 Does DS still need two Shadowrun forums?, ..one for 4th and one for the rest.. |
  |
 Sep 21 2006, 08:16 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
ghostrider  Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333  |
Yes, I can see that. I'm a member of The Miniatures Page, and Bill does something similar, in that you can individually choose which boards show up on the home page by using check boxes.
And with visible tags (not just behind the scenes placement tags), you could just leave everything viewable, and at a glance you'd be able to decide whether to read something based on its tags. That's assuming that what you're talking about is something like: Shadowrun 4 Rules (forum title) [GM] How do I make a security guard tough? (post title) Or are you talking more like: [SR4][Rules][GM] How do I make a security guard tough? (post title) Both get the point across, but I worry that using the latter in a bloggy type format would lead to missing posts, since all posts would be going to one "forum". (I'm not sure that's what you mean, I'm just thinking in type.) |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 08:28 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
Ideally, you'd be able to use tag structures to make your own forums.
Posts might have their "primary" tag display as part of the thread title, but I wouldn't want to clutter up the display with 3 or more different tags in the header. Also ideally, I'd really like to de-clutter the layout and presentation of topics and threads in general. Take a look at http://story-games.com/forums/ -- it's perhaps TOO minimal, but there aren't a ton of images and colors and clickable things distracting you from the actual content. I am, also, just thinking in type; no final decisions have been made. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 09:29 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Yech. Yeah, avoid their example. :)
I suppose you could just offer different tags at different levels. First, one level that allows you to create your own forums. (Personally, I love the way DS looks now, so if you could do it while retaining the visual model currently present, that'd be ideal in my opinion.) Then, offer say, two? tags per post? One? None, since you're creating your own layout? Again, it leaves you with choices to make about what is available overall. For example, default of SR 4 Rules SR 4 World SR Legacy Rules SR Legacy World General SR Version Agnostic (to quote Kage) DS Forums blah blah blah And add the ability to turn them on or off individually. So mine might look like: SR 4 World SR Legacy Rules SR Legacy World blah blah. And then there's adding the ability to position the elements. Order them as you like, etc. I don't think that this is going to solve the "posting in the wrong forum" thing though. People would still have the ability to post a SR 4 rules question in the SR Legacy Rules forums, etc. Then we're back to having to tag individual posts, which I still wonder about. You have to look at user friendliness in here, too. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 10:04 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 681 Joined: 28-February 06 From: UK Member No.: 8,319 |
You'll need an 'I love the new DS design' tag and an 'I hate the new DS design' tag. :P
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 10:05 PM
Post
#30
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
I'd like to know what you don't like about it besides "Yech." Your "Yech." does not override my "Mmm, clean."
The individual subforums would only be virtual. If someone wrote a post about SR4 rules and accidentally tagged it SR3, then it would be trivial for an admin to re-tag it and it would instantly be moved into the right folder, same as now. I don't anticipate that individual posts would be tagged, although they would probably have invisible tags [such as the name of the poster] and tags that only admins could see [so someone could report a post/thread as "spam" "offensive" "miscategorized" "has the world's most useless subject line" or something like that], and those threads would float to the admins attention until dealt with. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 21 2006, 10:22 PM
Post
#31
|
|||||||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Point. Sorry, I hadn't realized the level of seriousness at which you were considering it. I dislike the sterility, and the lack of disambiguation between posts. I dislike that the poster is not immediately apparent. It keeps it from feeling like a conversation. I dislike how it looks like a monkey coded it in HTML 1 about 20 years ago (regardless of how it actually is written, that's what it looks like). The current model for DS has a feel that your example forum not only lacks, but has no parallel to. Actually, in the future, when I need forum design suggestions, or am giving them to someone else, I can link to your example and say "don't do this." :D
No offense to the mods and admins, I know this isn't a 6 figure career or anything. That disclaimer aside, does this get done now? No. There are separate forums, without the need to extra steps and changes (i.e. a tag system). It's, as you say, simple to move a post to the correct forum. It doesn't happen. There are threads right now that are in the wrong place. How would making posting and moderation more complicated (at least in sheer number of steps) solve this any better than just doing what needs done now? It wouldn't, as far as I can tell.
Not being able to see who posted at first glance: worst forum design flaw ever. See above.
