Still a few bugs in the system

[Curtis]

I couldn't decide if this was worth starting a new thread over, then figured, "What the hell".

There are still some ways the new system doesn't work as well as the old one. Among other things, I can't figure out how to list posters by most to least posts, as I previously could. By the same token, it would (still) be nice to be able to list reviewers from most to least reviews (as nearly as I can tell, there's no way to list them AT ALL, but then, there never was). By the way, if you're going to be able to list them, it should be doable at least three ways: alphabetical order, number of reviews and average score of reviews. At one time boccaccio was asking for a listing of all registered members with bookshelves (it would be a short list, I think), but he may no longer be interested.

I notice that when I save my PMs to my hardrive, they take up 2 1/2 - 3 times as much memory as they did under the old system.

Also, there used to be a 'next thread/previous thread' button at both the top and bottom of each page, but now they're only at the bottom. While I'm on THAT subject, this isn't a change from the old system, but I wish it HAD changed: Why do you have to go through the rigamarole of hitting the 'next thread' button, being sent to a screen that says 'There are no newer threads. Hit the back button on your browser', then hitting the 'back' button, being sent back to the bottom of the previos screen, having to scroll to the top, then hit another button to get somewhere else? The most logical way to work it would seem to be to simply not have a 'next thread' button on the last thread' (next most logical would be to 'ghost' the button). I don't often use the 'previous thread' button, but I would bet that would work the same way on the 'stalest' thread in each sub-forum.

Having now used this version 3 system for over a month, it definitely is inferior to the version 2 that it replaced. The entire PM system simply is a pain in the butt now (although Thank You for allowing longer PMs!). From that "Do you want a receipt" pop-up that shows up every friggin' time, to it now taking one extra key-stroke to delete a message, to having to click to respond to people who didn't disable the 'read receipt' before they sent the message (version 2 did that automatically, so I never knew when someone was asking for a receipt and when they weren't -- and it's really none of my business, anyway), to that unnecessary button that says 'Go' next to the thing that flip-flops you between Inbox and Sent Items (flipping it sends you -- you don't ever get the chance to hit the 'Go' button), the whole thing seems to've been designed by someone who was thinking "God, I hope I never have to use this system myself!"

Change for the sake of change sucks. If change isn't an improvement, it shouldn't be done.

[Kallie Thomas]

The new forum has been a godsend for me--you'll notice I post much more often. That's because I can. The old system, I'd log in, read posts, decide to respond, and everything would go to hell. I'd write my post, click "submit," and get a new window telling me to log in. I would RE-log in, only to be told that the thread I was attempting to post to did not exist. So I'd have to go out to the main and find the thread again. After that, it was sixes whether or not I would be dragged through all this again. Meanwhile, my post would be long gone--unless I remembered to copy it before clicking "submit," I'd have to rewrite it.

This happened every time I tried to post. It was enough to make me scream some days.

I'm sorry it hasn't been the joy for you it has been for me. Hopefully, the kinks will be worked out so that it better serves you.

Kallie

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Curtis, I think you need to take some time to familiarize yourself with the new system.

Among other things, I can't figure out how to list posters by most to least posts, as I previously could.

Click on 'Members List' at the top of any page of the forums, it's in the blue bar at the top, along with the 'New Posts' button, et al. When the members list comes up, click on 'Posts'. Voila, you have members listed from most to least posts.

By the same token, it would (still) be nice to be able to list reviewers from most to least reviews (as nearly as I can tell, there's no way to list them AT ALL, but then, there never was).

From the BDSM Library Stories Page, under the 'Library' tab at the top, on the drop-down menu, click on 'Top Reviewers'. That shows you the top 20 reviewers for the current and last month.

There's no archive of past reviewers, though, nor any way to list them alphabetically or otherwise, but I'm not sure why one would need to list the reviewers anyway?

I notice that when I save my PMs to my hardrive, they take up 2 1/2 - 3 times as much memory as they did under the old system.

