Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Feedback and Administration > Website Announcements and Feature Feedback
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

North Spore Shop: Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. * 8
    #18653769 -

Can we please get some response from someone other than Sell Your Soul about this system?  Or should we just get used to this because nobody really cares what we think?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: idiotek]
    #18653773 -

Well since I'm the one working on it, you'll have to settle for my response, which is currently that I'm working on it, and invite you to PM me with your suggestions.

Thanks! :super:


--------------------
Here's where the site administrators announce changes to the website. You can also post your opinions and suggestions about how we can make the Shroomery better. This is not a forum to contest disciplinary action. Please use our support ticket system for such matters, providing as much related information as possible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Sell Your Soul] * 4
    #18653823 -

Why fix something that isn't broken?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: idiotek]
    #18653871 -

Because the original message system wasn't threaded and didn't allow multiple recipients.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Sell Your Soul] * 18
    #18654057 -

This system is stupid and clunky and just a poor idea if it's going to replace the traditional PM system like it already has now. Wasn't MsgBox already there already? Anyway, why do away with something that works fine to replace it with something the vast majority didn't even want that is full of bugs and just functions poorly inherently? Did anyone even ask for this, or is it just another one of the random projects which you start and then aren't able to fix?

I don't like anything about "MsgBox", from it's layout on up. It's silly and is like throwing away all the kitchen knives for some homemade "electric chopping box" which you made out of salvaged machine parts and filed scrap metal strips in your basement. It serves no advantage, and I wish you would stop trying to replace the features of this site with terrible hair-brain projects.


I also like how you said to "PM" you suggestions, as that's impossible since PM's are currently down in favor of "MsgBox", as you already know. Do you mean "MsgBox" you? You are never even able to fix the bugs you're pm'ed about in your own projects anyway.
:archiebunker:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: John Nada]
    #18654073 -

MaxFresh said:
I also like how you said to "PM" you suggestions, as that's impossible since PM's are currently down in favor of "MsgBox"



:lol:


yeah, I don't like "msgbox." It's more difficult to use. I just unwittingly tried using it, and didn't understand why I couldn't send my message. Apparently, there's an extra step in there to send the message.. I don't like the layout either.


--------------------
full blown human

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Sell Your Soul] * 2
    #18654501 -

Sell Your Soul said:
Because the original message system wasn't threaded and didn't allow multiple recipients.


Why does a private message system need to do either of those things?
Can I even send encrypted messages any more? Why are you taking out the best feature of PMs and replacing it with 2 that do not make any sense?


--------------------
Whoop whoop.
Pull over that ass. Too fat.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: John Nada] * 1
    #18654727 -

MaxFresh said:
This system is stupid and clunky and just a poor idea if it's going to replace the traditional PM system like it already has now. Wasn't MsgBox already there already? Anyway, why do away with something that works fine to replace it with something the vast majority didn't even want that is full of bugs and just functions poorly inherently? Did anyone even ask for this, or is it just another one of the random projects which you start and then aren't able to fix?

I don't like anything about "MsgBox", from it's layout on up. It's silly and is like throwing away all the kitchen knives for some homemade "electric chopping box" which you made out of salvaged machine parts and filed scrap metal strips in your basement. It serves no advantage, and I wish you would stop trying to replace the features of this site with terrible hair-brain projects.


I also like how you said to "PM" you suggestions, as that's impossible since PM's are currently down in favor of "MsgBox", as you already know. Do you mean "MsgBox" you? You are never even able to fix the bugs you're pm'ed about in your own projects anyway.
:archiebunker:



Perfectly said, right down to the Bunker.  The old PM system was great, and this just seems like a hunk of garbage Andy is forcing down our throats to make it look like he's doing something as an admin. 

I'm gonna start pushing Eris to come an clean up at least some of this mess.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Burke Dennings] * 4
    #18654911 -

the multiple recipient boxes in the message are hard to read, and doesn't list all the names. what if i want to delete people as a thread goes on...and really, this is not a PM at all, but another thread.


seriously, why is this considered a better option?


--------------------




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: John Nada] * 1
    #18655048 -

MaxFresh said:
This system is stupid and clunky and just a poor idea if it's going to replace the traditional PM system like it already has now. Wasn't MsgBox already there already? Anyway, why do away with something that works fine to replace it with something the vast majority didn't even want that is full of bugs and just functions poorly inherently? Did anyone even ask for this, or is it just another one of the random projects which you start and then aren't able to fix?

I don't like anything about "MsgBox", from it's layout on up. It's silly and is like throwing away all the kitchen knives for some homemade "electric chopping box" which you made out of salvaged machine parts and filed scrap metal strips in your basement. It serves no advantage, and I wish you would stop trying to replace the features of this site with terrible hair-brain projects.


I also like how you said to "PM" you suggestions, as that's impossible since PM's are currently down in favor of "MsgBox", as you already know. Do you mean "MsgBox" you? You are never even able to fix the bugs you're pm'ed about in your own projects anyway.
:archiebunker:


:thumbup:

Bring the old :pm: back.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Constantine]
    #18655095 -

Constantine said:
MaxFresh said:
This system is stupid and clunky and just a poor idea if it's going to replace the traditional PM system like it already has now. Wasn't MsgBox already there already? Anyway, why do away with something that works fine to replace it with something the vast majority didn't even want that is full of bugs and just functions poorly inherently? Did anyone even ask for this, or is it just another one of the random projects which you start and then aren't able to fix?

