2010 OCC update feedback thread

[Andrewr05]

However it works, I think it should be on an arbitrary basis. Regardless of rep, posts are not hidden or revealed etc - they (accumulated positive rep points) are simply a better form of "kudos" than post count.

 

For example, on AVForums, I have been thanked 72 times in posts that were deemed useful and I have personally thanked in 26 posts that I thought were useful. No additional benefits are the result of this - it's just a way of getting a snapshot of a user's usefulness if you like

 

Hiding/revealing posts based on rep points is full of fail to be honest.

AGREED

 

I don't really like the post hiding function, the overall global 'reputation' idea is the way to go.

 

[Silverfox]

AGREED

 

I don't really like the post hiding function, the overall global 'reputation' idea is the way to go.

 

 

Yeah, only allowing positive reputation is definitely the best route in my opinion.

 

Else ballsax would have a user profile with one of the longest negatvie figures in the world.

[d3testuser]

Test post.

[d3bruts1d]

NOW WHO DELETED 2500 OF MY AWESOME POSTS?

FAIL

 

At the moment it looks like the rep system is set up in this manner:

 

...

 

EDIT:

 

Okay after looking at my profile I see an area right under my avatar for reputation.

 

So is it a dual purpose rep system?

 

As in each individual post gets upvoted/downvoted and those points are added/subtracted into a members global reputation?

 

Yeah, only allowing positive reputation is definitely the best route in my opinion.

 

Else ballsax would have a user profile with one of the longest negatvie figures in the world.

 

 

Yes, it is a dual purpose system. There are pros and cons to having negative points.

 

Right now, a person can only have a rep that is between +/-20, so you'll never see anyone with a rep that exceeds 20 one way or another. Not even ballsax. This threshold can of course be changed.

 

An individual post can have as many positive or negative votes as there are members (assuming each member were active and voted on the post). So, in this case an absolutely useless/worthless reply could end up with -100 or a great reply could end up with +200. Content that is rated +50 receives a special highlight. Not actually seen this, so we'll have to see what happens if/when we get there.

 

As far as the hiding of replies due to negative votes. I could not find a setting in the member profile or admin configuration that set a "hide after x" value. So it appears as if all content, regardless of negative value, will be shown by default. IF you want to hide negative posts, you will have to manually set the option when viewing a topic. This is done by clicking the "Currently viewing all posts. Change threshold?" at the bottom of each topic page and applies globally once set. It is unset the same way.

 

I'll have to do some more testing, but the test post I just made and assigned a -1 value to is still being displayed when I set the option to hide post below a 0 rating. Not sure what is up with that.

[Silverfox]

Okay that seems a lot better than have cumulative values that could swing either way. The individual posts themselves displaying actual reputation works for me, but I do also like the "positive only" idea too.

 

However, I'm not the one in charge, and of course, the forum may not permit such a system without some hefty work. I guess whatever is implemented can be reviewed with time (should it be implemented at all that is).

[Andrewr05]

Some a members global reputation can only be ( -20 to 20)?

 

I know you said that the number can be changed but that seems like a pretty low number to start off with.

 

 

Doesn't matter, we'll see how it goes.

[d3bruts1d]

Some a members global reputation can only be ( -20 to 20)?

 

I know you said that the number can be changed but that seems like a pretty low number to start off with.

 

 

Doesn't matter, we'll see how it goes.

That's just the default values that IPB sets. There has been some discussion among the admins as to what to set the min and max values. We're still looking into it.

[ClayMeow]

Okay, so I uploaded an image to the gallery to ensure it worked...it did!

 

However, it seems there is a size limit and/or dimension limit.

 

I uploaded a 1680x1050 420KB image and it wound up making it 1600x1000 at 82.26KB.

 

Here's a link to the uploaded (resized) image:

 

Here's what it should have been uploaded as:

http://forums.overcl...howtopic=156973 (the second image).

 

I understand that there's probably a need to indeed have file size restrictions, however making it less than typical wallpaper sizes kind of sucks, especially since 1680x1050 is on the lower end. Some people even like to share dual and tri-screen wallpapers.

Don't know if this was skipped over....didn't see any response.

[Psywar]

Don't know if this has been said yet.

 

Last night I was at work and I was using the new forums for the first time on my iPod Touch. It looked funky.. I mean it was a mobile version I would assume.

Would it be possible to add to the mobile version: "View New Posts"

 

I did not see that but maybe I overlooked it.

[Bosco]

Andrew try uploading it again and tell me what happens.

[ClayMeow]

Andrew try uploading it again and tell me what happens.

 

Sweet, it works now!

 

Thanks, Dave...now I can upload the rest of 'em

[Bosco]

Ya the size limits were messed up.