Jump to content


Photo

Do You Like The New Forum


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#37 John Nixon

John Nixon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 23 August 2003 - 08:36 AM

Hi friends,
If Charles Wheatstone had been involved with this .net , I am sure that he would applaud the advanes made to the latest format. There may be more changes in the years hence & if someone of my advancing years can follow with only ONE DAY's use, then Iit must be quite user friendly.
However, I do wish that my name (as required in the logging procedure) was referred to as MY NAME & NOT USER NAME.
Congratulations Paul. JOHN NIXON.

#38 Pam B

Pam B

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Connecticut, USA

Posted 23 August 2003 - 08:05 PM

I'll admit, I'm stumbling around the new forum, but, I do remember Paul asking us to "give it a try."

I have always appreciated the efforts of Paul and the comments from all of the concertina.net contributors. I will give the forum a little more time before passing judgement.

:blink:

#39 David Barnert

David Barnert

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albany, NY, USA

Posted 24 August 2003 - 01:16 AM

David, it looks like a bit of tweaking with the spacing of the top line should fix the sig.

Thanks, Mike, nice idea.

Looks like it's not gonna work. The system reduces all multiple spaces to one space. Watch:

-> <- I have typed one space between these arrows.
-> <- I have typed five spaces between these arrows.

#40 Clive Thorne

Clive Thorne

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Location:Northamptonshire, UK

Posted 25 August 2003 - 04:58 PM

Not being able to scroll to see all the threads and their posting titles/authors contents may be a slight disadvantage.
However being able to scroll up and down a whole thread and see the actual texts is a vast improvement. With the old system you had to click on the message to get to see it which I found terribly slow (56K modem only).

I do wish people would use their actual names however, makes you feel like your talking to a real person!, and anonimity (IMHO) tends to reduce the value of the authors opinions.

Clive.

#41 jmyersgoucheredu

jmyersgoucheredu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Location:Reisterstown, MD, USA

Posted 26 August 2003 - 10:41 PM

You know, I didn't like it at first, but after using it a few times, I like it very much. Not having to scroll to find unread entries is very convenient, as is not having different messages flagged as new at home and at the office. Actually, I can't at the moment think of anything I don't like about it.

Thanks to our fearless leader!

#42 Frank Edgley

Frank Edgley

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 827 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Posted 01 September 2003 - 09:50 AM

Samantha, I checked with *my assistant* and it gave me no indication you had responded to me. It apparently will only notify me of a response to a new topic that I started. I don't need that sort of *assistance*.

In just a few days this software has become a hodge-podge of posts and threads. I've responded at several different threads but who knows where any reaction or response to my posts might be found!!?? I'm not even sure where and to what threads I've posted. I would assume that there might be a way to track my own posts (Is this true??). But I have more important things to do with my time than to go on a hunting trip for my own posts!!

This is Yukky!!.

Sandy, the more I visit the forum, the less I like it. You are quite right about what you say. I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to find your post here, as I left it for a few minutes and couldn't find it again until now. Paul, with all due respects, this is a nightmare, and it's bound to get worse. Having been out of town for 10 days my mind is boggled at what confronts me. I don't have time to dig through the mase and my eyes just glaze over when I look at the Forum, now. Yes, it is more organised, but I much, much, much prefer the old format. Maybe I'm at the "bottom of the class" here, but after 32 years of teaching school I learned early on that if you "teach to the top of the class", you will lose the others. Definitely , I will visit the forum less, as I suspect others will. Not out of spite, but out of frustration, and "I-haven't-got-the-time-for-all-this" sort of feeling. This may affect wide participation (those who like it will continue) and ultimately and consequentially the value of the advertising those of us who support this site get from it. :(

#43 Frank Edgley

Frank Edgley

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 827 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Posted 01 September 2003 - 09:59 AM

By the way, I just notices that I' now considered a "newbie" in spite of my past history with the old forum. I understand the logic of this, but it does appear to lessen my credibility. This situation will probably not change. As I have stated in the previous post, I am less likely to participate, in the future. The forum was usually a short, but daily event in my day. I will miss it as such.