Again, this is something completely controllable by you. I don't know anything about Macs, but I know that different types of documents save with different file sizes. Saving your PMs as a text document will take up a lot less space than saving them as rich text or Word format documents.

most logical way to work it would seem to be to simply not have a 'next thread' button on the last thread'

You should contact VBB Customer Support and let them know of that particular flaw. Personally, I find the 'New Posts' button to be more efficient than the "Next Thread' link.

The entire PM system simply is a pain in the butt now

I don't know what's so complicated about it. Type in a member's name, or select 'send member a private message' from their profile page, type a subject and then type a message. That's exactly the same as it was before. Not one single change at all.

To reply, use the 'quote' button. It's the same thing as the reply button in the previous version. No change at all.

From that "Do you want a receipt" pop-up that shows up every friggin' time

Go to your user options and turn it off.

one extra key-stroke to delete a message

Gasp! Not a-whole-nother click. NO!!!

having to click to respond to people who didn't disable the 'read receipt' before they sent the message

??? Huh? I don't get any such thing. It might be something else you can turn off in your options.

that unnecessary button that says 'Go' next to the thing that flip-flops you between Inbox and Sent Items

That button becomes infinitely more neccesary when you have six folders in your PM system, instead of just the Inbox and the Sent Items. Clicking the drop-down box and accidentally clicking the wrong folder, then being redirected to that page and having to go back to the drop-down again and select the correct folder is a nuisance and the one extra tenth of a second is hardly worth the complaint, I think.

Addendum: I went to my PM system after typing this and used the Inbox, Sent Items, et al. drop-down and discovered that I didn't actually have to use the go button. It is an automatic redirect.

It was the 'Download as:' drop-down that required the extra mouse click. Of course, that also allows you to decide what format you wish to download your PMs to your hard drive, thus lending to the file size issue brought up previously in this post.

Change for the sake of change sucks. If change isn't an improvement, it shouldn't be done.

Nagging for the sake of nagging sucks. If it is something you have control over, then it shouldn't be done. LOL

Sorry, Curtis. I had to do it.

[Curtis]

Curtis, I think you need to take some time to familiarize yourself with the new system.

I still can't work the quote system, but I have that problem everywhere, so I'm not blaming it on the system.

Familiarizing myself with the system would be a good idea, except that so many of its features are 'invisible', meaning that if you don't click around each screen, more or less at random, you'll never know which features are available and which aren't. I could've spent years using this thing and it never would've occured to me to click on 'posts' in the members sections. Now, if there was a manual that explained how the system works and what features are available...

Click on 'Members List' at the top of any page of the forums, it's in the blue bar at the top, along with the 'New Posts' button, et al. When the members list comes up, click on 'Posts'. Voila, you have members listed from most to least posts.

Thank you, it worked beautifully.

From the BDSM Library Stories Page, under the 'Library' tab at the top, on the drop-down menu, click on 'Top Reviewers'. That shows you the top 20 reviewers for the current and last month.

There's no archive of past reviewers, though, nor any way to list them alphabetically or otherwise, but I'm not sure why one would need to list the reviewers anyway?

Why do we need to list the posters? Why do we need to list the authors? I spent over an hour last night researching information on reviewers of two particular stories. Having a central repository of reviewer information, categorized in some of the same ways as the author and poster lists, would've made that a lot easier. Some of what I was trying to do wasn't even possible because the information was too inaccessible. Granted, it's been a year since the last time I needed this kind of information, but that's partially because I know it's not available, so I do without.

Again, this is something completely controllable by you. I don't know anything about Macs, but I know that different types of documents save with different file sizes. Saving your PMs as a text document will take up a lot less space than saving them as rich text or Word format documents.

I save by going to 'file', then hit 'save as'. This saves the entire screen. If I were to cut-and-paste, I'd save a lot of space, but it takes me over half an hour to save 60+ PMs now; cutting-and-pasting would more than triple that. The point is that the old screen shot was 12-16k, while the new one is 30+ (cut-and-paste is 4k). With several hundred PMs saved, that's a lot of excess space being taken up on my hardrive.

You should contact VBB Customer Support and let them know of that particular flaw. Personally, I find the 'New Posts' button to be more efficient than the "Next Thread' link.

