Some of the threads were getting a bit deep so I now have the forums display only 5 levels. If that doesn't sound reasonable, I can tweak it.
The forums also cache up to 100 unread messages (it used to be 50). I had to clear out the unread list to make this fix, so that's why recent messages may appear to be "read" right now.
ID:137914
 Jun 11 2001, 10:22 am
|
|
On 6/11/01 2:22 pm Tom wrote:
Some of the threads were getting a bit deep so I now have the forums display only 5 levels. If that doesn't sound reasonable, I can tweak it. Hmm... user preference setting? I like being able to see which messages are in response to which more than a nice pretty forum listing, but I know other people are different. | |
On 6/11/01 2:22 pm Tom wrote:
Some of the threads were getting a bit deep so I now have the forums display only 5 levels. If that doesn't sound reasonable, I can tweak it. sorry man i just cant stand it... i think you should change it back. there are long threads that just dont make scince if you read them like that.. | |
On 6/11/01 3:29 pm jobe wrote:
On 6/11/01 2:22 pm Tom wrote: Yeah, it's starting to remind me of those bloody Communist topic-listing forums. | |
On 6/11/01 3:19 pm Leftley wrote:
On 6/11/01 2:22 pm Tom wrote: Yeah, I could make it a preference. In practice, though, I've seen very few threads here that really require this knowledge. Most of the replies-to-replies just continue the thread, and when they don't, the topic title is usually a good indicator of the parent. Why don't we see how it feels for a few days and then make the call. I'm always open to suggestions. | |
Yeah, it's starting to remind me of those bloody Communist topic-listing forums. Believe it or not, I actually got into the habit of using those a couple days ago. It's a lot easier to peruse, even though I despise unthreaded messages. | |
On 6/11/01 3:29 pm jobe wrote:
sorry man i just cant stand it... i think you should change it back. there are long threads that just dont make scince if you read them like that.. They make sense if the responder quotes the relevant text before replying. Er, like I to above. ;) I prefer the GS message boards, which are in a format most of you would probably hate... messages in a particular folder simply appear by date. 11045 GMs READ THIS 11046 Re: Locker bug 11047 Re: Locker bug 11048 Re: GMs READ THIS 11049 Re: GMs READ THIS 11050 "Customer" vs "Guest" 11051 Re: "Customer" vs "Guest" 11052 Re: "Customer" vs "Guest" 11053 Re: "Customer" vs "Guest" 11054 Re: "Customer" vs "Guest" 11055 Re: "Customer" vs "Guest" 11056 Re: "Customer" vs "Guest" 11057 Re: GMs READ THIS 11058 Re: "Customer" vs "Guest" We can re-order them by date or subject or author. But I like it like this. I feel more like I'm replying to the whole thread and anyone interested in the thread is going to read my post. If I want to be clear about what exactly I'm replying to, I include the appropriate text. It's also very easy to see if X thread was started before Y thread. Having posts aligned as they are for BYOND is a luxury I don't need, and I prefer the simpler take above. Z | |
On 6/11/01 4:24 pm Zilal wrote:
Having posts aligned as they are for BYOND is a luxury I don't need, and I prefer the simpler take above. You know about "Message View" right? That sounds like what they've got in GS. I use it, myself. You can make it a permanent setting in the preferences if you haven't already. | |
I wasted a bit of time futzing with some spacing to avoid this thread issue. Go to http://tom.byond.com/forum/forum.cgi and tell me what you think of the layout there. Since it doesn't use bullet lists I can squeeze in a lot more stuff on the screen, but I'm not sure if it looks acceptable.
| |
Looks good to me. Much more concise.
