New Messageboard format

RUchip

All-Conference
Oct 15, 2010
27,603
1,505
0
Have a look at the rivals college football main page. I imagine this will be the same by the end of the week. I have to say, ehhh



link
 

PeteGiam07

All-Conference
Aug 29, 2007
28,766
1,218
0
 

bac2therac

Hall of Famer
Jul 30, 2001
247,302
176,984
113
give it a few weeks and everyone will forget what this old slow server looked like...hopefully it does not have the nasty advertisements like this one
 

e5fdny

Heisman
Nov 11, 2002
114,265
53,336
102
Originally posted by bac2therac:

give it a few weeks and everyone will forget what this old slow server looked like...hopefully it does not have the nasty advertisements like this one
+1

Would rather see more of Greg and Steve.
 

RUfinal4

All-Conference
Apr 24, 2006
15,759
1,931
0
is it just my machine but I find I need to reload the page to view the content on Chrome.
 

ScarletNYC

All-Conference
Jul 31, 2008
10,466
1,484
113
I'd take anything over the old format. I'm gonna have to get an avatar. Identifying posters got a lot harder.
 

RP78

Senior
Oct 29, 2002
12,728
696
0
Typical systems design - change for the sake of change. You would figure if the programmers were such whizzes, they would let you look at the boards the old way or the new way. It's not rocket science. It just takes common sense. In my experience, most systems designers want to do their own thing and jettison what's been done before. Screw the people who are actually using the product.

My assessment:

1. The new interface takes up too much real estate per post. Scroll, baby, scroll. Can't wait for the copious "go back and reread my post" comments followed by "you posted?"

2. The quick link is gone when replying. I was always amazed how many posters just pasted a URL in their message rather than in the link box. Now you have to learn how to use the link button. What's that saying about a stitch in time?

3. No underlining or default motif change for links in the posted message. Seriously? See my comment about a stitch in time above.

4. Related to 3. above, you only see a link differentiated with underlining when you hover the mouse pointer over it. What Einstein came up with this? So, we have to hover over the whole message to see the links. Can't wait for the "didn't you read the links I posted?" admonishments followed by the "what links?" replies.

5. I looked to see if there are any options for the presentation. Still looking . . .

Color me unimpressed.
 

RUScrew85

Heisman
Nov 7, 2003
30,054
16,939
0
Typical systems design - change for the sake of change. You would figure if the programmers were such whizzes, they would let you look at the boards the old way or the new way. It's not rocket science. It just takes common sense. In my experience, most systems designers want to do their own thing and jettison what's been done before. Screw the people who are actually using the product.

My assessment:

1. The new interface takes up too much real estate per post. Scroll, baby, scroll. Can't wait for the copious "go back and reread my post" comments followed by "you posted?"

2. The quick link is gone when replying. I was always amazed how many posters just pasted a URL in their message rather than in the link box. Now you have to learn how to use the link button. What's that saying about a stitch in time?

3. No underlining or default motif change for links in the posted message. Seriously? See my comment about a stitch in time above.

4. Related to 3. above, you only see a link differentiated with underlining when you hover the mouse pointer over it. What Einstein came up with this? So, we have to hover over the whole message to see the links. Can't wait for the "didn't you read the links I posted?" admonishments followed by the "what links?" replies.

5. I looked to see if there are any options for the presentation. Still looking . . .

Color me unimpressed.

I'm coloring you Grumpy.
 

CERU00

All-Conference
Feb 10, 2005
3,626
1,677
0
What is with the white background on everything... This site is not very readable.
 

KNIGHT4RU

Redshirt
Jul 25, 2001
14
3
0
Not a fan of the new format. I wouldn't suggest that this is new for the sake of new, but. . . .
 

mdh2003

All-Conference
Feb 4, 2003
4,866
3,795
78
Typical systems design - change for the sake of change. You would figure if the programmers were such whizzes, they would let you look at the boards the old way or the new way. It's not rocket science. It just takes common sense. In my experience, most systems designers want to do their own thing and jettison what's been done before. Screw the people who are actually using the product.

My assessment:

1. The new interface takes up too much real estate per post. Scroll, baby, scroll. Can't wait for the copious "go back and reread my post" comments followed by "you posted?"

2. The quick link is gone when replying. I was always amazed how many posters just pasted a URL in their message rather than in the link box. Now you have to learn how to use the link button. What's that saying about a stitch in time?

3. No underlining or default motif change for links in the posted message. Seriously? See my comment about a stitch in time above.

4. Related to 3. above, you only see a link differentiated with underlining when you hover the mouse pointer over it. What Einstein came up with this? So, we have to hover over the whole message to see the links. Can't wait for the "didn't you read the links I posted?" admonishments followed by the "what links?" replies.

5. I looked to see if there are any options for the presentation. Still looking . . .

Color me unimpressed.

Issues 3 and 4 seem like rookie mistakes. Not impressed either.

Issue 1 will be somewhat mitigated by the fact that no one can nest quotes an annoying number of times.
 

RU848789

Heisman
Jul 27, 2001
65,192
44,274
113
Typical systems design - change for the sake of change. You would figure if the programmers were such whizzes, they would let you look at the boards the old way or the new way. It's not rocket science. It just takes common sense. In my experience, most systems designers want to do their own thing and jettison what's been done before. Screw the people who are actually using the product.

