Sign in to follow this  
JorgeP

New and improved!

Recommended Posts

The Search function.

 

Was MUCH better in the last version. One of the best I had ever used on a messageboard.

 

Anything we could do about this Jorge?

 

 

Can you be more specific about why it isn't as good? Are you talking about all the settings the Advanced Search feature used to have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you be more specific about why it isn't as good? Are you talking about all the settings the Advanced Search feature used to have?

Yes. That and just about everything I try and do a search on returns an error.

 

Do a search on J.R. Smith. You get an error. I have to type in Smith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do a search on J.R. Smith. You get an error. I have to type in Smith.

 

OK, this is fixed. It was intended to prevent unnecessary results when you use "if", "and", etc. The default setting was to prevent that.

 

About the advanced search, I'll look into it. But the indexing is pretty good, so the simple search field -- ala Google -- should find what you want (now that the short words are allowed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, this is fixed. It was intended to prevent unnecessary results when you use "if", "and", etc. The default setting was to prevent that.

 

About the advanced search, I'll look into it. But the indexing is pretty good, so the simple search field -- ala Google -- should find what you want (now that the short words are allowed).

Great.

 

Thanks for fixing that.

 

Also..about the advanced search. What that allowed us to do is key in on Specific topics. For instance if I remembered a conversation about J.R. Smith and another keyword..let's say 'Denver' was in the post too...I could do a search on 'J.R. Smith + Denver' and get a shortened precise result that was assured to be what I was looking for.

 

Now in this search you can't do 'J.R. Smith + Denver' to be as specific as possible. You will get the error.

 

You can however do 'J.R. Smith Denver' (without the plus sign) but that will give you all threads with Denver in them alone. J.R. Smith in them alone. Not in conjunction which is the intended purpose of putting both those keywords in the search.

 

Thanks for all your help Jorge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PMI, are you using IE6?

 

The only browser it doesn't show up on (per my testing), is IE6. I've got it showing up on Firefox, IE7, and Safari. I've been alerted to the IE6 problem, and it's on my list of stuff, but I haven't gotten to it yet.

 

 

 

There is no longer a link back to the main page (Memphis Grizzlies.com) on the Fan Board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PMI, are you using IE6?

 

The only browser it doesn't show up on (per my testing), is IE6. I've got it showing up on Firefox, IE7, and Safari. I've been alerted to the IE6 problem, and it's on my list of stuff, but I haven't gotten to it yet.

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice looking upgrade.. ;)

 

WOW Just one post....what happened to the posts I had on the older version.

 

 

Andy, send me a PM so we can straighten this out. Thanks.

 

JorgeP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delete button comes and goes.

 

Can't edit the topic of a post. But can edit the post itself.

 

 

If I'm understanding correctly, this is actually correct. Once you create a topic and start a discussion, you can't go back and change the topic. It's like if you serve a delicious plate of spaghetti, you can't take it back and change it to ravioli after people have started eating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I'm understanding correctly, this is actually correct. Once you create a topic and start a discussion, you can't go back and change the topic. It's like if you serve a delicious plate of spaghetti, you can't take it back and change it to ravioli after people have started eating.

Not trying to change the meal.

 

Just the plate it's presented on before people actually start eating... :lol:

 

I do remember we could do this prior to the new version.

 

People often misspell words in the topic. Under this method you can't even correct a misspelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not trying to change the meal.

 

Just the plate it's presented on before people actually start eating... :lol:

 

I do remember we could do this prior to the new version.

 

People often misspell words in the topic. Under this method you can't even correct a misspelling.

 

 

Good point. I've set the permission to allow topic-starters to edit the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Jorge, I just got this screen "This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota ". What did I do wrong so I can avoid doing that again?

 

That's a server issue not an user issue, you did nothing wrong. And it's not a big deal, just wait a few seconds or minutes and try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100 post requirement for topics would work wonders. I think it's about time. Would keep spam and redundant threads in check.

I second that motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100 post requirement for topics would work wonders. I think it's about time. Would keep spam and redundant threads in check.

 

Third. Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just not a fan of this so called "100 post rule". Theres more good than bad out there. I'm not yet at 100 posts but I like to think I bring meaningful conversation to the boards. Hypothetically speaking, let's just say the Grizzlies acquire Amare Stoudamire in a trade at some weird hour of the night. Well, I'm not at 100 posts yet, so I can't post the story here. I have to sit and wait until the morning time and wait until someone else posts it to add my thoughts.

 

The rule would discourage posting in my opinion, which is not what you want on a message board.

 

Unless it is possible to physically take away the new topic button for posters under 100 posts, I don't see how this would help anyways. Spammers are here for one reason, spamming. They are going to spam and get out. They don't care if there username is banned because there job they came to do is already accomplished.

 

You also have some Grizzlies fans who just don't "get it", I guess. Those who just make "dumb" threads. Guys, if they do it now, there's a 99% chance that 99 posts later, nothing will have changed. I'm just saying.

 

That's just my opinion. Keep it like it is. If you guys find it to be a problem, find a few people to volunteer as mods and let them merge/delete threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just not a fan of this so called "100 post rule". Theres more good than bad out there. I'm not yet at 100 posts but I like to think I bring meaningful conversation to the boards. Hypothetically speaking, let's just say the Grizzlies acquire Amare Stoudamire in a trade at some weird hour of the night. Well, I'm not at 100 posts yet, so I can't post the story here. I have to sit and wait until the morning time and wait until someone else posts it to add my thoughts.

 

The rule would discourage posting in my opinion, which is not what you want on a message board.

 

Unless it is possible to physically take away the new topic button for posters under 100 posts, I don't see how this would help anyways. Spammers are here for one reason, spamming. They are going to spam and get out. They don't care if there username is banned because there job they came to do is already accomplished.

 

You also have some Grizzlies fans who just don't "get it", I guess. Those who just make "dumb" threads. Guys, if they do it now, there's a 99% chance that 99 posts later, nothing will have changed. I'm just saying.

 

That's just my opinion. Keep it like it is. If you guys find it to be a problem, find a few people to volunteer as mods and let them merge/delete threads.

 

Sorry but that's not a justifiable reason to me. When we hear the news, we'll hear it. It's not like it would be exclusive to that time only. I've posted on a board with the rule (and yes the new topic button is not there for sub-100 posters) and it works great. In fact that board also requires preapproval, but that's another story.

 

It doesn't discourage posting at all. In fact it helps weed out the bad posters. As you said if they are making stupid posts now, then hopefully they will be banned before being allowed to make threads as well. This would in turn encourage better posting. Plus the spammers were coming in making threads advertising their stuff. That doesn't happen with the rule in place.

 

This next part I'm not saying this in regards to you, but if a person is only making threads and posting in the threads they make then they are aren't contributing much to the board itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reasons for the rule are just as justifiable as my reasons against the rule.

 

 

Exhibit A: http://boards.grizzliesonline.com/index.php?showtopic=4765

 

Where are all the "100 post rule" people at in that thread? Oh yeah, that's right, yippe has close to 800 posts. I didn't see any of you in that thread yellin at him because he posted something that had already been posted. It DOES discourage posting and runs away potential new members. If they can't post like everyone else, why join? There are plenty of other Grizzlies message boards our there that will let them create their own threads.

 

Face it. These boards aren't exactly the most active message boards on the internet. Since I've been here I've seen maybe 3 to 4 different threads created in the main forum per day. If you can't handle 1 dupe post (that would get deleted or merged if you left it alone in the first place) every few days then you have some problems. Either your extremely sensitive or you've never been exposed to something I like to call the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this