Site Issues, Updates, Changes, and Feedback Thread

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, rickca said:

I meant to ask can you get please get rid of these entries?  What recent change introduced them to the activity stream?

We are testing this feature. It enables others to see the “best” comments or to have the stuff other people like brought to their attention without the need to look at every comment. For example, seeing that people “like” a specific comment may peak one’s interest in a topic that he wouldn’t normally read. 

 

Consider it beta for now. 

[rickca]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We are testing this feature. It enables others to see the “best” comments or to have the stuff other people like brought to their attention without the need to look at every comment. For example, seeing that people “like” a specific comment may peak one’s interest in a topic that he wouldn’t normally read. 

 

Consider it beta for now. 

I don't get it.  All it tells you is that someone reacted to some post.  It doesn't tell you that multiple people reacted to the same post.  If you want to make a customized stream of hot posts that have attracted lots of reactions, I'd like that.  But I don't want to see every single reaction.  I particularly don't want to see reactions from ignored users.

[rando]

Fingers crossed the finger you wedged in the dike of unwanted new members keeps holding.  

 

Nobody has taken issue with that feature which is no doubt being tested.

[Confused]

20 hours ago, rando said:

I suspect @Confused would be better off handing this to their company IT person.  Whitelisting or forcing the company network to allow access would at least advance the ball into Chris's court.

In normal circumstances, I would fully agree with this.  I don't wish to divert this thread off topic, but last year the company I work for offloaded all IT support from an in-house team to an IBM remote system.  All but one of our IT team were made redundant.  We now have one IT guy in-house in an office for 1500 people, together with one ex-employee who works in-house but is now paid directly by IBM.  With some new projects being set-up currently, it is safe to say that all this is not going too well.  So me troubling the one IT guy (who is working miracles currently, to be fair) with my woes of not being able to access an audio forum would probably not go down too well at the moment.  To be honest, I'd rather do without, I'd be more than happy if just the "continue reading" thing was mitigated in the short term.

 

Meanwhile, it does leave me puzzled why I can access Facebook, other audio forums, online banking, share dealing services etc. it is just CA that seems to have this issue.  Maybe Chris' TLS tweak has already solved the issue?  I will check tomorrow.

 

Meanwhile, if I do bump into our long-suffering IT guy and he doesn't look too stressed, I will raise the issue.

[PeterSt]

As people know, I like myself a lot.  But being able to upvote my own posts could be too much of it.

I will do so with this one.

[look&listen]

6 hours ago, Confused said:

last year the company I work for offloaded all IT support from an in-house team to an IBM remote system.

Sorry for little OT, but-

Bad business decision for company. IBM like dinosaur too big to know it is dying. Bad investment too!

Now carry on-

 

PS. dislike notices of up votes. Waste of too much space & scrolling for incomplete information provided IMO. All Activity bloated enough with notices of Ignored users activity (but ignored threads vanish completely?)

 

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, rickca said:

I don't get it.  All it tells you is that someone reacted to some post.  It doesn't tell you that multiple people reacted to the same post.  If you want to make a customized stream of hot posts that have attracted lots of reactions, I'd like that.  But I don't want to see every single reaction.  I particularly don't want to see reactions from ignored users.

 

I agree completely. The topics are all mixed up and I have to mentally add up all the votes for a specific topic to figure out that it's popular -- this view does not help.

 

I also don't want to see votes from people on my ignore list. As it happens, I have only one such, and he's been extremely generous with doling out praise these past few days. As the result, I keep seeing his likes and dislikes over and over again. Where I'd rather see the actual topics being discussed, I have to keep scrolling to get past the dozens of likes he's been issuing. Very annoying!

 

 

[austinpop]

Definitely not loving either of these recent changes:

1. the "Continue reading" email notification, and
2. displaying reactions in the Activity stream.

2 doesn't affect me much, as I use a custom activity (feel free to try it: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/discover/35/) to explore new content I haven't already subscribed to, and this still works are usual.

 

However, 1 is a real abomination. Please, please get rid of it, Chris @The Computer Audiophile! If the issue you're trying to solve is mistaken replies to notification emails, this a really backhanded way to solve it, and it's affecting a lot of us.

 

Please reconsider.

[rickca]

11 minutes ago, look&listen said:

All Activity bloated enough with notices of Ignored users activity

This is my pet peeve on CA.  It drives me crazy.  I (try to) ignore some of the most prolific posters on CA, and I get screens of 

You've chosen to ignore content by xxx

and now even more screens of

<ignored user> reacted to a post in a topic: some topic

[austinpop]

15 minutes ago, look&listen said:

IBM like dinosaur too big to know it is dying.

