chai2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 07:36 am
@chai2,
case in point, it wouldn't let me type the word "no" by itself and submit.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 07:38 am
@CalamityJane,
Yes -- once we have search functionality as powerful as the old one
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 07:39 am
@CalamityJane,
nope
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 07:43 am
@Thomas,
Yeah, that's my response too. On the balance, "yes" I think. (As in, if I absolutely can only choose one, make it a "yes.") But I sorely miss the search function.

Overall, I think the old site was nice but had serious limitations in terms of growth. This one is way more about potentiality -- there are offsetting nice things here (I absolutely adore the "ignore" function), but then there are things that we know are in the pipeline that will make it way better than it is now and way better than the old site too. Sure I'd like to see those things sooner rather than later, but Robert's been pretty up-front about this stuff likely taking a while.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 07:44 am
@sozobe,
Oh, Thomas edited -- when I responded, he'd said "neutral" (and mentioned the search function).
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 07:44 am
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
Yeah, that's my response too. On the balance, "yes" I think. (As in, if I absolutely can only choose one, make it a "yes.")

Yet another act of telepathy. I edited it to "yes" while you wrote.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 08:13 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Yes -- once we have search functionality as powerful as the old one

So that's a "no" then.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 08:26 am
@Ticomaya,
As Sozobe said (and as I had said before I edited) it's a "neutral" right now.
alex240101
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 08:36 am
@CalamityJane,
Hello Calamity Jane.
Yes.
I do miss a couple items about the old site, but, the new bells and whistles, make up, and surpass.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 09:26 am
Yes -- 14
No - 14

Can you sense the suspense? It's like the elections all over again!

OK, not really, I'm just annoyed with something IRL right now so I dropped in to distract myself.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 09:27 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
As Sozobe said (and as I had said before I edited) it's a "neutral" right now.

Under the old site you couldn't have edited, and we would not have all this confusion.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 09:31 am
No, though there are a lot of things I do like about it.
I still hate having to vote things down.
It is very difficult to teach somebody unskilled in message boards how to use the site and most won't try.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 09:46 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
I do wonder what CJ hopes to achieve by this sort of thing.

Being hurtful and distressing and alienating to Craven and the weeny incipient team?
Likely not.....but CJ, what IS the effect?


I made an assessment for myself and voiced my opinion towards the new
design after having used it for a few months now, and after having seen the
people I like either disappear altogether or post far less, and I am interested
how other people perceive this.

I am not here to collect brownie points or brown nose people, but at the same token, I have never attacked Craven and I don't believe that he takes criticism and complaints about the design as hurtful and personal insult.
Dto. for the team and the outstanding job they're doing. So you can leave the drama at your own doorstep, dlowan.

I do get that some people are thrilled with the new design, for my own
purpose I would like to know who is and who isn't for the basic reason
that I question myself constantly, and would it be only me disliking the
new site, I'd shut-up in a hurry.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 09:49 am
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:

Under the old site you couldn't have edited, and we would not have all this confusion.

Actually he could have. On the old site you could edit your post until the next person posted. Since Thomas' edit seems to have gone through just as Soz was posting, the same would have happened before.

And of course on the old site until, I dont remember, a year or two ago?, you could edit your old posts into eternity... I miss that sometimes. Not to mislead people, but just to update the title of your thread a little if it was overtaken by events, for example..
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 09:51 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Edit: by the way, when those changes launch, get ready to relearn muscle memory. It's a lot more like the old site, but the months on this UI have build the logo click muscle memory up and you'll have to develop muscle memory for the old-style "new posts" link.You'll understand what I mean when you see it.


I welcome any change as long as it makes my life easier, especially in
my spare time when I just want to unwind. As it is right now, my tasks
to maneuver around a2k are far more plentiful than before, only to achieve
the same thing.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 09:52 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:
Yes or NO please!


this was a bit leading wasn't it

with an opening like that, everyone who voted yes should get a bonus vote for having the courage to go against the desired response

in any case, it's a mixed bag response to a site that's in development (and did anyone vote in a way that was a surprise to the other posters? I'd suspect not - the lines were drawn months ago)
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 09:54 am
@nimh,
I'm sure there's a pretty graph in there somewhere!
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 09:56 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

CalamityJane wrote:

Thanks for the "irrelevance" tagline to whomever Laughing Got pissed, eh?


That was easy enough to fix, I just had to tag it a bit and it went away. It's also something I've been thinking of ways to curb. I think listing who tagged the thread will reduce it a bit, as well as being a nice social feature to help users follow the people who follow the things they are interested in.

Don't know if that made much sense the way I explain it, but the short version is that I've been working on ideas to make that better, but even now if you want to get rid of them it just use all the valid tags you can think of and they usually go away.


Yes, I know how to get rid of a less favorable line, I just mentioned it
yesterday in a humorous manner (with an emoticon afterwards), that's all.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 09:57 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
Calamity Jane wrote:
Yes or NO please!

this was a bit leading wasn't it

Indeed I'd say that's voter fraud. I demand a recount!

(And I welcome this opportunity to annoy ehBeth with some good, old-A2K nested quotes.)
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 10:01 am
@Thomas,
Fraud is just everywhere, isn't it - so suck it up! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Head count
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 09:55:47