On 6/11/01 4:57 pm Tom wrote: I wasted a bit of time futzing with some spacing to avoid this thread issue. Go to http://tom.byond.com/forum/forum.cgi and tell me what you think of the layout there. Since it doesn't use bullet lists I can squeeze in a lot more stuff on the screen, but I'm not sure if it looks acceptable. | |
On 6/11/01 4:57 pm Tom wrote:
I wasted a bit of time futzing with some spacing to avoid this thread issue. Go to http://tom.byond.com/forum/forum.cgi and tell me what you think of the layout there. Since it doesn't use bullet lists I can squeeze in a lot more stuff on the screen, but I'm not sure if it looks acceptable. Works for me. I tend toward the minimalist approach -- if a pixel isn't contributing information, toss it! | |
On 6/11/01 4:57 pm Tom wrote:
I wasted a bit of time futzing with some spacing to avoid this thread issue. Go to http://tom.byond.com/forum/forum.cgi and tell me what you think of the layout there. Since it doesn't use bullet lists I can squeeze in a lot more stuff on the screen, but I'm not sure if it looks acceptable. Being a silly and backwards person, I'm inclined to prefer the way things were before all the changes. But the bullet-less approach is way better than cutting down on thread levels. | |
On 6/11/01 5:07 pm Leftley wrote:
Being a silly and backwards person, I'm inclined to prefer the way things were before all the changes. But the bullet-less approach is way better than cutting down on thread levels. Oh, come on now! Look at the thread titled "Selling weapons but have a problem" in "Code Problems". Before all of these changes it was practically unreadable because the thread took up so much space. I think the current system here treats it much more elegantly, but in general perhaps the show-all-levels layout is better. I don't know. | |
Oh, come on now! Look at the thread titled "Selling weapons but have a problem" in "Code Problems". Before all of these changes it was practically unreadable because the thread took up so much space. I think the current system here treats it much more elegantly, but in general perhaps the show-all-levels layout is better. I don't know. Well, Tom, I support the full-threaded, bulletless method. You did such a good job on the forum example! (Maybe if I suck up enough, Tom will let Dan implement text-mode map editing! =) | |
On 6/11/01 5:46 pm Spuzzum wrote:
(Maybe if I suck up enough, Tom will let Dan implement text-mode map editing! =) Hah! Unfortunately for you, that chore is on my end, and I'm much lazier than Dan when it comes to feature-creep. But it is Listed. Don't let it keep you from sucking-up though. For the rest of you: any more opinions on this lame forum issue before I make the call? | |
Put the content of the message inside a table! Single cell, with a fixed width... or some other fancy-schmancy formatting trick that makes it so the width of the messages is constant, regardless of the width of the threads.
Oh, come on now! Look at the thread titled "Selling weapons but have a problem" in "Code Problems". Before all of these changes it was practically unreadable because the thread took up so much space. I think the current system here treats it much more elegantly, but in general perhaps the show-all-levels layout is better. I don't know. | |
Works for me. I tend toward the minimalist approach -- if a pixel isn't contributing information, toss it! I say, if a pixel isn't contributing, hold its head down in the sink until it's darn ready to contribute. | |
On 6/11/01 6:34 pm LexyBitch wrote:
Put the content of the message inside a table! Single cell, with a fixed width... or some other fancy-schmancy formatting trick that makes it so the width of the messages is constant, regardless of the width of the threads. Right, I could probably prevent the messages themselves from extending past the screen (although it currently does involve a number of fixed width tables and it's still not doing the trick .. _and_ I don't feel like delving back into the miserable world of html, if you want to know the truth :). However, IMHO things still look way too cluttered when there are so many levels of nesting, and at that point having so many levels is pretty useless anyway. That's why I originally imposed the 5 (actually 8) level maximum. But I can use the alternate, non-bullet indendation and allow unlimited levels, instead, since that takes quite a few levels to warp the screen, and it wraps more nicely too. No one seems to have too strong of any opinion on this, so I'm probably just being overlay anal-retentive. | |
Hmm, I'll say that I'm not terribly fond of this since I like to read in thread order, and now there's no way to see that in deeper parts of threads. But it is annoying when the entire message is wider than the window because the thread index below it gets too wide.
Perhaps a compromise would be to have each forum index fully thread everything as deep as it goes, but limit the thread index at the bottom of a message to 5 levels or whatever. Then again, I'm probably pickier than most, so if nobody else cares, don't bother...