I have noticed a definite slowdown on the loading of pages. Originally, I thought it was my DSL connection, which has been wonky lately, but now the DSL is fixed, and things are still crawling.

It seems to be an issue with the rendering of the CSS, rather than the actual downloading of the data. The style sheet seems to take a lot longer to load/interpret/draw than previously.

This is under firefox on a PPC mac running leopard, for what it's worth.

Thanks Valarc, I'll bring this directly to the developers.

my situation is the same as Valarc's- mac, firefox, leapoard. and i told you it was slow on day 1 or two

and the threads in campground with no stars load fine, so....

Nah, I've got it set to whatever the default is.

When a page loads, I can actually watch it render the individual posts - you can see each new post being added to the end of the list.

Doesn't setting it to 3 really just bring us back around to a turd/trophy model? If neutral is 3 and good is 5, who's going to give a 4?

I give lots of 4s, but then I'm assuming 3 is nuetral.
If it's funny as fuck, or very informative, I give 5. If it's a fair point, I give 4.
Is there a constant tally going? I think NA would be winning right now if the SPCI had votes.

Maybe the only one in this thread. It's certainly not a requirement for you to do so, nor is it a necessity. But you will. One day. When you see something so amazingly awesome or so completely shit filled... you will.

Still haven't rated a post. Am I the only one?

Aaaaannnnd, just in case:

Don't know, but it sure bears thinking about before we upgrade the search.

Setting unrated to a neutral score doesn't make the two voting methods the same. Both would have to deal with non-voted items.

I give lots of 4s, but then I'm assuming 3 is nuetral.
If it's funny as fuck, or very informative, I give 5. If it's a fair point, I give 4.
Is there a constant tally going? I think NA would be winning right now if the SPCI had votes.

You're not the only one. Real posters don't rate things. Only anonymous cowards do. Real posters use words to say they like or don't like something.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

I appreciate that, Rob, and admire it, too (when it doesn't cause a flame war), but for the typical drive-by user-guest looking solely for climbing info and the hardened forum vet searching for climbing info, that does only minimal good.

This may get to the heart of our philosophical disagreement. I believe that no one should look at something on a random web site, and based on the number of stars on the post, go out and try to execute the moves.

I “lurked” here for a solid month before opening an account. I got to read some of the posters and got familiar with who was here. Eventually I got an account so I could ask n00bish questions as appropriate.

I still don’t know anyone here outside of the virtual worlds, and still don’t trust any of the advice. And I shouldn’t. Rating, stars, poo, etc. while they may make the process of detecting BS from knowledge easier, can not, and should not ever replace brains. If you are nearly as pig ignorant as I am, you may confuse the number of stars on a particularly witty comment with good advice.

It is the development of critical reasoning around climbing topics which is the main skill. Everything else is just facts. Stars don’t make the reasoning easier.

But not everybody has the difficulty with critical reasoning that you do.

Jay

Another good point.... There's users here whose lips are moving but they never say anything and there's others who infrequently chime in with wisdom only gained through years of experience. Or to put it another way, there are people I would believe most anything they say without question and there's everyone else. The stars thing doesn't really differentiate between funny and good information, does it?