Forum Update

fermi

Awful squashed up thread titles.

A thread title should never go on to 3 lines.

thatgirlsam

Gone back to stretchy, the fixed width seemed so small in the middle of the screen

But yes Martin you do look sexy in your new mast head :-)

soullllllllllllll

MSE_Martin wrote: »

OK Im going to leave before I get quite frustrated with the whole things.

To be fair, your use of exclamation marks in earlier posts gave the impression you were annoyed that people object to the change.

There is a stretchy option. We havent changed the forum colours at all (barring the masthead) so its rather strange that some are saying they don't like the stretchy colours?

Any way the message of the people who came to discuss is plain. Yet we think its the right move, and I have to make that decision. However the option is there to change back for anyone who wants.

CAN WE NOW FOCUS ON REPORTING GLITCHES PLEASE IN EITHER VERSION

Certainly. I reported one issue on the other thread and didn't get a response. Why is there some sort of mesh directly under the top bar?

p.s. your users make this site what it is, it wouldn't hurt to listen to them now and then. The forum looks stupid when viewed at such a small size.

fermi

And that pic just broke the container and sidebar. :lipsrseal

poppellerant

I thought these forums were about being efficient? What exactly is efficient about 2/3 of my screen being used to show the forums?

Although I have changed my skin to stretchy, some users won't know how to do this and will be put off by the white borders enforced upon them.

Very, very, very bad design!

MSE_Martin

arcon5 wrote: »

Thats a very wild comment to say the least. See what your members want and do the opposite because you like it -- surely in business it's about what your customer wants? The customer being us, who click on your masses of affiliate links plastered around the site.

The majority of forum users don't register. Of those who do, the majority post infrequently. The people on here are the hardcore regulars - we get that and we know we need to cater.

Its interesting to note that there's been no change to post frequence, traffic is up, and this thread isn't in the top 30 most viewed on the site (my stats only go that far) currently.

So we know that this is an issue, for those people it is an issue for and who come to complain. Yet there are other metrics - such as the bounce rate for new users, time in forum and other things we will look at to get the picture.

Forgive me but if I made a knee jerk decision based on posts about change of the site - it'd still look like the forum of 2003. So I need to give it time and see how it works - all I ask is you guys do too (but if you can't switch it).

Do remember all we've changed is the masthead and width. The next stage is to really work on a much cleaner easier look. That is actually what most of you are asking for. Yet you seem to want it all at once - this is a free site, no one pays to use it, but we do consider our users and want them to enjoy it

We have done back compatibility at every stage so those who don't like it can switch back. T

It is not wrong to go with something new, and its my call on what the default will be. Yet we're not imposing it, we're giving a choice.

soullllllllllllll

Posting images also tends to screw things up. The above is only 700 px wide.....

aliasojo

soullllllllllllll wrote: »

Why is there some sort of mesh directly under the top bar?

I have that too. Not sure if it's intended design?

wnoktnwbr

auto-man wrote: »

In case you missed it mr arrogant boss-man

Please only talk about technical things if you understand them yourself. I don't think Martin has any problems with the work being done, the MSE team seem very competent, the issue is one of disagreements over layouts. The MSE team believe it should look one way, (some) users another, implementation is a none issue.

If you want the forums to be as sexy as the site you risk compromising vB security as we all know vB does not go well with HTML and leaves gaping holes.

HTML is a mark up language, it says "this goes there", to say "x doesn't go well with HTML and leaves gaping [security] holes" is very nonsensical. HTML is client side, a user can modify (if they so wish) the HTML their browser renders and so any sort of security problems with HTML would affect all websites. They don't exist (unless you want to be pedantic and talk about cross site scripting using image embedding, but that's of no relevance here).

poppy10_2

JDPower wrote: »

Martin, the fixed width wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for a chunk of that limited width being taken up with (no offence intended) the guff down the right hand side.

Yep, agree completely. There's little useful in that sidebar, particularly for regular visitors. I've Adblocked most of it.

Anyway I've switched to the stretchy option, it's not much of an issue as long as there is a choice.