Well, in regards to Paddle2See's post on my other topic, can you please change it to 1000+ or 5000+
Offline
jackrulez wrote:
You guys realize that this still exists, right?
Yes.
Offline
So basically the whole ">1000" thing is useless.
Offline
jackrulez wrote:
So basically the whole ">1000" thing is useless.
No, because you can't see others'
Offline
Mokat wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
jackrulez wrote:
So basically the whole ">1000" thing is useless.No, because you can't see others'
You can only see your own posts with that.
Yeah
Offline
I think they should add another tier, >2000, and then increment upwards by thousands. (>3000, >4000, >5000, and so on)
Offline
Greenatic wrote:
I think they should add another tier, >2000, and then increment upwards by thousands. (>3000, >4000, >5000, and so on)
I agree that it should be more accurate, but maybe not by that much. Maybe:
>100
>250
>500
>1000
>2500
>5000
>7500
>10000.
Offline
Lightnin wrote:
scimonster wrote:
Lightnin wrote:
That's a cool idea!
I think it would clash / stand out a bit too much in the current forum design, which, unfortunately, has never been very Scratchy. (It's more or less plain old FluxBB with a few features hacked onto it). However, we're going to be doing more design work on the Scratch 2.0 forums to make them match the rest of the site. So I think this could be a really nice way of doing it in the 2.0 forums.Speaking of that... I was going to make a userscript to change the style of the forums to be more Scratchy.
That'd be awesome! Experimentation like that can help a lot while we're thinking of the next design.
Keep the 2.0 design look and feel that's shown in the recent blog post in mind when you're tweaking.
Thank you for the support! IKR, it will be kept updated to the (monthly?) 2.0 updates.
CheeseMunchy wrote:
...
What would you program in?
JavaScript. That's what userscripts are made in. It would inject a CSS file, and also do some more editing.
And I agree with 5(,)000+. Hmm, perhaps a display option for whether it's plain, with a comma, period, or space?
Last edited by scimonster (2012-02-18 12:57:35)
Offline
I think just plain is fine... is there any reason why you'd need to change it?
Offline
RedRocker227 wrote:
Greenatic wrote:
I think they should add another tier, >2000, and then increment upwards by thousands. (>3000, >4000, >5000, and so on)
I agree that it should be more accurate, but maybe not by that much. Maybe:
>100
>250
>500
>1000
>2500
>5000
>7500
>10000.
Offline
Mokat wrote:
RedRocker227 wrote:
Greenatic wrote:
I think they should add another tier, >2000, and then increment upwards by thousands. (>3000, >4000, >5000, and so on)
I agree that it should be more accurate, but maybe not by that much. Maybe:
>100
>250
>500
>1000
>2500
>5000
>7500
>10000.
No.
That would ruin the point, it would constantly give people something to aim for, thus causing spam. With the current ones it does do that but the advantage of determining the experience of a scratcher outweighs that.
Offline
Mokat wrote:
This could just cause more spam! New Scratchers would spam up the "questions about Scratch" forums with "How do I get the > in my post count?" and people will put things like "aweiejhgutop" and "spammy Spam SPAM!!" and "cool idea bro" and ";alkhj" and " " and more just to get the >1000. Besides, couldn't you just post your post count everywhere? Besides, this isn't really distinguishing someone who just puts things like "alkulk" all the time and they have 1001 posts that are all spam against someone who had like 68 posts, but were very helpful and constructive in there posts? First you disable [IMG] tags. Next you archive Misc. and replace it with forums that get spammed even worse. And now, you make the post counts to >100, >500, and >1000. I don't mind [IMG] tags being off, but I still start to get when I scroll down past where Misc. used to be and see the other forums. And now, I get really annoyed when trying to see my exact post number and see just a >500 thing! I admit, that I did spam a bit when trying to get the >500 rank *blush*. But some people actually worked to get their 10,000 posts, and now they aren't any differently distinguished than someone who just typed smilies and things like "wauirytpu9a" to get their post count to 10,000! If you made 100 spammy posts a day, you'd already get to >1000 in 10 days!
