New RPF Sites Issues - CLOSED (please search for or start a thread for new issues)

[moviebuff5]

Manage attachments is still opening as a pop-under window for me the first time I open it after restarting the browser.
Firefox 20.0.1 / Windows 7

Sorry if I missed a response to this and/or you are already working an it.

To replicate:
TheRPF.com>Site Support & News> New RPF Sites Issues...>Go To Advanced Reply>Manage Attachments

 

[Art Andrews]

Probably raised already, sorry if so. 'My Activity' should only show my posts, correct? It's showing those of another user in addition to mine.

When you click on the My Activity tab, there are a number of subtabs. Make sure you have clicked your name and not "All."

 

[jedimaster]

Art.... Get some sleep man. Every time I'm on here your still posting.

 

[Nwerke]

What he said! Also, thanks, was totally oblivious to the sub-tabs. :facepalm

 

[The Mad Professor]

Right. I got that... but the quick nav at the bottom is the answer to copying the breadcrumbs at the bottom of the page. That is why it exists.

We could copy the breadcrumbs and lose the quick nav, but having both is simply redundant.

Well, the decision is ultimately yours, Art. Whatever you decide, I will be okay with.

And to echo some other sentiments... GET SOME SLEEP.

The forum will still be here when you wake up. Best to get some rest so you can tackle any issues while at your best.

 

[Art Andrews]

Art.... Get some sleep man. Every time I'm on here your still posting.

Hahaha... been a lot of 4 and 5am morning over the past few days. Almost done for the night. Getting to bed early at 2:30am!

 

[Contec]

Im looking in the Attachment manager right now and can't find a button that seems to be able to delete:

Go back into the attachment manager and you can delete it. If you didn't actually use the attchment in a post, after an hour, it automatically is deleted.

 

[jcoffman99]

Am I the only one that keeps picturing Art like this right now?


Seriously, thanks to everyone behind the scenes making this happen.

John

 

[Rebelscum]

Philip, I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. At 1280X800, the site shows exactly the content ATF that we intended without cutting anything off. Now, that isn't true if we post a Notice, like we did the first day, but I mispoke earlier by implying we designed for 1280X1024. The site is designed to accommodate a 1280 width instead of 1024 and it was designed with a 16:9 ratio in mind as you will notice, the featured area isn't cut at 1280X800. This approach was inspired by sites like Craveonline, Superherohype and Ign.com, all of which sport a very similar layout. With that in mind, we are looking at some different options in the threads as we speak since a number of members believe carrying the featured area into the threads themselves is a bit much.

Beyond that, for the forum home and thread listing pages, all of our ads are on the right side, as is common practice among most sites. The exception to this is in the threads themselves where we have done away with the sidebar all together in favor of a wider content area.

Again, there are of course a plethora of opinions on such things, but while some might not agree with the content we placed ATF, I don't' consider it a bad practice as it very specifically does what we intended for it to do.... except at 1024X768...

The point I'm trying to make is the design has too much stuff before actual content. All of the sites you mentioned have less. Way lots less. So, if they were your intended design parameter, you might revisit how well you did emulating them.

I realize you did what you intended to do, what I'm arguing is that intention is bad practice, it's not supported by even the sites you said you were using as examples to prove your point. And a forum has much more stringent needs to have content up top, so you can't even really compare content site design, to forum design.

Sorry for the large image, but I put therpf, and the other three sites up on my four 1920 x 1080 screens and took a screen capture. Below demonstrates the home page of each of them roughly shown.

The very worst of the three is 447 pixels to content, while the best is just 341. Therpf is 690, which is more than the worst of them.

 

[JD]

On the old site, it would take a url that you'd copy and paste into a post and convert that link into link with a proper title. This new site doesn't seem to do that...

Walmart.com: Seasonal: Man of Steel

Metallica.com | News | Through The Never Goes IMAX!


NEVERMIND... didn't work on a thread I posted to. Worked here.

 

[sycor]

I actually see that.

The nick is on the left side, and in the "title" area it says "1 minute ago". The far right side tells the post number in the thread.

Not sure exactly what you are looking for, or if I misunderstood the question.

Chris

Based on the current layout, it will be all but impossible to make this work at 1024.

No, what I meant is this:


putting the post author name where the red circle is in the picture. I get that the site was not made with people with lower resolution monitors in mind. It sucks for some of us but it is what it is. But doing this would make reading the site much easier without having to scroll left and right to read a post and see who is posting. And before someone else suggests it, NO, I cannot adjust my setting on my work machines. When I'm at home things are fine, but honestly since I work 60 hrs a week I don't really check the site at home, or I use my tablet and use Tapatalk.