The new post system is one of the few things that really works better than it did in version 2. The reason I don't use the 'New Posts' button is that I miss a lot of threads that way. For example, I got interrupted while typing this, and by the time I got back to it, all of the new posts had been wiped by the system. At least there seems to be a predictable pattern to when and why they get wiped now, while it was totally arbitrary (as near as I could figure) with version 2.

I don't know what's so complicated about it. Type in a member's name, or select 'send member a private message' from their profile page, type a subject and then type a message. That's exactly the same as it was before. Not one single change at all.

To reply, use the 'quote' button. It's the same thing as the reply button in the previous version. No change at all.

Yeah, there are changes, three of which I listed in my last post. Another is that the message input field is considerably smaller than it was before, so much less text is visible at a time, making it more difficult to navigate a lengthy PM (to edit replies, or move paragraphs around) and, as you know, I'm pretty likely to write a lengthy PM; even more so now, with the bigger message capacity.

Go to your user options and turn it off.

I went to user options, and I didn't see that listed as an option.

Gasp! Not a-whole-nother click. NO!!!

That's on top of the other aggravations. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of "the straw that...".

??? Huh? I don't get any such thing. It might be something else you can turn off in your options.

Again, not in my options, not that I can see.

That button becomes infinitely more neccesary when you have six folders in your PM system, instead of just the Inbox and the Sent Items. Clicking the drop-down box and accidentally clicking the wrong folder, then being redirected to that page and having to go back to the drop-down again and select the correct folder is a nuisance and the one extra tenth of a second is hardly worth the complaint, I think.

Addendum: I went to my PM system after typing this and used the Inbox, Sent Items, et al. drop-down and discovered that I didn't actually have to use the go button. It is an automatic redirect.

It was the 'Download as:' drop-down that required the extra mouse click. Of course, that also allows you to decide what format you wish to download your PMs to your hard drive, thus lending to the file size issue brought up previously in this post.

And I had no idea that folders could be added. Not to be TOO sarcastic, but why would you want to add a folder? If you're trying to organize things better, how is that different from wanting a reviewer list? And how did you find out that you COULD add folders? IS there a manual somewhere that explains this stuff?

I tried using the PM system's downloading functions when we first changed over to version 3, but all three of them either took a lot of space or (plain text) looked as ugly as sin. Yeah, I know, bitch, bitch, bitch.

Nagging for the sake of nagging sucks. If it is something you have control over, then it shouldn't be done. LOL

Sorry, Curtis. I had to do it.

Oh, I understand that you had to, and I appreciate your making the effort, but my point is that I DON'T have control over this stuff. If there is control, but I don't know about it then, in effect, it doesn't exist.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Oh, I understand that you had to, and I appreciate your making the effort, but my point is that I DON'T have control over this stuff. If there is control, but I don't know about it then, in effect, it doesn't exist.

That's why I suggested you take a little time to get to know the system. Playing with all the buttons and gizmos is a great way to find out what they all do. Either that or blow yourself to bits...

[Curtis]

But the buttons are hidden! Someone else had to show me how to click on a posters name to bring up a menu of four things to do with them. Even putting your mouse over something doesn't work, because you have to actually click. Since there's no way of knowing what will activate when you click on it and what will just sit there laughing you, there's not a lot of incentive to to move your mouse, pixel-by-pixel over every screen, wondering what, if anything, is going to happen.

Apparently, that's just the way the world works these days; people are expected to be born knowing things. When I got my computer, there was no manual for it (and the help system is a joke). When my parents bought a CD player, it didn't come with a manual, so they had to wait until their three year old granddaughter came to visit to show them how to work it (I wasn't any help -- I wouldn't know how to work one, either).

I'm not stupid; I program my VCR, and I roll my eyes at people who's clock is flashing, but I couldn't've programmed it if it hadn't come with a manual. When I had to replace the radio in my car, the new one didn't come with a manual, so I'm stuck with the stations that were programmed into it at the factory. Pushing buttons at random doesn't help a darned thing, though I did figure out how to use the scanup/scandown (and at least the radio has identifiable buttons, which this system often doesn't). I can't even imagine the demented sort of brain that came up with the idea "let's disguise our features so no one knows where to look for them".