#44 jmyersgoucheredu

jmyersgoucheredu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Location:Reisterstown, MD, USA

Posted 01 September 2003 - 11:31 AM

I am less likely to participate, in the future. The forum was usually a short, but daily event in my day. I will miss it as such.

Frank, I was put off by the new format at first, but I now find it easier to use than the older format. I get e-mails about responses to my posts. When I visit the discussion page, all of the topics with new listings are first in line. One click takes me to the most recent entry, and the others are right above it on the same page. It seems much easier to navigate to me.

Jeff Myers

P.S.--Hope you'll try it a bit longer, for your contributions are (IMHO) among the most valuable!

#45 JimLucas

JimLucas

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 01 September 2003 - 12:38 PM

If all you do is read the latest posts, and you read them all at a go, then maybe the new format is better.

But if you want to return to something you already read, how do you find it? In fact, you don't even have to read it to lose track of it: if there are six new posts in a particular Topic, and you only have time to read three short of them, the system will nonetheless mark them all as "visited" (or whatever the internal code name is), so when you return *you* will have to find them.

Then what happens if you can't remember what Topic they were under. As the topics get longer -- something that some of them are definitiely doing, -- how much are you going to have to search through?

Parts of the discussion on tuning and temperament, e.g., spans three different Topics (if memory serves me correctly), and is only part of the CSFRI... Topic. I tried using the Search facility and got no matches (which for some reason is considered to be an *error*) on each of "tuning", "mean tone", and "temperament".

So I tried a search on the word "concertina" and only got two pages of references. Something is very wrong here. In one sense, that's a separate issue, but if the Search facility was supposed to be the answer to my above complaint, then its failure means it's no solution at all.

#46 Michael Reid

Michael Reid

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Location:Boulder, Colorado, USA

Posted 01 September 2003 - 02:01 PM

By the way, I just notices that I' now considered a "newbie" in spite of my past history with the old forum. I understand the logic of this, but it does appear to lessen my credibility. This situation will probably not change.

Your "newbie" label will change to "member" when you hit 10 posts, Frank. Then (at 20? or is it 30?) you become an "advanced member." I hope you'll stick with it to those milestones and well beyond.

I think these user labels are kinda goofy, though, and I would encourage Paul to delete them, if that's an option in board configuration.

I'm quite happy with the new forum, though I'm a bit concerned about Jim Lucas's report about the search capabilities .. haven't tried those yet myself.

#47 Chris Timson

Chris Timson

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3490 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bradford on Avon

Posted 08 September 2003 - 02:54 PM

I think these user labels are kinda goofy, though, and I would encourage Paul to delete them, if that's an option in board configuration.

Awww. If they go, then bang goes my chance at becoming Galactic President, or whatever you get when you post your millionth message. (Though Jim will be there first, by a long way).

Actually, I agree.

Chris

#48 Alan Day

Alan Day

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3099 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Horley Surrey England

Posted 08 September 2003 - 05:10 PM

I must agree with the previous comments about posting a reply to the writer as on page one.
One of the amusing aspects of this site has been the banter between various people,making me and I suspect others laugh out loud.If you cannot respond untill two or more pages time the fun has gone.The reply stupid ,as it bears no resemblence to the last writer.
A modification to this aspect alone would be a great improvement.
Regards
Alan

#49 Samantha

Samantha

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:South West Scotland

Posted 08 September 2003 - 06:47 PM

I must agree with the previous comments about posting a reply to the writer as on page one.
One of the amusing aspects of this site has been the banter between various people,making me and I suspect others laugh out loud.If you cannot respond untill two or more pages time the fun has gone.The reply stupid ,as it bears no resemblence to the last writer.
A modification to this aspect alone would be a great improvement.
Regards
Alan

The way to build the banter is to use the "quote" button (as I just have). I hope that as people get used to the new forum this'll become second nature.
Samantha

#50 JimLucas

JimLucas

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 09 September 2003 - 02:51 AM

I must agree with the previous comments about posting a reply to the writer as on page one.
One of the amusing aspects of this site has been the banter between various people,making me and I suspect others laugh out loud.If you cannot respond untill two or more pages time the fun has gone.The reply stupid ,as it bears no resemblence to the last writer.
A modification to this aspect alone would be a great improvement.
Regards
Alan

The way to build the banter is to use the "quote" button (as I just have). I hope that as people get used to the new forum this'll become second nature.
Samantha

But how deeply can you nest the quotes before they become unreadable?

