Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

A new post not showing any results

Jul 28, 2008 3:48PM PDT

I have noticed that the Beta Version does not show the number of replys to the original post on a forum.
Here is an example from the top of Speakeasy at 1:30am July 30.
In this case there were 20 replys. Nothing showed on the Speakeasy Forum interface.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5506/speakeasyscreenshotvc5.png

Anyone else notice this?

-Kevin

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
It says "Post 1 of 20" in your screenshot...
Jul 29, 2008 1:50AM PDT

And it also states "Total posts: 20" next to the page numbers. The former is actually missing from Tree view at the moment, a known bug, but otherwise it is as it should be.

John

- Collapse -
It says "Post 1 of 20" in your screenshot...
Jul 29, 2008 12:37PM PDT

Thank you John. I am not sure what is happening with this interface at all. I will leave the tech work up to you.
The original did not indicate how many posts there were at all. ZERO!
Say for instance, 20 replys to the original post.
My screen shot was one out of twenty.
Why did the original post not list how many posts there actually were!!

BETA?and all will fall into place?
IT Engineering has a way to go with CNET.
All in all, not that bad for a BETA Version.
I wish them luck.

John, improve it.

-Kevin

- Collapse -
Already have...
Jul 29, 2008 1:30PM PDT
Happy

I wrote my own CSS file to shrink the header, add a Tree view selected post outline, widen the entire site to fit my widescreen monitor (designing for 1024x768 is a nice standard, but leaves too much white space at higher resolutions), etc. I like the new site, but I still wanted to put my own touch on it. Here's an example of what I see. (Link)

John
- Collapse -
Already have...
Jul 29, 2008 1:40PM PDT

John, good for you! Keep it up. Well you know what I mean?

-Kevin

- Collapse -
Already have...
Jul 30, 2008 1:18PM PDT

John, looks good!! Nice work.

-Kevin

- Collapse -
Thanks for the preview...
Jul 30, 2008 4:38AM PDT

Your example looks really good on my monitor. I have delayed using the CSS file pending completion of beta. I like how clean it is without all the wasted space at the top and the sides. Grin

It may make no difference but I decided to wait for the final product. I have printed the CSS instructions for use when the time comes.

Thanks,

Glenn

- Collapse -
Too much white space
Jul 30, 2008 8:59AM PDT

I often wonder, but I don't lose any sleep over it, why Windows users feel the need to fill the entire screen with a window.
For example, a web page that has been tooled for 1024 X 768 has no information outside of those boundaries so why make the window fill your whole screen?

Does your CSS file cause any distortion on the way things, designed for the "standard", display?
No stretching?

Just curious

P

- Collapse -
No distortion...
Jul 30, 2008 12:35PM PDT

All I've done is expand the boundaries of each element, focusing on the primary content, to achieve the widescreen effect. Thus, the nav panels, images, etc. all maintain the same dimensions while the main content of the page, such as a news article, has more room to expand horizontally. (In short, text is not wrapped around to the next line nearly as often.)

I do not think it's just a Windows perception, though. If I visit news.cnet.com at my resolution of 1440x900, almost half the screen just displays white bars down either side of the page. Yet the news article and the replies thereto may go on for 11 vertical pages. By using my own style sheet I use up the full width of my monitor, otherwise wasted, which in turn reduces the vertical length from 11 pages to perhaps six. It's not that big of a deal, but it's certainly nicer looking in my opinion, making full use of a high resolution widescreen monitor while reducing the amount you must scroll.

John

- Collapse -
That makes sense,
Jul 30, 2008 9:51PM PDT

and would certainly make for easier viewing.

Thanks

P