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

Regarding forum redesign reverting back to original design

Apr 22, 2005 6:32AM PDT

Hi everyone,

Operations had revert back to the old forums skin because of some outstanding issues throughout CNET site. They are working on it and may redeploy on Monday. Sorry about the flip flop and sudden change.

-Lee

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) np im mashuga allready:)
Apr 22, 2005 6:36AM PDT
- Collapse -
No problem Lee...
Apr 22, 2005 6:50AM PDT

Old forums work best for me anyway. Surprised but glad to see it! Grin Maybe it will take a little longer than you think to redeploy! ? Wink

Glenn

- Collapse -
Reverting...
Apr 22, 2005 8:01AM PDT

Phew! Back to being able to find a highlighted post to get 'bearings' (not ball). Hope that is fixed on the rerun. Wink

- Collapse -
Some observations regarding the new features (flop state)
Apr 23, 2005 6:07AM PDT

I'll try to tell some of my observations Lee, strictly to some features that were / will be implemented in this version.

1. Names in the Main Forum's view are the same as in the minitree, i.e. something like:

Name icon (see profile), where the icon is blank for a member Grin

The underlines are links to the name's profile page. I think this could be as it is now in the mini-tree: Name icon. Why ? Because the (see profile) is a boring repeat and it shouldn't be two <a href> tags for the same thing (futile redundancy).

2. The font's size being so small it was enough times discussed. This should've been a no brainer implementation decision (taking into account the regulars that are frequenting these Forums). I wonder if this is a premediatation tactic for showing that feedback appeals are listened. It happened too many times not to surmise it.

3. The actual post showing as a band in the minitree it's better than the colour (IMO). I don't have any difficulty, but seeing that some other guys have, maybe you can change the band's color to a common acceptable one.

4. Regarding the This is a reply to link. Sure, this is a good feature for a long thread. The posters can correlate the father's message (in the mini-tree) for the actual reply. However, for short threads this is futile, because the tree's structure is easy to figure out.

I noticed that a post with no reply doesn't have this link. So, there is a test in the code that generates the final view (probable it's a greater than 1 instruction). If 1 it's changed with let's say 12, those will show only for threads greater than 11 replies. This is an easy change. I'd choose 12 only for the sake of discussion, although there is a point in this number: the average thread's length for CNet Forums is now 11.6.

5. The above facility shows that it's an easy implementation for what I've talked in Main Forum's Page improvement proposal message. The advantage for either the regulars / visitors as well as the owner weren't discussed, so that thread starved. Wink

P.S. There are some other changes (such as buttons' positions) that are good, but from mine's POW I'm neutral.

Cetin

- Collapse -
Cetin, not certain that I even
Apr 23, 2005 9:18AM PDT

understand some comments, however the most confusing from many of the posts was font size. It turned out to be slightly larger in mine. [17 inch monitor running 1280 by 1024] sweemed they made spacing between lines an extra half space making a lot of wasted white space.

I simply can't understand how there was such a wide variance in font sizes. I haven't done anything to make mine non standard.