Your Weekly Post forecast:
Forums looking extra spammy! Watch out for posts containing, but not limited to, "alkdfgao", " ", "qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm", "akfj;l", "spammy", "hai i am spamming", and " ".
None of these things helped, because everyone was and still will be affected by some [naughty word] spammers!
I at least think that we should show the exact amount once you pass the 10000 mark. People who work for years to get past 10000 should at least have people see their achievements!
Whoa, long post.
Funny thing is I've never once in my years on the forums seen anyone type random stuff like that with no meaning.
Offline
werdna123 wrote:
No.
That would ruin the point, it would constantly give people something to aim for, thus causing spam. With the current ones it does do that but the advantage of determining the experience of a scratcher outweighs that.
Let's just remove post count entirely, then.
Offline
videogame9 wrote:
werdna123 wrote:
No.
That would ruin the point, it would constantly give people something to aim for, thus causing spam. With the current ones it does do that but the advantage of determining the experience of a scratcher outweighs that.Let's just remove post count entirely, then.
Good idea. And replace it with a 3rd rank after Scratcher, "Experienced Scratcher".
Offline
werdna123 wrote:
videogame9 wrote:
werdna123 wrote:
No.
That would ruin the point, it would constantly give people something to aim for, thus causing spam. With the current ones it does do that but the advantage of determining the experience of a scratcher outweighs that.Let's just remove post count entirely, then.
Good idea. And replace it with a 3rd rank after Scratcher, "Experienced Scratcher".
No, people would spam to get that, too.
The optimal solution is obviously to remove the forums entirely.
Offline
videogame9 wrote:
The optimal solution is obviously to remove the forums entirely.
^ This.
This is starting to go over the top. Lumping everyone who gets more than 1000 posts into one group is outrageous. I just passed the 1000 mark today, but to a new forum user, I look the same as someone who has been exponentially more active.
Offline
Greenatic wrote:
videogame9 wrote:
The optimal solution is obviously to remove the forums entirely.
^ This.
This is starting to go over the top. Lumping everyone who gets more than 1000 posts into one group is outrageous. I just passed the 1000 mark today, but to a new forum user, I look the same as someone who has been exponentially more active.
It does seem a bit silly that my 13000+ posts are equivalent to your 1000+, but hey, what can you do?
Offline
veggieman001 wrote:
Greenatic wrote:
videogame9 wrote:
The optimal solution is obviously to remove the forums entirely.
^ This.
This is starting to go over the top. Lumping everyone who gets more than 1000 posts into one group is outrageous. I just passed the 1000 mark today, but to a new forum user, I look the same as someone who has been exponentially more active.It does seem a bit silly that my 13000+ posts are equivalent to your 1000+, but hey, what can you do?
Suggest a different way to have it done.
Offline
rabbit1131 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
Greenatic wrote:
^ This.
This is starting to go over the top. Lumping everyone who gets more than 1000 posts into one group is outrageous. I just passed the 1000 mark today, but to a new forum user, I look the same as someone who has been exponentially more active.It does seem a bit silly that my 13000+ posts are equivalent to your 1000+, but hey, what can you do?
Suggest a different way to have it done.
Offline
rabbit1131 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
Greenatic wrote:
^ This.
This is starting to go over the top. Lumping everyone who gets more than 1000 posts into one group is outrageous. I just passed the 1000 mark today, but to a new forum user, I look the same as someone who has been exponentially more active.It does seem a bit silly that my 13000+ posts are equivalent to your 1000+, but hey, what can you do?
Suggest a different way to have it done.
Nah
Offline
lol
Offline
It's really interesting to read this thread, and to see how strongly some Scratchers feel about the importance of showing post count (or of having more tiers that reflect higher post count numbers).
It reminds me a little of this article on gamification that was recently in the New York Times. Numbers can be powerful things, depending on what people think they signify.
To those of you who do feel strongly about it, I'm curious to know:
What does post count mean to you?
How does viewing someone's post count change how you think of them?
Offline