#51 JimLucas

JimLucas

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 09 September 2003 - 02:55 AM

I must agree with the previous comments about posting a reply to the writer as on page one.
One of the amusing aspects of this site has been the banter between various people,making me and I suspect others laugh out loud.If you cannot respond untill two or more pages time the fun has gone.The reply stupid ,as it bears no resemblence to the last writer.
A modification to this aspect alone would be a great improvement.
Regards
Alan

The way to build the banter is to use the "quote" button (as I just have). I hope that as people get used to the new forum this'll become second nature.
Samantha

But how deeply can you nest the quotes before they become unreadable?

Well, here's another level just for fun, but I have other things to do, so I'll leave it to others to conduct further research.

In the old format, trees could get *very* deep, but were easy to backtrack. Here one can quote and quote, but I don't see any easy way to get to the original message being quoted, much less the one it was a response to, etc.

#52 Samantha

Samantha

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:South West Scotland

Posted 09 September 2003 - 05:56 AM

I must agree with the previous comments about posting a reply to the writer as on page one.
One of the amusing aspects of this site has been the banter between various people,making me and I suspect others laugh out loud.If you cannot respond untill two or more pages time the fun has gone.The reply stupid ,as it bears no resemblence to the last writer.
A modification to this aspect alone would be a great improvement.
Regards
Alan

The way to build the banter is to use the "quote" button (as I just have). I hope that as people get used to the new forum this'll become second nature.
Samantha

But how deeply can you nest the quotes before they become unreadable?

Well, here's another level just for fun, but I have other things to do, so I'll leave it to others to conduct further research.

In the old format, trees could get *very* deep, but were easy to backtrack. Here one can quote and quote, but I don't see any easy way to get to the original message being quoted, much less the one it was a response to, etc.

We tried this nesting thing on another thread. I'll add a layer or two ...
Samantha

#53 Samantha

Samantha

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:South West Scotland

Posted 09 September 2003 - 05:57 AM

I must agree with the previous comments about posting a reply to the writer as on page one.
One of the amusing aspects of this site has been the banter between various people,making me and I suspect others laugh out loud.If you cannot respond untill two or more pages time the fun has gone.The reply stupid ,as it bears no resemblence to the last writer.
A modification to this aspect alone would be a great improvement.
Regards
Alan

The way to build the banter is to use the "quote" button (as I just have). I hope that as people get used to the new forum this'll become second nature.
Samantha

But how deeply can you nest the quotes before they become unreadable?

Well, here's another level just for fun, but I have other things to do, so I'll leave it to others to conduct further research.

In the old format, trees could get *very* deep, but were easy to backtrack. Here one can quote and quote, but I don't see any easy way to get to the original message being quoted, much less the one it was a response to, etc.

We tried this nesting thing on another thread. I'll add a layer or two ...
Samantha

It's a way to get myself up to intergalactic overlord level, after all!
Samantha

#54 Samantha

Samantha

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:South West Scotland

Posted 09 September 2003 - 06:00 AM

I must agree with the previous comments about posting a reply to the writer as on page one.
One of the amusing aspects of this site has been the banter between various people,making me and I suspect others laugh out loud.If you cannot respond untill two or more pages time the fun has gone.The reply stupid ,as it bears no resemblence to the last writer.
A modification to this aspect alone would be a great improvement.
Regards
Alan

The way to build the banter is to use the "quote" button (as I just have). I hope that as people get used to the new forum this'll become second nature.
Samantha

But how deeply can you nest the quotes before they become unreadable?

Well, here's another level just for fun, but I have other things to do, so I'll leave it to others to conduct further research.

In the old format, trees could get *very* deep, but were easy to backtrack. Here one can quote and quote, but I don't see any easy way to get to the original message being quoted, much less the one it was a response to, etc.

We tried this nesting thing on another thread. I'll add a layer or two ...
Samantha

It's a way to get myself up to intergalactic overlord level, after all!
Samantha

though of course a clickable link at the top of the quote would do what Jim wants, but if the whole post is quoted, is it necessary?
Samantha




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users