Again, how would changing anything make this different? We already have a system for reporting posts. Not trying to be negative here. Just pointing things out. I love DS, and although I might not be an admin or anything here, I do run two forums (smaller, granted). I just don't think what you're specifically suggesting at the moment is at all necessary, or answers the original question very well. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sep 21 2006, 10:30 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
Don't have time to reply in-depth, and don't want to turn this into a back-and-forth thread, so I'm gonna stop posting for awhile and let other people have their say, but I'll just point out that poster names would, of course, still be visible. However, if each post had an invisible tag that was the poster's name, it would make it possible to do such features as ignore lists, or having a list of "priority" posters who's posts would show up in different colors, all threads starting by a certain poster [including yourself] floating to the top of the display, stuff like that.
[Not that these features aren't /possible/ now, but they aren't present.] |
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 10:44 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Ah, I had misunderstood you.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 09:26 PM
Post
#34
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
I agree that some form of light/dark/light/dark scheme should be followed to differenciate between posts.
What? The poster's name is right above their post, much like it is here. The only major difference is every post on DSF has a sidebar with poster information, and Story Games [which is powered by Vanilla 1.0] simply has the poster's name at the top of each post.
To me, it looks MORE like a conversation, because there's not a whole bunch of stuff [user location, title, postcount, etc] getting in the way.
Because ... it doesn't have a bunch of different background colors and fancy graphics? It is very minimalist, and I doubt our implementation of it would be minimalist to that degree, but I really don't feel it's as bad as you think it is.
It's not an ANY figure career. That's not a complaint, just a fact; any time spent on DSF is time that anyone -- posters or moderators -- could probably better spend on something else. :-)
That's almost certainly true, and it's mostly due to the Report Thread system breaking and not getting fixed. I move threads if I see them or if someone points it out to me. [Also, part of this discussion indicates some of the differences that posters see ... I, for example, don't think there's any need for a "SR Legacy World" forum and a "SR4 World forum", because I don't think the differences are big enough.]
I don't think posting would be anymore complicated. Currently it's "Select the forum you want to post in, hit New Post, type in subject and body." Under the proposed idea, it would be "Hit New Post, Select the right tags, type in the subject and body." |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Sep 22 2006, 09:41 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Egh. Maybe it's just because of the hard line between posts, or the lack of differentiation between the content area and everything else, or something, but when I look at a thread, my visual system parses it into a bunch of unrelated pieces. Sure, I can eventually figure out that it's a thread, but I don't get that sense from it—at some level I'm /expecting/ to be done after I read just one post. Maybe it's because they use the top for postername instead of the side? As for the forum view, it might as well not have the thread-starter listed. It could be argued that on large screens there's too much space between thread name and starter name, but at least they're the same size—Vanilla makes it (at least in that configuration) tiny, just perfect for the eye to roll right over. Worse yet, thread-starter comes after Category, meaning we can't even rely on the thread-starter name to appear in the same location from post to post—Gamecraft: Improving Crazily Long Categories is a perfect example of this. Maybe all of this is just me, but I'm not impressed by Vanilla. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 22 2006, 09:51 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
I don't like the forum view either, and would want to modify it heavily. No worrries there.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 09:59 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
I took a closer look at the example you gave, Adam, and I noticed something. I had used the word "post" earlier when I meant "thread".
At the top level, I still don't like the way it looks. Now, a lot might just be their implementation, but having to choose a "category" (forum area equivalent, from the looks of it) of discussions to look at, and that choice excluding the other threads? You would have to choose a forum to see posts specific to it's intent, and otherwise you see every thread all willy-nilly? That doesn't appeal to me at all. I much prefer the "traditional" (for lack of another word) "see the whole forum, where new posts are, what areas there are, and all I have to do is scroll" model. After further study of the posts and how they're done, I find myself agreeing with Kage on the feel of the "flow". Yeah. I know we're just throwing opinions back and forth, but that's mine. If it comes down to it and you actually want more than me and Kage poking out heads in, you'll probably want to move this to SR instead of DS Forums. :D |
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 10:24 PM
Post
#38
|
|||||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
That makes a lot of what you said make a lot more sense. Whew.
