I placed any restrictions at all on signatures was only because some of our members (who have much smaller screens, slow internet connections, mobile devices, etc) had problems with some of the larger pictures and I want everyone to be able to participate. I think this is fair to those members and I want them to be able to post too.
It's always a very tough challenge to decide where the boundaries should be. And I know the forum is undergoing a lot of changes and upgrades but I'm only trying my very best to help us become a mass movement. I know it's not always easy but I think things are starting to look a lot more professional and will attract many new members.
I agree on the signature issue with you. :)
I think we should make it for all members comfortable.
Schlomo, when did you change it back?
-
I have made this topic a poll.
Please vote if you want nested quotes to be automatically removed when replying.
-
if women just kept to one tone of voice(a normal pleasant one, not too high), men would be much happier!
(Jokingly) Women would like it if all men knew how to say was yes dear.
Robocop managed fine with one tone of voice. You could see when he was sad or confident..
(neutral) Unfortunately misunderstandings occur in text a lot, even big ones. Anything that helps conversation to be more understandable is good in my eyes.
Fact is, you can write in that you're angry or sad. In my post about Amona I think it was quote obvious I was sad. One just has to use choose the words that represent what they are trying to convey.
(happy) I like smileys though in addition to writing. If I wanted all plain text I'd go to Usenet.
-
I have msged most of the moderators.. unfortunately they all seem to be culprits!!
hopefully we will have their help in this..
:o :P I would hate to remove BullCat jr.'s picture of Chaim. She might :'( or blow a gastket >:(.
If Shlomo ;D would like to resize it, I give HIM permission to do so. It made her :dance: to have it there.
With all due respect. BullCat :)
-
if women just kept to one tone of voice(a normal pleasant one, not too high), men would be much happier!
(Jokingly) Women would like it if all men knew how to say was yes dear.
I would advise that the expression "yes dear" would really mean "Fine". Which you can assume is the case unless told "No".
-
If you haven't voted or wish to change your vote, please do so soon.
Thank you,
Shlomo