It's a lot similar to the situation I was in at FF's RPG site. There was no rule book. I can't play a game with no rule book. "You'll pick it up as you go along" is a non-starter, because I don't know how to go along.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

If you don't know what all the bells and whistles do, then my first suggestion would be for you to click the FAQ link located at the top left of any page, in the blue navigation bar. I would have expected someone who preaches about the importance of FAQs to have thought of this already.

I looked at the section on Private Messaging and it tells you top to bottom how to send a PM to someone, even without clicking on their user name. It also discusses the message tracking system and how it works.

The manual is available, but you have to crack it open and read it.

[Lord Douche]

I save by going to 'file', then hit 'save as'. This saves the entire screen. If I were to cut-and-paste, I'd save a lot of space, but it takes me over half an hour to save 60+ PMs now; cutting-and-pasting would more than triple that. The point is that the old screen shot was 12-16k, while the new one is 30+ (cut-and-paste is 4k). With several hundred PMs saved, that's a lot of excess space being taken up on my hardrive.

Erm... you do know that saves the whole page itself, not a screen-shot or anything like that. It saves every image on the screen, every little bit of formatting data in the background that your browser takes care of.
The visual improvements in this new version obviously are going to be larger, because there's more graphics, and those take up space. You mightn't notice it whilst you're browsing, as it only gets them once. But saving like you do, it makes copies upon copies of them.
I know my browser lets me save as "HTML only", so it doesn't keep all the graphics. Perhaps you should do that if possible, or use the method TG mentioned, keeping them in an [insert favourite word-processor] file.
LD

[Curtis]

Erm... you do know that saves the whole page itself, not a screen-shot or anything like that. It saves every image on the screen, every little bit of formatting data in the background that your browser takes care of.

*** I have no idea what formatting data is. If a screen shot doesn't save the whole page, then what does it save?


The visual improvements in this new version obviously are going to be larger, because there's more graphics, and those take up space.

*** You call these things improvements? I had to change my resolution from 800 by 600 to 1280 by 960 in order to get the same number of posts on my screen as in version 2, and you certainly can't say it looks better. Inefficient, yes --improved, no.

You mightn't notice it whilst you're browsing, as it only gets them once. But saving like you do, it makes copies upon copies of them.
I know my browser lets me save as "HTML only", so it doesn't keep all the graphics. Perhaps you should do that if possible, or use the method TG mentioned, keeping them in an [insert favourite word-processor] file.
LD

*** I'm not really sure what that means, either. I don't have that option in my browser, though there are other ways I could save as HTML, but I thought that was only used for files in which you want to preserve hyperlinks (and I would've guessed that any method that preserved hyperlinks was very space-intensive). Generally, files saved in my default format are smaller than or the same size as the original files. I know that when I reply to e-mails or send back story files people send me, the files I return with my comments are smaller than they were before I added my comments (often half the size). Again, though, I didn't realize that had anything to do with my browser.

[Lord Douche]

A screen-shot saves a picture of the screen, like taking a photograph. You can't edit or scroll or anything like that in it.
The way you save it, saves everything that your computer had to download to display the page.

Formatting data is all the information that the browser uses to work out where to stick everything. For forums like this, that information can be very complex. If you can, find something that says "View Page Source" or similar, to see what I mean. All the information in there is what's getting saved, on top of all the pictures, etc.

The increase in resolution... I haven't had any problems. Sure, the change from viewing the username and info along the side takes more space, but that is an option that Jinn can change, and which I did suggest. I've used 1152*864 the whole time, and and I haven't noticed any change in the amount of space required.

Not sure about what "Save Hyperlinks" means. And as for the change in size, it is up to your browser/e-mail client to handle the formatting of the page. If it's inefficient, what you send will be larger. People sending the information back, their e-mail client will reformat everything in a more efficient way, taking up less space and doing exactly the same thing.
Ever tried saving a web-page from Microsoft Word? They're massive files, and most of it is completely useless to the appearance.
LD