|
artm
Dec 2, 2006, 12:35 AM
Post #101 of 136
(2511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2001
Posts: 17990
|
1)I don't like the sterile appearance of everything.
2)I mourn the loss of my killfile (now I have to actually read that asshat reno's posts)
3) bring back embedded images
4) bring back html in profiles
5) give us back our trophies and our poo
6) give us back our friends list and while you're at it bring back the partners list. The loss of the partners list convinces me that the new owners aren't climbers and simply don't understand the benefits of being able to check up on the climbing background of a future partner from their previous ones.
7) I don't have a seventh or eighth complaint yet but I am a little bastard and guarentee you that I will be back and will have more complaints
that is all return to your mutual back slapping and ass pinching
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Dec 2, 2006, 3:17 AM
Post #104 of 136
(2473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
fenix83 wrote: coldclimb wrote: Any one of you guys will always have a place to crash whenever you come to Alaska.  If my trip actually becomes a relity I will take you up on that, so I hope it's honest.  Same goes for you if you ever feel like getting out of the coooooold and coming to the tropics. -F
I've got a couch, internet, and several spare gaming machines, if you like counterstrike.  I for one appreciate everything we've all done together, and I won't throw that away.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Dec 2, 2006, 3:37 AM
Post #105 of 136
(2467 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
reno wrote: coldclimb wrote: I guess I just need a little clarification Reno. Coming from Phil, I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I need to be positive. As for "criticism" being welcome all the time, I think it's safe to say that's not entirely true. Aw, c'mon, John. That's a little beneath you, bro. 1) "I don't like the new website as much as the old, and here are my reasons: Can't rate posts, don't have my 'friends' list anymore, and the e-mail system feels clunky." 2) "This new website sucks dick, and so do the new owners. They're nothing but a couple of clueless fucking Nazis who are ruling with a steel fist, and if you don't comply and toe the line, they're out to get you." One of those two is reasonable and helpful. I'll leave it up to you to decide which.
The "policy" of allowing criticism as long as it's not "abusive" allows for a lot of convenient revisionist definition and spin, should the need arise.
While #1 is more constructive people have a right to #2 if that's really how they feel. Hey, nobody's threatening violence, nobody's bringing their mamas and kids into it, nobody's threatening to call their bosses at their real jobs to spread gossip and rumor, nobody's committing libel. Just a little burning verbal effigy that comes with the territory, and is a natural response to some of the previously demonstrated bullying. "They" should expect to be hung in effigy once in a while and they just need to take it.
I know and work professionally with a lot of cops, who are real people with real guns and cuffs and real responsibility. They hear stuff like that ALL THE TIME and they don't arrest people simply for it. It's part of the job that, paradoxically, they must endure as the powerful keepers of order. Hell, they get an eye-rolling chuckle out of it.
The owners of a splintered, suffering little Web site should at least have the tolerance and humor as police officers.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 2, 2006, 5:55 AM
Post #106 of 136
(2457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
philbox wrote: marc801 wrote: Bullshit. This is the worst fucking site migration I've ever seen. There has been absolutely zero consideration of anything that is important to the site users and it's obvious from the hundreds of posts that communication of what would actually happen sucked cat ass. All that was said was that some features would stay and some would go. There was never any mention of specifically what features were involved. There was never any real attempt at getting input from the user community. Any comments about "what should have been communicated" or "we tried to prioritize" are simply trying to cover your ass for a horribly inept approach. Sack up. You guys fucked up and you know it. Other expletives deleted by philbox. Take heed that launching any personal attacks such as the above will result in consequences. Do so at your own risk. Keep poking those lions balls with a sharp stick eh.
Phil, there is not a single sentence in marc801's post that could reasonably be construed as a personal attack. I respectfully request that you reconsider your response. If after some reflection, you still feel your response was appropriate, then I think that you should resign your position.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Dec 2, 2006, 7:15 AM
Post #107 of 136
(2448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
I think Phil was referring to this line, which he snipped when he quoted marc:
In reply to: The new owners are absolutely fucking dickhead morons who simply don't give a shit about the eyeballs they purchased.
One could consider that a personal attack, but it's not like it's totally out of the blue. See my post above for reasons why it's "not that bad," all things considered.
Oh, and poking the lion's balls with a sharp stick? Puh-leeze. They have not earned the kind of respectful awe that I might have of a lion-like person whose balls I would be too intimidated to poke. If anything, it makes them sound mentally unstable or not in control of anger management issues... .... ....
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 4, 2006, 7:09 AM
Post #108 of 136
(2423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
climbsomething wrote: I think Phil was referring to this line, which he snipped when he quoted marc: In reply to: The new owners are absolutely fucking dickhead morons who simply don't give a shit about the eyeballs they purchased. One could consider that a personal attack, but it's not like it's totally out of the blue. See my post above for reasons why it's "not that bad," all things considered.
I guess Philbox edited that out of the original post, and so I never saw it. I agree that that is sort of a weak (weak, as opposed to strong, not weak as in weak-ass [*gag*]) personal attack. I think Phil overreacted to it, but it's in a gray enough area that I withdraw my suggestion that he resign. On the other hand, I don't think he should have edited it out either -- what did that accomplish?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Dec 4, 2006, 7:39 AM
Post #109 of 136
(2419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Meh, your probably right Jay, I shoulda quoted the whole lot.
|
|
|
|
|
chrtur
Dec 7, 2006, 2:05 PM
Post #110 of 136
(2388 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 384
|
Lots of talking and useless comments and I do not get an understanding of what will happen in the future? A commmunity is based on its users
Anyway, singing like others:
I REALLY miss the partnerlist and embedded pictures!
