You’re right, it’s the opposite. Criticize away! Just don’t expect a polished, finished product the day it releases, is all I’m saying.
You seem to suffer from a lack of understanding about how multiperson conversations on this message board work. I *began *with a direct reply to your post, and then began speaking to the topic at hand, in reference to the ongoing discussion we’ve been having on this board for over a decade. Only the first two sentences of my post were in response to your post, as I offered a solution to what appeared to be a problem for you; a solution that doesn’t need to wait for any board software change to implement.
Now perhaps THAT sort of misunderstanding could be addressed by a software change. That would actually be very useful.
But you offered a ridiculous and worthless response to the other poster.
You have no idea how many people would find the feature in question useful, yet you determined it was useful only for ego gratification, and that nobody should want to have their ego stroked, and therefore they should just do a manual work around.
When discussing features for software, it’s ok to have an opinion about what you think is important to you, but taking the position that the software should be built to match your exact needs and yours only because you are unable to see that other people have other needs/desires is not really adding much value to the conversation.
Yes, the fact that the SDMB layout looks nearly identical to 2000 is on purpose. It’s a feature, not a bug.
There may be a bazillion new tools installed on board software, doesn’t mean this board wants to use them.
I’m not sure what he means by platform, but if pressed I could name vBulletin and UBB, but I have no idea about blog platforms. Is Wordpress a blog platform? And I couldn’t give a flying fig, because I’m not creating or running a board, I’m reading a board.
My needs are that the text is legible and separable from the “clutter” (ratings, likes, sig files, ID info, avatars, etc), that the user’s are identifiable and associated with the posts, that quoting works easily and accurately, that post creation and editing are easy, etc. Does the board load quickly? And appearance factors.
No, there is no need to upgrade now, since this software is an early beta. I appreciate the design goals. Improved ability to track conversations within threads, link replies to comments, etc would be useful. A better functioning search feature would be spectacular.
I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t be allowed. I mean, we might just go swap the layout, and then is link wouldn’t prove the point he wants, but I don’t see that happening. Regardless, he’s simply linking to the board to show what it looks like, not claiming any endorsement or cooperative activity.
How is it ridiculous and worthless? Want to know if people are talking about you, asking for your input or quoting you? Do a vanity search. Could it be more elegantly implemented in different software? Sure, I expect it could. But in the meantime, the same need can be fufilled now. If **bldysabba **wasn’t aware you could do that, as many posters aren’t, now s/he knows.
How on earth do you get that from “I wouldn’t object”?
Is it the joking *name *for it that’s got your panties twisted? That I called it an “Ego Notification Feature”? It was a joke, son.
Sure. I agree. If I ever do that, please do let me know so I can stop doing that.
Yes.
Yes.
Right up there, the italicized part.
Correct. Twitter is not supposed to do that. As I said in my example from Disqus, logging into a Disqus commentary with my Twitter info doesn’t require any more action from me. After I’ve authorized Disqus, there’s no need to create a local account.
However the Twitter integration at try.discourse.org didn’t work correctly. It still tried to use that info to make a local account. (and as I said, the authentication server choked and I haven’t been able to get back in despite sporadic attempts).
It’s possible that I’m misunderstanding what was represented on the screen or that something went haywire behind the scenes. Perhaps Twitter denied discourse.org’s authentication attempt, so when I when I went back to the discourse site, it defaulted to making a local account. But to the best of my recollection, the sequence of events happened as I described them here.
Just to be clear, I’m not opposed to changing the SD forum software, personally. And I’m certainly not opposed to attempts at a more modern, open source approach. I’m not crazy about the current state of affairs with Discourse but I do wish them luck.
“Not a finished product!” is also not a “get-out-of-criticism-free” card if it’s a product that’s been released for public consumption.
Yeah, that’s where I am confused. Twitter can send that data over, without giving out your password. Unless you are saying your actual password is included in the Twitter data? In that case, I agree, that’s a huge screwup, but it’s on Twitter’s side, as well!
You should check your Twitter Settings to revoke Discoure’s Access, if you aren’t interested in the site being able to access your Twitter account.
How was that first sentence of your post not ridiculous and worthless?
If you worked for me, and we were working with a customer, and you said that, I would literally stand up, walk over to you, punch you in the stomach, hard, then walk over to the customer and hand them back $200 for having to sit through such a poor suggestion regarding the app.
Because it actually works and returns all instances of your username, whether in a quote or a conversation about you mentioning your username.
You sound like an unpleasant person to know.
The big thing was more that he was being disingenuous in asking us for advice but then only taking the advice that he’d already thought of.
And I agree with everyone else here: adding new features that we’ve always wanted? Good. Completely discarding the older systems that have stood the test of time? Bad.
So far, this is not even close the ultimate forum software, which, as I stated, should be infinitely customizable to give every community whatever they want, and not try to shape the community itself at all. Make it where you don’t have to understand how any board works.
Sure it does work. But the context was a feature that eliminates those exact steps.
Thus repeating the obvious steps required in the absence of the feature is ridiculous and worthless.
A good chop to the stomach can really break up the tension in a meeting when someone says something stupid, don’t dismiss it so hastily.
Just because he asked for advice doesn’t mean he needs to abandon any of his ideas going into this.
He was asking for input and anything that seemed good to him he was going to use and anything that didn’t seem good he wasn’t.
Yeah, I think your average cabal of 12 year olds has a slightly better understanding of false dichotomies than this.
Also, whatever you’re doing to those 12 year olds that’s making them squirm, you should probably cut it out.
I have no interest in changing the board software but considering some of the tantrums that I have seen thrown here over the years, I wouldn’t be so sure.
We get it, he didn’t listen your suggestions and you didn’t like that. That doesn’t make him disingenuous.
We’re not?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Spoken like someone who has no idea how software gets built. “It’s simple! You should just make it do everything!”
I have a program on this very computer that can, in fact, be configured to produce forum software with any set of features the user wants.
It’s called a C compiler. Hey, I never said that configuring it was easy.