 

[Art Andrews]

Philip,

Thanks for sticking with this as I now see where your confusion is coming from.

Take a hard look at each of the images you have posted above because you actually have made my point for me. In the three other sites, you have counted ONLY their header, while considering their featured area as part of their content. With us, you have counted our header AND featured area together! Our featured area is almost identical in form and function to the featured areas on those sites. Why? Because featured areas are very effective ways in which to share CONTENT with the visitors of the site! Sure, if you dismiss our featured area as content then our "header" by your definition is 558px tall (not quite sure how you got 690px). However, that isn't applying the same rules to us that you are applying to the other sites. If you revisit those sites and apply your rules the same way for us and them, you get the following:

Counting the header as everything above the featured area.
RPF Header: 286px
Superhero Hype Header: 260px
IGN Header: 396px
Crave Online Header: 238px

Counting to the bottom of the featured area
RPF Header + Featured Area: 558px
Superhero Hype Header + Featured Area: 512px
IGN Header + Featured Area: 674px
Crave Online Header + Featured Area: 594px

As you see, when you apply the same rules to all four sites, we fall right in line with those other sites, just as I said. I maintain that we did emulate those sites as we intended and considering just how many sites have implemented a featured area to share their content, it isn't a bad practice. With that being said, if you simply don't like the idea of a featured area, I can understand, but personal preference doesn't not equate to a bad practice.

In regard to the needs of a forum... well, that is highly subjective. If you mean to say that your argument is the traditional approach to forum design, yes, some do minimize their headers and I have only seen a very few who have implemented a featured area on a forum. Obviously, based on Rebelscum's forum layout, you prefer to put everything on your home page and leave your forum stripped down... which is fine if that is the approach you like best. However, we are trying something new based on a number of initiatives we are now implementing.

I have said for years, (and I think you and I have even shared a conversation about this in the past), that forums are a slowly dying platform, giving way to new technologies and to social media. Our entire community is based on this platform, so I have two choices... I can either sit idly by and watch as we sink because we refuse to change with the times, or I can make efforts to reinvent ourselves and our platform to better compete with all the new technologies that are pulling potential members away. This is but one very small step in that direction. Is it the right step? Only time will tell, but I'd rather make a misstep, trying to better serve our community than make no step at all and accept our fate silently.

The point I'm trying to make is the design has too much stuff before actual content. All of the sites you mentioned have less. Way lots less. So, if they were your intended design parameter, you might revisit how well you did emulating them.

I realize you did what you intended to do, what I'm arguing is that intention is bad practice, it's not supported by even the sites you said you were using as examples to prove your point. And a forum has much more stringent needs to have content up top, so you can't even really compare content site design, to forum design.

Sorry for the large image, but I put therpf, and the other three sites up on my four 1920 x 1080 screens and took a screen capture. Below demonstrates the home page of each of them roughly shown.

The very worst of the three is 447 pixels to content, while the best is just 341. Therpf is 690, which is more than the worst of them.

 

[Art Andrews]

Am I the only one that keeps picturing Art like this right now?
View attachment 175694

Seriously, thanks to everyone behind the scenes making this happen.

John

Hahahaha!!! Oh man. Not quite that big yet... although I have put on a few pounds since the hacking incident last year, that I haven't seemed to be able to shed... mostly because I never get out of this chair!

 

[Art Andrews]

Hover over the thumbnail in the bottom left of your screen and you should see a little X appear.

Im looking in the Attachment manager right now and can't find a button that seems to be able to delete:

 

[Art Andrews]

I have noticed an inconsistency with this, but we had that same inconsistency on the old site.

Typically, if you add a link in your initial post, it converts it with the proper title.

If you go back and edit a post, adding a link, it almost never corrects it.

On the old site, it would take a url that you'd copy and paste into a post and convert that link into link with a proper title. This new site doesn't seem to do that...

Walmart.com: Seasonal: Man of Steel

Metallica.com | News | Through The Never Goes IMAX!


NEVERMIND... didn't work on a thread I posted to. Worked here.

 

[Bigdaddy]

I picture Art's lair more like this

If I had photoshop I would have stuck the new RPF logo over Batman's :lol

 

[JD]

Philip,

Thanks for sticking with this as I now see where your confusion is coming from.

Take a hard look at each of the images you have posted above because you actually have made my point for me. In the three other sites, you have counted ONLY their header, while considering their featured area as part of their content. With us, you have counted our header AND featured area together! Our featured area is almost identical in form and function to the featured areas on those sites. Why? Because featured areas are very effective ways in which to share CONTENT with the visitors of the site! Sure, if you dismiss our featured area as content then our "header" by your definition is 558px tall (not quite sure how you got 690px). However, that isn't applying the same rules to us that you are applying to the other sites. If you revisit those sites and apply your rules the same way for us and them, you get the following

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think understand where Philip is coming from, but Art is right. I think part of the difference/confusion lies in that these sites offer a very different kind of content than the RPF.

