|
Is it working? I haven't got any notifications so far.
Best wishes,
Navaneeth
|
|
|
|
|
Notifications of what?
I've only ever gotten notifications if my answer was updated by someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
me too! only update answer emails... nothing else
|
|
|
|
|
Not yet.. still on the heap.
|
|
|
|
|
Below there is the question of what should be posted in the Lounge. I guess certain things are supposed to be posted in the Soapbox instead. How about we combine the Lounge/Soapbox/Back Room/etc into a single forum, but allow the user to select (from, say, a drop down) the rating they are willing to view? So, if I select "G", I see material that used to be for the Lounge. And if I pick "PG-13", I see material that would typically go into the Soapbox. And if I pick "R", I see material that would typically go in the Back Room (as well as the PG-13 and G material). Then, when posting a message, you allow the user to assign the rating when they post the message (it might default to G). After all, the Lounge (et al) is akin to a movie theater and Lounge messages are akin to movies. Why not give this form of entertainment a rating and allow users to decide what they want to see?
What does this solve, you might ask. I think one of the main reasons people don't post in the Soapbox (et al) is because they don't get as much exposure as the Lounge, so if the material is borderline, they choose the more visible forum to post in. If we were to combine them, the visibility would be very similar for the Lounge(G)/Soapbox(PG-13)/Back Room(R), so people would be free to choose level they'd like to see.
Oh, and when a member signs up, they are defaulted to a viewing rating of "G". Them discovering PG-13 and R would be akin to them discover the Soapbox and Back Room.
And you might consider checkboxes instead of a drop down. That way, people can target specific levels (e.g., if they only want to see the "juicy" stuff at the R rating). And, of course, you could choose whatever representation for the rating you like... the G/PG-13/R rating is just one off the top of my head that would seem clear to most movie watchers. You could also choose, for example, "Kid Sister Safe", "Dinner Party Safe", and "Not Safe".
And one more idea. When a person is viewing the Lounge in a certain rating, display the message at the top based on the rating. For example:
Lounge Header: You are currently viewing the Lounge in G mode. All material should be kid sister safe and safe for work. Any material you post in G mode should conform to these guidelines. If you would like to be exposed to a broader range of material, escalate your rating to PG-13 or, *gasp*, R. Be warned, though, some material posted under those modes may be offensive.
And perhaps you could default new posts to the user's viewing mode (instead of to "G" every time). So, if they are viewing "R" material, default the posts they make to "R" (but allow them to easily change the rating at time of composition). Anway, some of these ideas can be tweaked so it all works well, but that should give you a general idea of what I'm thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I like it. Most people know what fits where, and they refer to the forums by their names. In your scheme, I expect many accidents to happen, and "I posted that in SoapBox" would now be "I posted that in Lounge-R" or something similar.
BTW: the rating scheme you refer to may be popular in some continents, it isn't universal.
If and when applied, your last paragraph (default post mode = current view mode), or something along those lines, seems a must.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, there is room for tweaks. For example, there could be one forum to view all posts made to the Lounge/Soapbox/Back Room, but that would be a read-only forum. Any posts would have to be made in their respective forum. Or, when you view the Lounge, there could be a checkbox to view the other two forums too. And when you check "Soapbox", you also view the Soapbox. If you post a message from there, you are presented with a dialog that says "Which do you want to post in: Lounge or Soapbox". Once you select the forum, it will then allow you to post there and would show some message at the top that says "You are about to post to the Lounge." And if you are only viewing the Lounge without any of the other forums checked, there would be no need to ask the user to choose which forum to post in. Likewise, the Soapbox would have checkboxes for "Lounge" and "Back Room", and the Back Room would have checkboxes for "Lounge" and "Soapbox". That way, if the user doesn't touch any settings or checkboxes, everything acts for them exactly the way it does today. But if they want to see the improved combined view, they can do that too.
Luc Pattyn wrote: I expect many accidents to happen
Under my scheme, the user can easily move their post about through the different levels (when they edit the post), which is impossible to do now without deleting their post and recreating it (or having a site administrator move it).
Luc Pattyn wrote: the rating scheme you refer to may be popular in some continents, it isn't universal
That's why I suggested the "Kid Sister Safe", "Dinner Party", "Not Safe" scheme. That can use some work... it's just a matter of wording, and doesn't really affect the functionality. Could even set the triplet based on the country/continent the user signs up in (e.g., "G/PG-3/R" for the US and ".../Dinner Party/..." for Europe). Or we can just think of something everybody will understand.
