Scratch

veggieman001 · 2012-02-20 18:18:08

Mokat wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
SJRCS_011 wrote:

not exactly.
When Miscellaneous was around, sometimes there wasn't much of a difference between the two.
Is it me, or does it seem like I'm one of the only people supporting this completely?
I support this too, and I have the most posts.
Sigh. Miscellaneous.

Misc sucked

Mokat · 2012-02-20 19:45:59

veggieman001 wrote:
Mokat wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
I support this too, and I have the most posts.
Sigh. Miscellaneous.
Misc sucked

I have my opinion, and you have yours.

Last edited by Mokat (2012-02-20 19:46:19)

Mokat · 2012-02-20 19:49:16

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.

They kind of look weird against the gray and blue of the forums... and if we do that, the page loading time will be way to long. It's like some pages that are filled with images. What about a 100 page topic? It'll take way too long to load, especially for long topics with, like, 56987 replies.

Lucario621 · 2012-02-20 20:15:04

I've been on vacation so I haven't gotten a chance to use the internet for a while, so just catching up on this discussion...

Lightnin wrote:
What does post count mean to you?
How does viewing someone's post count change how you think of them?

I would *like* to say that post count is to see a person's overall experience with Scratch and their helpfulness, but that's not really the case. I would say post count is just a way to see how well a person is acquainted with the forums. Generally if you have fewer than 100 posts, you're usually asking for help, and if you have more than 100 posts, you're usually giving help, but there's only a slight correlation. (It's for this reason that I think having only a few levels for post count are needed.) A person's registration date often provides information about one's experience with Scratch, as well as their projects, quality of posts, etc.

Cheddargirl wrote:
Another examples are less obvious person will try to post as much as he/she can. This can be done via posting several threads at once, or posting in the other languages forums via Google translate,

(Sorry if this is a bit off-topic.) This is a complicated issue for me. Obviously I want to help them, but since they're posting in a different language, I feel bad for them since they're (usually) nobody in their native language to help them. Helping them using Google Translate may work somewhat, but it isn't the same as giving a normal response by a native speaker of their language (since Google Translate isn't perfect). So I have two choices:

A) Use Google Translate to help them at the risk of giving a very poorly made response
B) Don't help them and let someone else help the user (preferably a mod).

I usually go with the second choice. What do the Community Moderators think about this issue?

Last edited by Lucario621 (2012-02-20 20:15:18)

cheddargirl · 2012-02-20 20:30:33

Lucario621 wrote:
Cheddargirl wrote:
Another examples are less obvious person will try to post as much as he/she can. This can be done via posting several threads at once, or posting in the other languages forums via Google translate,
(Sorry if this is a bit off-topic.) This is a complicated issue for me. Obviously I want to help them, but since they're posting in a different language, I feel bad for them since they're (usually) nobody in their native language to help them. Helping them using Google Translate may work somewhat, but it isn't the same as giving a normal response by a native speaker of their language (since Google Translate isn't perfect). So I have two choices:

A) Use Google Translate to help them at the risk of giving a very poorly made response
B) Don't help them and let someone else help the user (preferably a mod).

I usually go with the second choice. What do the Community Moderators think about this issue?

My forum comment regarding Google Translate is more directed at users who purposely use machine translations to say things like "hi", or "come look at my project", or "I can post here using Google Translate" or some other non-helpful comment just to post in the Other Languages forum. There's nothing bad about wanting to help someone out.

When it comes to helping out on the other languages forum, it's a good idea to give both the machine response and the original response in the reply. That's often what the Scratch Team does if someone contacts them in a totally different language and there's no one around to help translate the entire reply message when the ST needs to give an answer.

rdococ · 2012-02-21 06:48:58

werdna123 wrote:
Liru wrote:
werdna123 wrote:

I don't see spam, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tighten defence against it. And the point of this was to make less point in Spamming to get high post counts. I think it should do that.
They'll get caught before they reach 100 anyway, and under 100 their post count is shown as numbers anyway, pretty pointless update.
Uhh, they're not always going to have 0 posts when they start spamming. Somone might have say 980 posts, and wants 1k by the end of the day so will spam to 1000.

Yeah. Wait-- I've just had a brainstorm!

What if only the person who's posting see their own post count in levels? Then, they'd be discouraged to spam, but will be caught if they DO (by seeing very high post count increase).

scimonster · 2012-02-21 07:19:04

Will there be more levels shown for the special Scratcher status? Like, either they can see >5000 (for example), and/or theirs is shown >5000 (if applicable). Also, can mods see the exact count?