The sites Philip posted in screen caps are article driven, while the RPF has user driven posts; the RPF has a great many posts everyday (hundreds, thousands?), while a site like Superhero Hype or Crave Online might only have a few articles everyday and it seems like many (if not all) of their articles get "featured," while on the RPF we only get a very small fraction of threads "featured."

It's easy to mistake the "featured area" as advertising or to consider it advertising when it's merely highlighting threads on the RPF. It does take up quite a bit of real estate and it's very repetitive having to look at it on just about every form page. I'm sure once Art's done tweaking the site a time will come when we see more of a variety of posts highlighted on a much more regular basis.

 

[TheNickFox]

If Art is moving the site in the direction I think he is, (Original content living in harmony with the forums we all know and love) then that rotating banner will make much more sense when we see it in that context.

Just imagine logging in to the forums and seeing rotating at the top "View the latest episode of 'Bondo Time With Volpin' Here!" and "Read this interview with the maker of Oblivion's weapons where we grill him about what he based the pistol on," and then, "FamilyMan and STEALTH have a foam off! Who will win? Watch this and find out!"

If we can get to a point like that, then the rotating banner issues will be moot. I think one of the major complaints right now is that people are viewing it as a replacement of the old "Announcement" system...only without a way to minimize it. And that's likely because the main content in it IS an announcement rather than ad hoc content. Whether you create the content first or the distribution channel first is a catch-22, but if the site moves in that direction (And please say it is, Art!) then the rotating banner may become our best friend.

...and even if we don't move towards original content, and the banner is only used like the Facebook page, to spotlight certain builds, it could help drive viewership to some of the more unique builds and inspire people to Craft their Fandom* no matter what it is and no matter how obscure.

-Nick

*I expect a royalty check for working that in. :lol

 

[Art Andrews]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think understand where Philip is coming from, but Art is right. I think part of the difference/confusion lies in that these sites offer a very different kind of content than the RPF.

The sites Philip posted in screen caps are article driven, while the RPF has user driven posts; the RPF has a great many posts everyday (hundreds, thousands?), while a site like Superhero Hype or Crave Online might only have a few articles everyday and it seems like many (if not all) of their articles get "featured," while on the RPF we only get a very small fraction of threads "featured."

It's easy to mistake the "featured area" as advertising or to consider it advertising when it's merely highlighting threads on the RPF. It does take up quite a bit of real estate and it's very repetitive having to look at it on just about every form page. I'm sure once Art's done tweaking the site a time will come when we see more of a variety of posts highlighted on a much more regular basis.

We are already reworking the featured section to allow for more than 3 items, because I agree with you on the issue of it being repetitive.

You pointed out that the sites I pointed to as influences and that Philip referenced in his header comparisons are all article driven and you are absolutely right. One of the big things that I am most excited about with the new software package that we have installed is the inclusion of an article system. It is going to take time and a lot of work, but our goal is to offer good writers a platform to post interesting content in article form, much as you would see at those sites I references. We have a massive audience yet many cool things tend to slip through the cracks due to the ferocity of the posting on the site. Providing an article area and a featured section to promote those articles (as well as really good threads) is part of what we are working toward.

 

[Art Andrews]

Nailed it.

If Art is moving the site in the direction I think he is, (Original content living in harmony with the forums we all know and love) then that rotating banner will make much more sense when we see it in that context.

Just imagine logging in to the forums and seeing rotating at the top "View the latest episode of 'Bondo Time With Volpin' Here!" and "Read this interview with the maker of Oblivion's weapons where we grill him about what he based the pistol on," and then, "FamilyMan and STEALTH have a foam off! Who will win? Watch this and find out!"

If we can get to a point like that, then the rotating banner issues will be moot. I think one of the major complaints right now is that people are viewing it as a replacement of the old "Announcement" system...only without a way to minimize it. And that's likely because the main content in it IS an announcement rather than ad hoc content. Whether you create the content first or the distribution channel first is a catch-22, but if the site moves in that direction (And please say it is, Art!) then the rotating banner may become our best friend.

...and even if we don't move towards original content, and the banner is only used like the Facebook page, to spotlight certain builds, it could help drive viewership to some of the more unique builds and inspire people to Craft their Fandom* no matter what it is and no matter how obscure.

-Nick

*I expect a royalty check for working that in. :lol