After the upgrade

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

One thing about ignored users.

 

Although I cannot read the posts of the five ignored users from my previous list, on this new setup the names do not show in the ignored list until I re-added them.

 

So, initially they are ignored just not visible on my list.

[tualan9 0]

Have not logged to Pattayatalk for some time. unable to view the members forum eventhough my logged in as member was successful. Is there a time barred and is it possible to reinstate my membership

[MM 6,562]

Have not logged to Pattayatalk for some time. unable to view the members forum eventhough my logged in as member was successful. Is there a time barred and is it possible to reinstate my membership

 

Your tualan7 id has access to the MEMBERS forum, but not this one.

[tualan9 0]

ops..thanks mate for your prompt reply....

[lovedog100 1,372]

One thing about ignored users.

 

Although I cannot read the posts of the five ignored users from my previous list, on this new setup the names do not show in the ignored list until I re-added them.

 

So, initially they are ignored just not visible on my list.

I haven't looked at my list. It's irrelevant, those on ignore, are ignored, and their whole post size doesn't show up as before, just a small line that I don't really notice. Big improvement.

 

Something I don't like is there isn't a button to see my last ten post like before. Also, by others names, there used to be an arrow to click and I could look up someones topics, and posts. That seems to be gone, or I haven't found where it's moved to. The same thing could be done from someones profile. Now it seems that I can only click on their "find my content" and I get topics that they have posted to, in what looks like a random order. If the topic is 20 pages long, it's not worth looking for.

 

The positive, negative rating for posts is an interesting addition.

[MM 6,562]

Something I don't like is there isn't a button to see my last ten post like before. Also, by others names, there used to be an arrow to click and I could look up someones topics, and posts. That seems to be gone, or I haven't found where it's moved to. The same thing could be done from someones profile. Now it seems that I can only click on their "find my content" and I get topics that they have posted to, in what looks like a random order. If the topic is 20 pages long, it's not worth looking for.

 

You can see your posts, or those of anyone else, by clicking on MY CONTENT (either from your userid menu in the upper right of the screen), or from another user by clicking on the symbol to the right of their name in a post. Both actions will give you a choice to view MY CONTENT. Click on whichever one you brought up.

 

Now, once viewing someone's content, on the right of the display is a box with a button next to it that says UPDATE. There are three choices...

 

1. view all topics xx has posted in or started
2. view all topics xx has started
3. view all posts by xx

where xx is you or the other userid. Choosing the 3rd option gives you your posts from the most recent to the oldest (I'm pretty sure of that).

 

[lovedog100 1,372]

Thanks MM

Edited May 30, 2011 by lovedog100

[JohnnyK 28]

I liked the old colours better, warmer more Thai. The blue reminds me of cold weather (and cold falang women).

[danboy 151]

The positive, negative rating for posts is an interesting addition.

 

It may have even been a useful addition if it were used correctly however it seems some are merely using it to beat down certain BMs with whom they may have previously had conflict and just negatively rating any post they make.

[joekicker 53]

The positive, negative rating for posts is an interesting addition.

 

In the sense that "interesting" is an interesting word. I don't really get the rating. I can see rating a thread, or rating a post, but I don't "get" rating people -- because they're not really people -- just virtual, fly-by-night beings really, with not much, even no relation to their corporal identity. And the ratings system is really just an invitation to abuse and cliques and ganging up and (not here so much, but in general, on many forums using this software) bullying and gang-bullying.

 

It's a feature, but I'm from Missouri on its value. I'm kind of with danboy (immediately above) but I'm trying to visualise what "used correctly" would be, really.

 

I'm kind of surprised there aren't skins. I'd have thought forums would always have skins these days. I'm thinking an awful lot of combinations would be better than this. And I say that as someone who LIKES "vanilla" looking interfaces.

 

.

Edited May 30, 2011 by joekicker

[jacko 8,822]

-- because they're not really people -- just virtual, fly-by-night beings really, with not much, even no relation to their corporal identity. And the ratings system is really just an invitation to abuse and cliques and ganging up and (not here so much, but in general, on many forums using this software) bullying and gang-bullying.

 

It's a feature, but I'm from Missouri on its value. I'm kind of with danboy (immediately above) but I'm trying to visualise what "used correctly" would be, really.

 

I'm kind of surprised there aren't skins. I'd have thought forums would always have skins these days. I'm thinking an awful lot of combinations would be better than this. And I say that as someone who LIKES "vanilla" looking interfaces.

 

.

Jeez Joe, what are you on right now?

Has your pharmacist mixed the pills up.

I am a real person, and I think all the other BMs are too. They would struggle not to be. I have been around since 200summit and umpteen thousand times, hardly-fly-by night. And I don't have a corporal identity, generally private, major seaman producer.