Alternatives · 2012-02-21 08:53:18

:I

Last edited by Alternatives (2012-02-21 08:53:40)

jslomba · 2012-02-21 09:06:39

2119th post!

XenoK_Studios · 2012-02-21 09:26:41

what was wrong with the regular numbers? Even if people aren't spammers, people have been on scratch for a while, and it wouldn't really matter...

RedRocker227 · 2012-02-21 10:29:10

rdococ wrote:
werdna123 wrote:
Liru wrote:

They'll get caught before they reach 100 anyway, and under 100 their post count is shown as numbers anyway, pretty pointless update.
Uhh, they're not always going to have 0 posts when they start spamming. Somone might have say 980 posts, and wants 1k by the end of the day so will spam to 1000.
Yeah. Wait-- I've just had a brainstorm!

What if only the person who's posting see their own post count in levels? Then, they'd be discouraged to spam, but will be caught if they DO (by seeing very high post count increase).

It's possible to see your own by going to "Profile" though hmm

werdna123 · 2012-02-21 10:52:23

XenoK_Studios wrote:
what was wrong with the regular numbers? Even if people aren't spammers, people have been on scratch for a while, and it wouldn't really matter...

It's not usually proper spammers who do it. It's just generally people do it to get to the next goal. I admit I've done it when I was close to 1000, but that's long ago since now I'm at 6,606

Last edited by werdna123 (2012-02-21 10:53:07)

scimonster · 2012-02-21 11:21:00

werdna123 wrote:
XenoK_Studios wrote:
what was wrong with the regular numbers? Even if people aren't spammers, people have been on scratch for a while, and it wouldn't really matter...
It's not usually proper spammers who do it. It's just generally people do it to get to the next goal. I admit I've done it when I was close to 1000, but that's long ago since now I'm at 6,606

Remember our race to 2,000? Good times...
But that's exactly why this was implemented.

veggieman001 · 2012-02-21 11:27:10

I think it's kind of interesting that this was implemented now instead of back in the time of Miscellaneous, when things like this happened with a higher frequency.

rabbit1131 · 2012-02-21 11:35:03

veggieman001 wrote:
I think it's kind of interesting that this was implemented now instead of back in the time of Miscellaneous, when things like this happened with a higher frequency.

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about...

@all Just because one person with over 10k posts supports doesn't mean you have to.

scimonster · 2012-02-21 11:37:14

rabbit1131 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
I think it's kind of interesting that this was implemented now instead of back in the time of Miscellaneous, when things like this happened with a higher frequency.
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about...

@all Just because one person with over 10k posts supports doesn't mean you have to.

Post count races happened more back in the time of Misc.

CheeseMunchy · 2012-02-21 11:39:26

scimonster wrote:
rabbit1131 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
I think it's kind of interesting that this was implemented now instead of back in the time of Miscellaneous, when things like this happened with a higher frequency.
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about...

@all Just because one person with over 10k posts supports doesn't mean you have to.
Post count races happened more back in the time of Misc.

True. hmm
I haven't seen much racing since Misc was closed.

RedRocker227 · 2012-02-21 11:40:43

CheeseMunchy wrote:
scimonster wrote:
rabbit1131 wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about...

@all Just because one person with over 10k posts supports doesn't mean you have to.
Post count races happened more back in the time of Misc.
True.
I haven't seen much racing since Misc was closed.

I didn't see any even before Misc. was closed, apart from maybe one.

veggieman001 · 2012-02-21 11:41:01

scimonster wrote:
rabbit1131 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
I think it's kind of interesting that this was implemented now instead of back in the time of Miscellaneous, when things like this happened with a higher frequency.
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about...

@all Just because one person with over 10k posts supports doesn't mean you have to.
Post count races happened more back in the time of Misc.

Yep. And I hadn't seen almost any discussion of post counts at all in post-Misc.

Hyacinths · 2012-02-21 16:51:29

I think this is very nice. Is it still possible to see how many posts you have though/

stevetheipad · 2012-02-21 17:15:40

Hyacinths wrote:
I think this is very nice. Is it still possible to see how many posts you have though/

Yup! Go to the Scratch forums then click profile, your real count will be shown there.
big_smile

maxskywalker · 2012-02-22 10:17:42

TRocket wrote:
Lightnin wrote:
TRocket wrote:
do you plan on ever removing this or maybe showing users exact post counts on their user pages?
I'm not sure what the use would be? Seems like it might encourage them to spam to up the count, which is why we've removed the actual numbers.
thing is this is how users became famous, although if we have new ranks like experienced scratcher this may be all right...