 

I have more than a passing knowledge of IBM (don't ask how), and respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Today's IBM is not the mainframe-centric company of yesteryear.

 

Let's leave it at that, since this is OT for this thread.

[firedog]

I'm confused. I'm not seeing any of these issues of annoying emails, ignored users, etc. So maybe it's something in each users' settings?

[gmgraves]

I believe that I have mentioned this before, but is there any way to re-instate numbering each post in a topic like there used to be? Here's the problem: You read a contribution that you wish to comment on, so you click on "Quote selection" it brings up a a blank response form with the quoted text above, but you didn't quote the entire post. so you answer the the selected text that quoted and decide you want answer another part of that post so you go back looking for it. Scrolling through, often dozens of posts to find the one that you are working again. It can be a real time-waster. If each post were numbered (like they used to be), all you do count back to the post number that you are quoting to find it. It would also help, if, in some way, each response to a post somehow automatically had the post number of the quoted post embedded in it, and this number shows-up at the head of each selected Quote in the response. For instance: "8 hours ago, in post # 334, The Computer audiophile Said:" Instead of how it is now -

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

I believe that I have mentioned this before, but is there any way to re-instate numbering each post in a topic like there used to be? Here's the problem: You read a contribution that you wish to comment on, so you click on "Quote selection" it brings up a a blank response form with the quoted text above, but you didn't quote the entire post. so you answer the the selected text that quoted and decide you want answer another part of that post so you go back looking for it. Scrolling through, often dozens of posts to find the one that you are working again. It can be a real time-waster. If each post were numbered (like they used to be), all you do count back to the post number that you are quoting to find it. It would also help, if, in some way, each response to a post somehow automatically had the post number of the quoted post embedded in it, and this number shows-up at the head of each selected Quote in the response. For instance: "8 hours ago, in post # 334, The Computer audiophile Said:" Instead of how it is now -

 

You know you can click the arrow on the quoted post to go right to it?

[The Computer Audiophile]

“Continue Reading” disabled for now. 

[Confused]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

“Continue Reading” disabled for now. 

?

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You know you can click the arrow on the quoted post to go right to it?

No, Chris, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

[mansr]

On 8/16/2018 at 7:24 AM, fas42 said:

Ummm, it's getting a bit silly with the Attack of the '?nes - if this is just being used to signal that one disagrees with what the person is saying, when they're too lazy to make a proper reply, then it's not really being used as it should, to my mind.

A month later, I think we can safely say that this experiment has failed. The feature is only being used by a handful of people in place of  'dislike' button.

[STC]

That button should be enabled to the OP only. Others can always post their rebuttal or disagreement if necessary in the follow up post(s). 

[Richard Dale]

Just now, STC said:

That button should be enabled to the OP only. Others can always post their rebuttal or disagreement if necessary in the follow up post(s). 

The problem with posting a rebuttal is that it just carries on feeding a troll's diversion of the thread. If you use the 'off topic' button you can indicate that you think the post is off topic without attracting yet more off topic comments. I would agree with the idea of only allowing the OP to mark a post as off topic if the feature was being over used, but to date it has been used fairly sparingly.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

The problem with posting a rebuttal is that it just carries on feeding a troll's diversion of the thread. If you use the 'off topic' button you can indicate that you think the post is off topic without attracting yet more off topic comments.

But that's not what you are doing. You mark posts you disagree with, regardless of their topicality. If you really think an argument is off-topic, you should be flagging posts from sides.

[rando]

M(ans)r. Troll, was it not clear this feature was designed as a starvation diet.  It feeds upon the weak in ways they cannot resist with the added benefit of making them pass among us wearing a mark.  

[Richard Dale]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

But that's not what you are doing. You mark posts you disagree with, regardless of their topicality. If you really think an argument is off-topic, you should be flagging posts from sides.

I've used the feature just once, an on one of your posts, where you were bringing up a subject that the OP had asked people not to bring up on the current thread, and if they wan'ted to discuss the subject they should start their own thread about it.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Richard Dale said:

I've used the feature just once, an on one of your posts, where you were bringing up a subject that the OP had asked people not to bring up on the current thread, and if they wan'ted to discuss the subject they should start their own thread about it.

So why didn't you flag the post I was replying to?

[Richard Dale]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

So why didn't you flag the post I was replying to?

I suppose I could flag an entire sequence of off topic comments that led up to your off topic comment, but it seems perfectly reasonable to use it to mean 'enough already'.

[austinpop]

Clearly, the OT flag is working as designed.