GWJ bugs, feature requests, and updates

PaladinTom wrote:

Yes, but doesn't that really go against the catch-all style threads we have? Wouldn't it create more threads and the need for more moderation?

Not necessarily, especially if you let the scope be broad or open (there is no rule saying it has to be super precise or that our catch-all style threads would have to suddenly transform into something more specific.)

Also, I think it creates less moderation, because the expectations in the thread are more clearly defined. It is easier for someone walking into a thread to self regulate.

As an example, in the Tropes vs the Recently Released thread (which is under Games) I say in the original post that thread isn't for arguing or debating. Multiple times in the thread's history people have waltzed in and attempted to argue or debate. I suspect if the scope of the thread were clear and not buried in the original post, less people would have made that particular threadjack. And less people going off topic means less work for the moderators.

Your point about closing every thread is a good one. Perhaps it would have to be a gradual phase in instead of all at once?

PaladinTom wrote:

I'm of two minds on this because it's indeed frustrating when a thread topic gets hijacked (*cough* Marvel MCU).

The MCU thread was honestly what made me start thinking about this. As the person who created that thread to discuss a particular topic, it was frustrating and disheartening to have that topic steamrolled until I gave up. Being able to point to the scope of the discussion, and there being an understanding that conversations ought to stick to that scope, I think would have been really helpful.

I can see value for this in gaming threads, too, though. If you look at a thread like for No Man's Sky or for the Fallout games or for Bloodborne or for XCOM, setting the scope of the thread could help peel off some of the conversations about those games' controversies into separate discussions. The way the forums are setup and moderated now sets the burden on people who don't want to delve into those controversies to abandon the catch-alls for new threads. Setting the scope of the discussion might help reverse that.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Long term, I think it would be nice to apply the new scope field in Discussions & Debates to other forums on the site. I've had a few gaming, media, and lifestyle threads where it would have been really useful to be able to define the scope of the conversation in some way that helped set the tone and content of the discussion. It's a lot easier to know if your post is off topic, or to tell someone else that theirs is, when there's some kind of easy reference for that.

I like this idea. Rule 25 is unbending ("Relation to the original topic decreases with every single post."), but having the scope to point to would help, especially since it's visible on every page and brief, unlike the OP.

Gravey wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

Long term, I think it would be nice to apply the new scope field in Discussions & Debates to other forums on the site. I've had a few gaming, media, and lifestyle threads where it would have been really useful to be able to define the scope of the conversation in some way that helped set the tone and content of the discussion. It's a lot easier to know if your post is off topic, or to tell someone else that theirs is, when there's some kind of easy reference for that.

I like this idea. Rule 25 is unbending ("Relation to the original topic decreases with every single post."), but having the scope to point to would help, especially since it's visible on every page and brief, unlike the OP.

If rule 25 were actually unbending, what would the picture thread be right now?

Whoa... I just contributed to rule 25...

Doesn't seem like there is anything preventing a topic from having a scope of catch-all. To me that would be a valid scope.

What would people think of having scopes be optional outside of D&D? Thread creators could use scope to clarify what the focus of the thread is, on top of what seems obvious from the subject, but existing threads and smaller threads could just stick with the current "go with what the subject seems to imply".

Or would that miss the goal of "hey, let's have people think about what the scope ought to be when they create a thread"?

Hypatian wrote:

What would people think of having scopes be optional outside of D&D? Thread creators could use scope to clarify what the focus of the thread is, on top of what seems obvious from the subject, but existing threads and smaller threads could just stick with the current "go with what the subject seems to imply".

Or would that miss the goal of "hey, let's have people think about what the scope ought to be when they create a thread"?

I'm definitely comfortable with it as an option, and I don't think that necessarily misses the goal. If it is an option, they're still thinking about scope for a hot second, even if they opt to not specify. It just gives people a way to very easily have a wide scope.

Maybe have the default option be to define the scope, but a quick button press to opt out of defining scope?

I don't understand the need. Can't they 'clarify the scope of the thread' in the first post in the thread? Why do we need another place?