If I understand what you're saying, you basically want the default view, or "front page", to more or less look like Dumpshock or other traditional forum pages; and I more or less agree. The major difference between current Dumpshock and what I'm proposing is you would be able to "remix" the front page to serve your own needs, by building your own forums based on subject tags. Beyond the regular examples of what you can do, you could also: * set up a virtual forum that includes only threads that you have posted to. * set up a virtual forum that inculdes only threads that certain posters have started. * set up a virtual forum that includes only the In Character and Out of Character threads for the play-by-poster games you're participating in. * set up a virtual forum that includes every single thread except the IC and OOC threads. Or you could just browse with whatever pre-configured categories eventually get decided upon.
Nonparticipants should be willing to eat whatever is put on their plate. ;-) But yes, when I'm ready to talk about this more seriously, there will be wider-ranging posts about it, I'm sure. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Sep 22 2006, 10:30 PM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Well, I have to say, if your mental model is pretty much "current DS + the features you've listed", then I'm all for it. I'd just hate to see the visual appeal (arguably just as important, if not more so than the content) go the way of...that example board.
Yes. I agree, but there would be no end to the whining. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 24 2006, 01:07 AM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 4-September 06 Member No.: 9,304 |
What? anyone on DS whine? no, doesn't happen :rotfl:
I too am not too impressed with the other site. What I didn't like was: The thread page, well all the little lines undre the thread title were distracting, specially as they were almost the same color as the background. The separation between the posters, I prefer to have a solid colored line between posts Didn't like the way the time set up was done, I am not fond of post 2 hours ago, etc.. I much prefer to have the site date/time stamp on the post. Actually, I rather like the area under the name of the poster on DS, with a bit of information about the poster (what they choose to reveal about themselves). I could take or leave the "joined on this date" section, but would prefer it to be on the poster's info page rather than on the side. My two cents worth for the moment |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2006, 06:45 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Just popping in to agree with Mistwalker on the signature section.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2006, 06:57 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I like having join date easily available—it gives me an idea of whether or not I may have seen someone before, and gives a hint as to how familiar someone might be with the general content of the board and its usual style.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2006, 07:48 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 4-September 06 Member No.: 9,304 |
But the date joined can lead off in the wrong direction
I was a long time lurker before I joined up. But like I said, have no objection to it being there |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2006, 08:03 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Well, yeah. It's still an indicator, though, just not an infallible one.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2006, 11:45 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
Personally, I'd like to see more of that info make optionally invisible, but it does have some uses, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 25 2006, 12:43 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 4-September 06 Member No.: 9,304 |
As for part of the earlier comments about which version the rules question is for, well, I like the suggestion of having each new thread have to choose between something like:
SR4 rule question SR3 rule question Not applicable If people are able to filter out the rule question that they don't want to deal with, the annoyance becomes moot. I too believe that the setting and general flavor questions are the same for both rule versions. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 5 2006, 05:49 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
You may believe it, but you're wrong. Just take the otaku/technomancer difference, for example—they aren't more than remotely the same thing. In SR3 and previous, many things need to be implanted for effectiveness, while in SR4 a number of them can be external.
You might think that's rules, but when you think about a simple question like "what equipment should Security Guard Z have?", you end up with totally different answers because it's easier to have reusable equipment in SR4, for example. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Oct 5 2006, 10:36 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I think you're starting to stretch a little to make your point, Kagetenshi. admittedly, your example is an accurate depiction of an exception to the general rule that the Sixth Wold is contiguous throughout editions. I don't think that the rare occasion that this problem comes up would be that great of a deal in the long run though. In fact, it wouldn't be that hard (and sometimes quite informative) for one poster to respond with, to take your example, a list of SR3-appropriate items for the Z-Zone defender, while another posts an equally valid (or not so, on a poster-by-poster basis ;) ) list if gear fit for such an unlucky guard according to the SR4 ruleset.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 5 2006, 10:45 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'll try to come back to this with a more complete explanation during the weekend when I have time, but I reject your premise that the Sixth World is contiguous 3rd -> 4th.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Oct 5 2006, 11:17 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
My premise is that the Sixth World is contiguous 'in general' throughout the 4 editions. There are certainly small things that are out-of-place in certain editions, but these can usually be overlooked or even explained with little trouble and a bit of imagination, if the need ever arises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 30th November 2024 - 05:19 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.