[joekicker 53]

I am a real person, and I think all the other BMs are too. They would struggle not to be. I have been around since 200summit and umpteen thousand times, hardly-fly-by night. And I don't have a corporal identity, generally private, major seaman producer.

 

I guess I got a "fail" on that post, then, but that's surely at least partly because you either just had to make a lousy pun or didn't realise "corporal" is a state, meaning having a real body.

 

Yes, jacko, you are a real person, as am I. We don't know each other, likely never have even met. I've never seen your corporal entity, so far as I know. You can't rate me on my real personage, and vice versa. Yet that's what the rating partly does - for those who know the party they are rating an actual person they know - and partly does NOT, since the rater doesn't actually know the person.

 

Not an argument. There's no correct answer, I believe. As I said I don't "get" rating, not that I want to cank it. If somone can explain how it's meaningful or excellent in some way, I'd be grateful. Because I'm kind of mystified by it.

 

.

[MM 6,562]

Regarding skins....the software comes out of the box with exactly two skins...one for the full screen view, and one for a mobile view.

 

Skins can be obtained, either free or purchased, but they have to be customized individually, and that means more work for yours truly...

[joekicker 53]

Skins can be obtained, either free or purchased, but they have to be customized individually, and that means more work for yours truly...

 

Don't be doing that!!

 

I thought by now they'd have user-changeable skins like... oh, Google Mail, say, click and it changes for YOU. Customising skins is horrible, don't do it! It doesn't look crappy at all, just sort of blah. Having it working is way better than having it look good, way better.

 

.

[lovedog100 1,372]

In the sense that "interesting" is an interesting word. I don't really get the rating. I can see rating a thread, or rating a post, but I don't "get" rating people -- because they're not really people -- just virtual, fly-by-night beings really, with not much, even no relation to their corporal identity. And the ratings system is really just an invitation to abuse and cliques and ganging up and (not here so much, but in general, on many forums using this software) bullying and gang-bullying.

 

It's a feature, but I'm from Missouri on its value. I'm kind of with danboy (immediately above) but I'm trying to visualise what "used correctly" would be, really.

 

I'm kind of surprised there aren't skins. I'd have thought forums would always have skins these days. I'm thinking an awful lot of combinations would be better than this. And I say that as someone who LIKES "vanilla" looking interfaces.

 

.

I'm going to agree with you. And as usual disagree. I agree that we should rate the post, not the person. I made a pact with myself not to go back and rate old posts. I've also made the statement that I will give positives for posts that I like, much more than negatives that I don't. A useful post that gives us information that helps us in our travel, mongering, eating, sleeping, enjoying ourselves, not being swindled and such are worth a positive. In a topic where me and joekicker disagree politically, you have every right to your opinion, and to try and make me see your perspective. I will not give you a negative rating for that. I firmly believe in free speech. However, a post that is abusive, threatening, or just being an asshole, will receive a negative rating from me. Crazy rantings might as well. I'll be honest here, political jokes in the funnies section will probably get a negative rating as well. They are only funny to some, and may be insulting to others. However I will give the same negative rating to a joke that supports my point of view, if it's put in the funnies section. Keep in in politics if you don't want my rating.

 

That all said. I think cebual took to many negative hits for his topic http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/topic/55178-an-idea-to-improve-the-forum/page__p__895918__fromsearch__1#entry895918 Giving him a negative for the topic was maybe fair, I didn't, yet don't agree. Going down and giving him another every time he posted was not, that was personal. Again Ken's post on http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/topic/55192-nannybabysitter-wanted/page__p__896172__fromsearch__1#entry896172 was abusive. He was defending himself so I let him slide, but he was very close to a negative rating for me, because I thought he went overboard. (pun intended) I see that he crossed the line in some others point of view. A post I made my self, I was very worried about. The topic was of a sensitive nature, and I was scared that I would offend some and did not want to show any disrespect. http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/topic/55231-a-friend-of-many-long-time-flb-members-su-has-passed/page__p__896658__fromsearch__1#entry896658 Lucky for me, most of you understood where I was coming from.

 

Now, Joe, this is where we disagree. I think if I rate posts as outlined, I also rate the forum member, or the person themselves. While I am rating posts individually, it will rate the poster personally as to his contribution to this forum. Someone that adds value to this forum will receive positives from me. Others that are combative, assholes, abusive, or threatening will receive negatives. Those member will be rated per post, yet it's accumulative, buy who they are, and their contribution to the forum. I think it's fair. What are your thoughts? Believe it or not, I quite often respect your incite and viewpoints.

Edited May 31, 2011 by lovedog100

[Bazle 1,500]

Congratulations MM, it is now so easy to read on my not so very smartphone.