Wouldn't having a scope for a regular thread prevent the chatter that is the fun part of being part of the forum? I do understand Clock's frustrations with the MCU thread, but I'm not sure it's a worse thread for the fact it's full of tangential conversations.

Long, meandering digressions are one of my favourite things about GWJ. As long as they aren't destructive, as they can be in a P&C D&D thread.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I don't understand the need. Can't they 'clarify the scope of the thread' in the first post in the thread? Why do we need another place?

Because no one reads those.

Edit: Seriously though, scope as an opt-in option for non-D&D threads gets my axe.

And also seriously, I'm continually surprised how many times it's obvious a poster has gone straight from thread title to comment field, without a glance at the OP.

I swear I would only use scopes for their intended purpose in my NFL threads, and not make a mockery out of them by using as another text box to write silly things in.

The minor inconsistency in category names is causing my totally-not-OCD to flare up:

Games and Platforms
Sports Discussion and Leagues
Tech and Help
Discussions & Debates

0_o
*twitch*

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Maybe have the default option be to define the scope, but a quick button press to opt out of defining scope?

I'd reverse it: No scope being the default, but the option to define the scope if the thread creator desires it.

Stengah wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Maybe have the default option be to define the scope, but a quick button press to opt out of defining scope?

I'd reverse it: No scope being the default, but the option to define the scope if the thread creator desires it.

Agreed. It's always better to opt-in than be forced to opt-out.

Archangel wrote:

The minor inconsistency in category names is causing my totally-not-OCD to flare up:

Games and Platforms
Sports Discussion and Leagues
Tech and Help
Discussions & Debates

0_o
*twitch*

D and D, or D&D?

sometimesdee wrote:

D and D, or D&D?

"Discussions and Debates" if you write it out, D&D only you only use the letters.

...but then again, I have an irrational dislike for the "&". It's extremely over used in the organization where I work.

You're going to hate my new video game studio, then: &mpersand.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

You're going to hate my new video game studio, then: &mpers&nd.

I made it "better".

Nah. Leave out that second "a" so that it's easier to trademark but harder to spell: &mpersnd.

MeatMan wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

You're going to hate my new video game studio, then: &mpers&nd.

I made it "better". ;)

and-mpers-and-nd?

Obligatory (I have no idea if this will post since my add-ons block Twitter images):

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuEkNWUCMAAEX0K.jpg)

Spoiler:

Apparently it's pronounced "Ampersandra". #noregrets

Interesting messages regarding SSL. Not sure which end.

IMAGE(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8378/29893329576_ba5e804e77_z.jpg)Screenshot 2016-09-25 17.40.11 by Dee, on Flickr

That's interesting. Firefox is showing it as a SHA256 signed certificate. Could be a goof-up on Cloudflare's side?

(In case you're not aware that warning appeared because SHA-1 signed certificates started getting ignored and reported to end users by the major browser vendors earlier this year)

I wasn't aware of the specifics. I only noticed because I finally got my laptop up and running again. I usually browse GWJ in my iPad.

Strange. Chrome does not report the same issue for me, which would lead me to believe it could be an issue between your device and CloudFlare, or perhaps an issue with the particular CloudFlare proxy you're hitting. Can you confirm if you're using Chrome and, if so, which version?

DanB wrote:

The 'recent content' icon is always red for me whether there are new posts in my 'Recent Activity' or not.

Just came here to post this as well. Also, clicking "Mark All Read" just gives me a blank screen, and does nothing.

This is very minor, but do the little "stan" icons next to the GWJ logo no longer change? I liked seeing all the new ones rotate through, but I've had the same one for at least a day or two.

Huh, it isn't changing for me either.

Emoticon followed by text looks good: Hello World

Emoticon followed by link looks compressed: Aw shucks

Feature request: When clicking the quote button to quote someone, it should by default also include a link back to that post. Like:

merphle wrote:
  blah blah blah
  doogiemac wrote:
    all the most amazing stuff
  /end doogiemac quote
/end Merphle quote

The above functionality might depend upon being able to use a URL tag within the QUOTE tag, which doesn't seem to work well... like:

GWJ[/url] ] stuff

This should probably also be a feature request.