My assessment:

1. The new interface takes up too much real estate per post. Scroll, baby, scroll. Can't wait for the copious "go back and reread my post" comments followed by "you posted?"

2. The quick link is gone when replying. I was always amazed how many posters just pasted a URL in their message rather than in the link box. Now you have to learn how to use the link button. What's that saying about a stitch in time?

3. No underlining or default motif change for links in the posted message. Seriously? See my comment about a stitch in time above.

4. Related to 3. above, you only see a link differentiated with underlining when you hover the mouse pointer over it. What Einstein came up with this? So, we have to hover over the whole message to see the links. Can't wait for the "didn't you read the links I posted?" admonishments followed by the "what links?" replies.

5. I looked to see if there are any options for the presentation. Still looking . . .

Color me unimpressed.

I'm with you, especially on item #1. Just checked some old pages I had saved and on the topic view page, I used to see 19 posts per full screen and now I only see 9 on the same laptop screen, as the list of topics takes up about twice as much vertical real estate per topic (see link).

Furthermore, for any individual post, the default vertical space for all the background crap (not including the actual post text) is 2.75", whereas the default vertical space in the old format was 1.25, so posts are now taking up more than twice as much space, vertically. Incredibly poor design, in my opinion - will be a huge waste of time scrolling twice as much. How the hell can people design these things and not think about scroll time/distance?

But I guess I at least get the long term thread storage that's been promised, which outweighs a lot of bad design, IMO - just wished they could've preserved the best elements of the old design or made the "look and feel" from the old site available as an option.

https://web.archive.org/web/20071113085528/http://rutgers.rivals.com/forum.asp?sid=&fid=642
 

RU848789

Heisman
Jul 27, 2001
65,192
44,274
113
Issues 3 and 4 seem like rookie mistakes. Not impressed either.

Issue 1 will be somewhat mitigated by the fact that no one can nest quotes an annoying number of times.

Holy crap, didn't realize one can't quote a whole series of posts any more. I'm going to hate that, especially for long discussions where I like seeing all the points made in a conversation. I'm on other boards with the multiquote feature and it sucks
 

bac2therac

Hall of Famer
Jul 30, 2001
247,302
176,984
113
while I like the overall change. I think this was not the right kind of setup to use. Way too busy and way too much wasted space. The Yuku boards are pretty excellent in their setup and I would have preferred something more like that. It seems like all the strong points of the old board design were wiped away for a lesser product.
 

Knight Shift

Heisman
May 19, 2011
88,582
86,603
113
Agree with bac. No option to increase the number of threads on the page. Thread titles are too spread out.
 

Knight Shift

Heisman
May 19, 2011
88,582
86,603
113
:);):(:confused::mad::cool::p:D:eek::oops::rolleyes:o_O

I count 12.

I want:
:nocheer::punch::flip::argh::facepalm::pissed::ss::bully::moon::backlol::cwl::taffer::evil::yay::ban:

Well, that worked splendidly . . . . .
 
Nov 10, 2003
11,777
3,298
0
Also,no drop down menu for going to different forums within this site. You have to go to top heading, look for forums, then click on that,for the forum your looking to switch to. One extra step.
 
Dec 17, 2008
45,214
16,774
0
Also,no drop down menu for going to different forums within this site. You have to go to top heading, look for forums, then click on that,for the forum your looking to switch to. One extra step.
There is actually, it was discussed in one of these threads. It's near the top on the right just under the read banner. It's an icon that looks like a mini org chart with one box on top and 3 boxes below. Click that and the list of forums comes up just like when you clicked on the drop down menu before, so you can switch between forums without going to the page where all the forums are listed.
 
Nov 10, 2003
11,777
3,298
0
There is actually, it was discussed in one of these threads. It's near the top on the right just under the read banner. It's an icon that looks like a mini org chart with one box on top and 3 boxes below. Click that and the list of forums comes up just like when you clicked on the drop down menu before, so you can switch between forums without going to the page where all the forums are listed.
OK thanks a lot.
 
Dec 17, 2008
45,214
16,774
0
Search feature not working
I thought that too at first but it actually does work but it seems the posts that migrated from the old board aren't included in the search. If you search for something that was posted since yesterday morning it does work.
 

garyrc70

Junior
Aug 1, 2001
2,409
265
83
Typical systems design - change for the sake of change. You would figure if the programmers were such whizzes, they would let you look at the boards the old way or the new way. It's not rocket science. It just takes common sense. In my experience, most systems designers want to do their own thing and jettison what's been done before. Screw the people who are actually using the product.

My assessment:

1. The new interface takes up too much real estate per post. Scroll, baby, scroll. Can't wait for the copious "go back and reread my post" comments followed by "you posted?"

2. The quick link is gone when replying. I was always amazed how many posters just pasted a URL in their message rather than in the link box. Now you have to learn how to use the link button. What's that saying about a stitch in time?

3. No underlining or default motif change for links in the posted message. Seriously? See my comment about a stitch in time above.

4. Related to 3. above, you only see a link differentiated with underlining when you hover the mouse pointer over it. What Einstein came up with this? So, we have to hover over the whole message to see the links. Can't wait for the "didn't you read the links I posted?" admonishments followed by the "what links?" replies.

5. I looked to see if there are any options for the presentation. Still looking . . .

Color me unimpressed.

Agree 100%...