My five cents today, Christian
(This post was edited by chrtur on Dec 7, 2006, 2:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Dec 7, 2006, 3:31 PM
Post #111 of 136
(2379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
artm wrote: I am a little bastard
Chopped any routes lately?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
clarki
Dec 19, 2006, 4:14 PM
Post #112 of 136
(2333 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 192
|
Maybe I havn't yet read enough to truly understand what is going on but.......
While all y'all go off and get your group hug on, can we please get some sort of response as to WHY THERE ARE STILL NO EMBEDDED PICTURES IN THE FORUMS?????????
|
|
|
|
|
the_mitt
Dec 19, 2006, 7:56 PM
Post #113 of 136
(2316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 279
|
Trophy for you man. Oh wait still no trophies either.
M
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Dec 19, 2006, 9:35 PM
Post #115 of 136
(2298 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
THe bandwidth excuse is BS, I downloaded several videos yesterday that took WAY more bandwidth than my just browsing TRs would ever. It's a pretty ridiculous thing to worry about bandwidth, and then add videos.
As for the second, the site used to have an automatic resizing script so any image uploaded would be resized to fit its category. In my opinion, it should have this again, as a number of people don't know how to do it themselves, or are too lazy.
Neither one of those issues was an issue on the old site. Logically then one can assume that these problems can be surpassed.
Bring back our images!
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Dec 19, 2006, 10:27 PM
Post #116 of 136
(2291 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
John, you've just been offered a perfectly reasonable explanation of the whys and wherefores of the lack of embedded images. You have also been thrown a bone that the owners are commited to restoring embedded images. It seems that you will never be satisfied, what is the problem mate.
If the auto resizing of pics is solved then we can have our cake and eat it too and enjoy both the embedded images and the video feature. C'mon man work with us here. It won't happen overnight but it will happen.
You above all people should understand at least most of the tech speak and the jargon associated with getting things right. I tell ya I hated those huge images associated with the olde site. You know the ones where you would have to scroll half way across the country to see the whole image.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Dec 20, 2006, 1:43 AM
Post #118 of 136
(2272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
philbox wrote: ohn, you've just been offered a perfectly reasonable explanation of the whys and wherefores of the lack of embedded images.
reasonable? lets see
kimgraves wrote: The problem isn't just the initial load of a large image, but the quoting of a post that includes that image. Lets say someone links to a 2 Meg picture of El Cap. So for every open of that post at least 2 megs gets transferred. But then someone "quotes" that person showing the image again. Then every open of the thread downloads 4.0 Megs of the same image.
really? I do not think so. If it is the same image, the browser is intelligent enough to get only one copy of the image. Unless of course you rename the image for every quote, but why would you do that.
kimgraves wrote: Finally there is a problem with aesthetics when someone links to an image that is too large for the screen.
ever heard of html image tags? You can specify the size of the image. If the image is large, just use the width img tag to fit to the layout. Although this will fit the image to the layout, and do not mess anything, I agree that this will create unnecessary bandwidth. Still, as I stated above, it is not as bad as you claim above.
Finally, all of the reasoning goes back to pipelining the images through rc.com. Why? Previous rc.com did not worked like this, we could directly link an image offsite. This does not put the load on the rc.com server, but on the viewer to get the images. Again, multiple quotes will link to the same image and the browser can handle them. As long as you insist on copying the image to the rc.com server, resizing and presenting from the rc.com server, yes I agree, we do have a problem. Storage, copyrioght issues, processing. But not bandwidth.
Stop hiding behind bandwidth excuses. The management has a fixetion on the idea of how the embedded images should be, which is through the rc.com server. All I am saying is that this starting point is wrong. If you aggree that embedded images are good for the site, than just use direct links !
|
|
|
|
|
ddt
Dec 20, 2006, 1:57 AM
Post #119 of 136
(2269 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 2304
|
"melekzek wrote: The management has a fixetion on the idea of how the embedded images should be, which is through the rc.com server.
You're jumping to a conclusion which is, quite simply, not true.
In reply to: All I am saying is that this starting point is wrong. If you aggree that embedded images are good for the site, than just use direct links !
And not allow people to link to the pics they've uploaded to rc.com? Then we would have created an incentive for people NOT to post their good photos here. I don't think that's what you're saying... I just want to point out that nothing is quite as simple as you present them here.
DDT
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Dec 20, 2006, 2:14 AM
Post #120 of 136
(2265 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
ddt wrote: And not allow people to link to the pics they've uploaded to rc.com?
lol. If I can link any images from the web, this will include any picture from rc.com as well.
If all the images originate rc.com server, ok, i can agree with the bandwidth/performance concern. But woman of rc is one of the unique threads, and not the norm.
(This post was edited by melekzek on Dec 20, 2006, 2:15 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
clarki
Dec 20, 2006, 3:28 AM
Post #121 of 136
(2260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 192
|
Thanks for breaking up your hug long enough to answer my question. Sounds like it will happen eventually but it seems as if there are technical AND ploitical issues that must be sorted out first. Good luck, my guess is that the tech issues will be easy--getting people to stuff it and agree may be another matter entirely!
John
|
|
|
|
|
jcasper
Dec 20, 2006, 5:09 AM
Post #124 of 136
(2247 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 108
|
philbox wrote: I tell ya I hated those huge images associated with the olde site. You know the ones where you would have to scroll half way across the country to see the whole image.
ha ha... how perfect that this thread got screwed up with a long line of text with no spaces. :)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Dec 20, 2006, 5:32 AM
Post #125 of 136
(2238 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
And it would have stayed normal had we allowed HTML code to let it make the thumbnail it was supposed to..  (i miss the eye rolling smiley)
|
|
|
|
|
|