I am just presenting an idea for how to combine these three forums. There are numerous ways that could be done.
|
|
|
|
|
aspdotnetdev wrote: Or, when you view the Lounge, there could be a checkbox to view the other two forums too. And...
Yeah, that sounds fair.
aspdotnetdev wrote: Or we can just think of something everybody will understand.
I read a little Esperanto. 
|
|
|
|
|
Smacks of censorship, and I do not want that!
I am not a number I am a free man!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
It is no more censored than the current system of splitting into 3 forums. This would give threads a wider audience.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like the idea.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like it. They don't have the same kind of content.
But I still like the idea of a filter. Can I have a filterselection that removes all threads started by CSS please?
"When did ignorance become a point of view" - Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
We do have a Troll Filter[^], which is a greasemonkey script.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
I don't use firefox as I try to keep my work computer clean from unnecessary stuff.
(I have a virtual PC with all the browsers)
But I'm not religious about it, so I might check it out.
Thanks
"When did ignorance become a point of view" - Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
Te hae been requests in the past for user filtering. I'm not sure how well database would hold up under the strain. Where would you draw the line? Five users allowed in your filter? Ten? More? There would have to be a reasonable limit.
I currently have my Noise Level filter set to "very low" because all too often, someone that is a regular (and mostly well liked) can be set upon by univoters for no other reason than a complete lack of humor on the paert of the voter.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Where would you draw the line? Five users allowed in your filter? Ten? More?
Also depends on how many people use that feature. If only 100 people use the filter, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow each of them 100 people in their filter. Though, I doubt many people have that many people they'd not like to hear from. So, I don't think this would be an issue; not in practice anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Not the backroom - this is specifically a forum for those who want to discuss global warming and Obama. Combining the soapbox and the Lounge is a great idea IF everyone marks their posts accurately - which won't happen in a way to make having a "Safe Filter" option a safe option.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: which won't happen in a way to make having a "Safe Filter" option a safe option
I'm not so sure about that. Say the Lounge and Soapbox were combined in a way that they were obviously two different things. For example, they Lounge is on the top half of the page, and the Soapbox is on the bottom half (each labeled clearly and with an outline of a certain unique color). This makes reading them obvious that they are different things. Then, at the bottom of the Lounge, you have a link to "Post to Lounge". And at the bottom of the Soapbox, you have a link to "Post to Soapbox". There are various implementations, but I think they can be combined with minimal problems (my guess being that it will solve more problems than it creates).
If you wanted to go a step further, you could display a message before somebody is allowed to post that says "You are about to post to the Lounge, NOT the Soapbox. Keep it kid sister safe, according to the [link: Lounge rules]." Then show that to them every time they attempt to start a new thread until they click the checkbox that says "I understand the difference between the Lounge and Soapbox. Don't show me this message again."
And to go a step further, maybe the Soapbox isn't shown by default. Maybe there's a button at the bottom of the Lounge that says "Show Soapbox" that makes it display when clicked. Then, it hides again when the user clicks "Hide Soapbox". And maybe when the Soapbox is shown, it has another message that says "You are about to view the Soapbox. This will be displayed below the Lounge, but is not part of the Lounge. The Soapbox is for more mature content, but the Lounge above it should be kept kid sister safe. If you understand this, then click [I Understand] to proceed."
But that's just one more way if implementing it. I'm sure we could come up with a million more ways. It's not as simple as "add a rating and hope people self regulate." Though, there's idea 990,001... allow others to rate where a thread belongs (enough "M" votes move a thread to the Soapbox). Hmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
aspdotnetdev wrote: I'm not so sure about that. Say the Lounge and Soapbox were combined in a way that they were obviously two different things. For example, they Lounge is on the top half of the page, and the Soapbox is on the bottom half (each labeled clearly and with an outline of a certain unique color).
That's called a waste of screen space, bandwidth, and server capacity. NTM something that would IMO look like puke. 
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
That is why it would all be user configurable. You think it looks like puke? Change it. But it would default to basically what the Lounge looks like today. Though, I've never been a fan of limiting functionality for purely aesthetic reasons.
As far as bandwidth/server/screen capacity... it would only be adding two forums on one page... the default could be to show only a few (20?) lines in each forum, but allow the user to configure that value.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no comments-forum below the answer section of quick question&answers any more. Is that a bug or was that done deliberately?
I asked the same thing already in the Lounge, and since William Winner was wondering the same I assume this might be a bug."I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
| ...and they're back. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
| That was quick. Thanks. "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
I am really confused and eager at the same time to know why this article is being showcased as a featured article of ASP.NET section?
Drag And Drop Using Java Script[^]
There is nothing in it...absolutely nothing! what are we suppose to understand from this step of CP?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