EDIT: maybe you could show users number of posts in non-misc forums

Before fixing a problem, I think we should find a problem. (a) When was the last time someone spammed up something just to up their post count, and (b) when was the last time it was a problem? And in my opinion, some competitiveness in post counts was a good thing, because it gave people a reason to try to be as helpful as possible, and be rewarded with posts. If there was a problem with post count spamming, isn't there still a danger of pre-1000-post post spamming?

Last edited by maxskywalker (2012-02-22 10:24:20)

Mokat · 2012-02-22 13:40:15

Yay! You finally switched it to 100+, 500+, and 1000+! I like it better this way. It looks a lot better.

Lightnin · 2012-02-22 13:41:15

Hardmath123 wrote:
Lightnin wrote:
Hardmath123 wrote:
Just a small suggestion, use "Over ***" rather than ">***", it looks nicer.
Interesting!
To test this out, I just right clicked on post count on a random post and selected "inspect element" (this is in chrome). Then I changed the value by clicking on it in the window the pops up at the bottom of the screen.

Here's what it looks like:
http://imgclean.com/?p=1315

Check it out and see what you think. You can also try other things -- I think someone suggested "1000+" earlier. It'd be interesting to see how that looks in context.

By the way - if you've ever dreamed of getting to a massive post count, this is quite an easy way to see what that would be like.
Yeah, I love inspect-elementing stats (on an online school quiz, I inspect-elemented myself a 100%).

I love the way 1,000+ looks, but here are some other ideas as to how different presentations could look:
http://www.imgpaste.com/fY4u.png
http://www.imgpaste.com/Hwq3.png
http://www.imgpaste.com/OVJc.png
I think a comma in 1,000 might be nice, since it's a pre-generated figure.

Ok, it's changed from > to + .

Mokat · 2012-02-22 13:42:20

Hardmath123 wrote:
Lightnin wrote:
Hardmath123 wrote:
Yeah, I love inspect-elementing stats (on an online school quiz, I inspect-elemented myself a 100%).

I love the way 1,000+ looks, but here are some other ideas as to how different presentations could look:
http://www.imgpaste.com/fY4u.png
http://www.imgpaste.com/Hwq3.png
http://www.imgpaste.com/OVJc.png
I think a comma in 1,000 might be nice, since it's a pre-generated figure.
I'm liking the 1000+ look the best as well. Let's give some others time to chime in and suggest alternatives. But if others dig this one, I'd say we should do it.

Veggie's point about not all countries using "," in "1,000" is a good one, so we should probably just keep it simple.
Awaiting chime-ins...

They did end up doing that! big_smile I think it looks a lot better with the + instead of the >.

Last edited by Mokat (2012-02-24 16:51:10)

Scratch

archived forums

#326 2012-02-20 18:18:08

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

Mokat wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

SJRCS_011 wrote:

#327 2012-02-20 19:45:59

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

veggieman001 wrote:

Mokat wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

#328 2012-02-20 19:49:16

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

Lightnin wrote:

scimonster wrote:

Lightnin wrote:

#329 2012-02-20 20:15:04

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

Lightnin wrote:

Cheddargirl wrote:

#330 2012-02-20 20:30:33

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

Lucario621 wrote:

Cheddargirl wrote:

#331 2012-02-21 06:48:58

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

werdna123 wrote:

Liru wrote:

werdna123 wrote:

#332 2012-02-21 07:19:04

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

#333 2012-02-21 08:53:18

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

#334 2012-02-21 09:06:39

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

#335 2012-02-21 09:26:41

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

#336 2012-02-21 10:29:10

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

rdococ wrote:

werdna123 wrote:

Liru wrote:

#337 2012-02-21 10:52:23

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

XenoK_Studios wrote:

#338 2012-02-21 11:21:00

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

werdna123 wrote:

XenoK_Studios wrote:

#339 2012-02-21 11:27:10

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

#340 2012-02-21 11:35:03

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

veggieman001 wrote:

#341 2012-02-21 11:37:14

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

rabbit1131 wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

#342 2012-02-21 11:39:26

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

scimonster wrote:

rabbit1131 wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

#343 2012-02-21 11:40:43

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

CheeseMunchy wrote:

scimonster wrote:

rabbit1131 wrote:

#344 2012-02-21 11:41:01

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

scimonster wrote:

rabbit1131 wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

#345 2012-02-21 16:51:29

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

#346 2012-02-21 17:15:40

Re: Forum post counts now shown in levels

Hyacinths wrote:

#347 2012-02-22 10:17:42