[joekicker 53]

Now, Joe, this is where we disagree. I think if I rate posts as outlined, I also rate the forum member, or the person themselves. While I am rating posts individually, it will rate the poster personally as to his contribution to this forum. Someone that adds value to this forum will receive positives from me. Others that are combative, assholes, abusive, or threatening will receive negatives. Those member will be rated per post, yet it's accumulative, buy who they are, and their contribution to the forum. I think it's fair. What are your thoughts? Believe it or not, I quite often respect your incite and viewpoints.

 

Well, see, that's a useful post for me, to get your thinking on it. I do grasp the idea of rating POSTS. The one and only actual real rating I ever did was your POST on free speech. I rated the post and content. Sure, in a way, I guess I was rating you, because it absolutely seemed authentic, otherwise I wouldn't have rated it. But it was my intention to rate the post, what it said and the way it said it, because it was a cogent post saying something that should be said often, and embraced always.

 

But here's the deal. I think you often do a very good job of getting across really dumb ideas ... whoops, let me put that another way, heh. No, seriously. My point is I'd rate your political views with a big minus, but then maybe rate your expositions of them with a plus. Any given post might be a plus AND a minus. That's why "rate the user" is not something I'm grasping, whereas "rate the post" or "rate the thread" makes some sense. You can make a good case for something I really believe is beyond the pale - and that deserves a plus. But holding that view? Pee-ew! Minus territory, baby!

 

There are a few bad people here, but usually they're on the way out anyhow, why bother clicking their - button? There are a few angels here and it'd be nice to recognise them with a + I suppose, but so much of THEIR work is behind the scenes anyhow, right Glen?

 

Most of the rest of the people have mixed-value posts, contribute differently on different days and threads, and just help make the board what it is. I'd probably rate many of them differently, day to day, topic to topic. Which is why I don't want to rate them at all, really.

 

Does that make sense? In a negative way, of course?

 

.

[lovedog100 1,372]

Well, see, that's a useful post for me, to get your thinking on it. I do grasp the idea of rating POSTS. The one and only actual real rating I ever did was your POST on free speech. I rated the post and content. Sure, in a way, I guess I was rating you, because it absolutely seemed authentic, otherwise I wouldn't have rated it. But it was my intention to rate the post, what it said and the way it said it, because it was a cogent post saying something that should be said often, and embraced always.

 

But here's the deal. I think you often do a very good job of getting across really dumb ideas ... whoops, let me put that another way, heh. No, seriously. My point is I'd rate your political views with a big minus, but then maybe rate your expositions of them with a plus. Any given post might be a plus AND a minus. That's why "rate the user" is not something I'm grasping, whereas "rate the post" or "rate the thread" makes some sense. You can make a good case for something I really believe is beyond the pale - and that deserves a plus. But holding that view? Pee-ew! Minus territory, baby!

 

There are a few bad people here, but usually they're on the way out anyhow, why bother clicking their - button? There are a few angels here and it'd be nice to recognise them with a + I suppose, but so much of THEIR work is behind the scenes anyhow, right Glen?

 

Most of the rest of the people have mixed-value posts, contribute differently on different days and threads, and just help make the board what it is. I'd probably rate many of them differently, day to day, topic to topic. Which is why I don't want to rate them at all, really.

 

Does that make sense? In a negative way, of course?

 

.

I lost you Joe. You, like me get a bit wordy. Can you cut it down just a bit??

[jacko 8,822]

I guess I got a "fail" on that post, then, but that's surely at least partly because you either just had to make a lousy pun or didn't realise "corporal" is a state, meaning having a real body.

 

Jeez, and I always thought corporal punishment was tearing a stripe off someone and lancing them. Edited June 1, 2011 by jacko

[joekicker 53]

I lost you Joe. You, like me get a bit wordy. Can you cut it down just a bit??

 

Short version:

 

Thanks for your ideas, it's helpful. It sounds like you are mostly rating posts most of the time. It's sort of a good idea. My one-and-only rating of a post was your free-speech one. I rated THAT POST, not your other posts where you often have goofy political ideas.

 

And I'm not qualified to rate you, the person. You seem to agree that rating/ranking people isn't a great idea. Even after your post, I can't really grasp it, still.

 

Jeez, and I always thought corporal punishment was tearing a stripe off someone and lancing them.

 

About. You can't tear a stripe off if there's no body - but there are many kinds of punishment apart from tearing off that strip.

 

.

Edited June 1, 2011 by joekicker

[JohnnyK 28]

Jeez, and I always thought corporal punishment was tearing a stripe off someone and lancing them.

In general I'd say there's a kernel of truth in that.

[jacko 8,822]

In general I'd say there's a kernel of truth in that.

You must be an army nut!

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

You must be an army nut!

lol

 

wise guy