Special User Sections > Site/Forum Features

Shortcomings of DC and How to Improve

<< < (28/35) > >>

Dormouse:
Well since you choose to respect people who take covert actions than someone like me who speaks out,
-lotusrootstarch (March 06, 2011, 09:39 PM)
--- End quote ---

;D ;D ;D
I'd've thought a hidden identity was covert

lotusrootstarch:
Well since you choose to respect people who take covert actions than someone like me who speaks out,
-lotusrootstarch (March 06, 2011, 09:39 PM)
--- End quote ---

;D ;D ;D
I'd've thought a hidden identity was covert
-Dormouse (March 06, 2011, 10:05 PM)
--- End quote ---

Or maybe my previous identity could have been banned in "error"? Haven't checked in a while, cant say for sure. Ah anyways cant be bothered to check right now. Love this username gonna stick to it.

Now if you think about it:
If there's a global moderator (among the only few here) who's so eager to shield this site from any negative impression during the fundraiser as to ban me and to stifle unwelcome comments, what makes you surprised that my views have faced so much opposition in this thread from senior members, and that I made a great decision to post under a pseudonym? :)

barney:
Oh dear, oh dear!

Someone seems to be trying very hard to be tiresome. Let's not squabble. There are enough of us here to decide whether and how changes will be made, and no one voice is likely to prevail, no matter how shrill.
-cranioscopical (March 06, 2011, 09:55 PM)
--- End quote ---

That brings to mind an old proverb, don't know the origin, " Who speaks with the loudest voice has least to say."

This whole series is reminiscent of the advent of Web 2.0.  Suddenly everyone was eager to update their sites to the new standard.  However, a number of high-traffic sites didn't jump on that bandwagon, and there was no significant diminution of traffic as a result  :P.  By that same token, appearance-wise, most forae haven't changed much, but they're still active.  If we enjoy a site, we return, regardless the appearance.  Frankly, I'm not all that certain that I'd enjoy converse with someone attracted only by appearance - anyone that interested in ephemerals prolly wouldn't have an outlook that would be attractive to me  :D.  The important part of any site is the meat of it, the content contained therein.

There's been comment about the home page, but I'd never seen it until this thread.  I came in through a side door, either CHS or Mobysaurus or Form Letter Machine.  Since then, I've come in through RSS feeds.  So I'm not all that certain the home page is a significant issue.  Update, sure, if it pleases, but check the logs, see how many use it, whether its worth the effort  :).

My attitude is that if you want to make changes, I'll contribute as best as I can.  However, I tend to work within the limits of a thing rather than complain of missing functionality.  (I'm a lousy beta tester  :o.)  So does a third of the rest of the world - more on that another time, perhaps - so change for the sake of change is well nigh antithetical.

If operational change is needed, make it; if change is cosmetic, think about it.  But do consider the workforce, particularly in regard to cosmetic change which is oft more onerous than functional change.

(If this is somewhat incoherent  :-\, that's because I'm somewhat inebriated  :D ... but not enough to dis-enable rationality (I thimk!)  :P.)

nosh:
I'm not all that certain that I'd enjoy converse with someone attracted only by appearance
--- End quote ---

I would.  8)

I suggest we have a large Scarlett Johansson background for the front page and everyone goes home happy. Truth be told, I prefer Leelee Sobieski, but she's not as famous.

Anyone? Anyone?

lotusrootstarch:
LOL

I see we are building an Internet archive here (who needs www.archive.org anyway if you have something that stays the same!?) - everyday is a day back in time!

Who needs to revamp the apps if C++ are here to stay for the next 20 years at least, the code still compiles. Forum software? screw it, php4 might hopefully maintain itself for a long time to come. And no need to worry about the new techs on the interwebs because web is meant for porn not the rest.

Who needs to attract new members to join the forum, huh? We've got 300 active members and 235,001 inactive members and growing, that's GREAT stats! No need to worry until the old members retire.

Anyone?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page