I don't like anything about "MsgBox", from it's layout on up. It's silly and is like throwing away all the kitchen knives for some homemade "electric chopping box" which you made out of salvaged machine parts and filed scrap metal strips in your basement. It serves no advantage, and I wish you would stop trying to replace the features of this site with terrible hair-brain projects.


I also like how you said to "PM" you suggestions, as that's impossible since PM's are currently down in favor of "MsgBox", as you already know. Do you mean "MsgBox" you? You are never even able to fix the bugs you're pm'ed about in your own projects anyway.
:archiebunker:


:thumbup:

Bring the old :pm: back.



QFT. :ifyoucanawe:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Dark_Star] * 1
    #18655363 -

I honestly tried to go with the whole Msg box thing, but I don't like not being able to have the choice to send a regular PM, lol. I try and it takes me right to the Msg box setting.

Its weird, now.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: VivaLaMushie]
    #18655684 -

I like the idea of the message box (threaded PMs) but the earlier implementation where it looked like a normal forum thread looked much better. The new version loos like it's designed for a phone or something.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Dark_Star]
    #18656535 -

Dark_Star said:
Constantine said:
MaxFresh said:
This system is stupid and clunky and just a poor idea if it's going to replace the traditional PM system like it already has now. Wasn't MsgBox already there already? Anyway, why do away with something that works fine to replace it with something the vast majority didn't even want that is full of bugs and just functions poorly inherently? Did anyone even ask for this, or is it just another one of the random projects which you start and then aren't able to fix?

I don't like anything about "MsgBox", from it's layout on up. It's silly and is like throwing away all the kitchen knives for some homemade "electric chopping box" which you made out of salvaged machine parts and filed scrap metal strips in your basement. It serves no advantage, and I wish you would stop trying to replace the features of this site with terrible hair-brain projects.


I also like how you said to "PM" you suggestions, as that's impossible since PM's are currently down in favor of "MsgBox", as you already know. Do you mean "MsgBox" you? You are never even able to fix the bugs you're pm'ed about in your own projects anyway.
:archiebunker:


:thumbup:

Bring the old :pm: back.



QFT. :ifyoucanawe:


:whathesaid:
Its a bit :awesketch: this msgbox thing...


--------------------
Ethno-Garden: My seeds and Herbs
My Contests/Give-aways
Get on it!

WE DID IT :kratom: for kratom




I have my rating privileges back, BITCHES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: NoxADVANCED]
    #18656641 -

One more person who wants the old :pm: back


--------------------
I'm stupid, Falcon91Wolvrn03 is smart.
I'm ugly, Falcon91Wolvrn03 is beautiful.
I'm a loser, Falcon91Wolvrn03 is a winner.
Someday, I hope to be like Falcon91Wolvrn03 but secretly know I never will.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Mr.PhilCybin] * 1
    #18656649 -

I really don't like messagebox. :thumbdown:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Memories]
    #18656711 -

:pm:


--------------------
Not all who wander are lost.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: cheshirect666]
    #18656751 -

Old PM with multiple receipts would be fine

Don't like the threaded MSG box

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Sell Your Soul] * 2
    #18656789 -

Seems to be working fine, if a little bit more obtuse than the old :pm: system due to its current state.
Once it's integrated fully I think it'll be hardly any different than the old messaging.

As for how "difficult" I'm hearing it is to use; I really don't know what to tell you. While a bit clunky compared to the old :pm:, in my current highly inebriated state it took me all of ten seconds to figure out how to use it. Maybe some folks should consider leaving the internet for awhile if this is really a huge deal.


--------------------
A Hella Heady List of My Favorite Shroomy People - Click Here!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: something super extreme]
    #18656819 -

I think perhaps with some more thought to design with regards to the layouts of the tables and a bit of formatting, it can become an improvement on the existing PM system.  It's not that the new setup is difficult to understand as much as it is just radically different from what some of us having been using for nigh on a decade or more.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: idiotek]
    #18656862 -

Understandable.
It just seems that there's an inordinate amount of resistance to the change simply because it's something new, and possibly the slightest bit superfluous.

:shrug:


--------------------
A Hella Heady List of My Favorite Shroomy People - Click Here!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: John Nada]
    #18657023 -

MaxFresh said:
This system is stupid and clunky and just a poor idea if it's going to replace the traditional PM system like it already has now. Wasn't MsgBox already there already? Anyway, why do away with something that works fine to replace it with something the vast majority didn't even want that is full of bugs and just functions poorly inherently? Did anyone even ask for this, or is it just another one of the random projects which you start and then aren't able to fix?

I don't like anything about "MsgBox", from it's layout on up. It's silly and is like throwing away all the kitchen knives for some homemade "electric chopping box" which you made out of salvaged machine parts and filed scrap metal strips in your basement. It serves no advantage, and I wish you would stop trying to replace the features of this site with terrible hair-brain projects.


I also like how you said to "PM" you suggestions, as that's impossible since PM's are currently down in favor of "MsgBox", as you already know. Do you mean "MsgBox" you? You are never even able to fix the bugs you're pm'ed about in your own projects anyway.
:archiebunker:


PARADIS FOR ADMIN: 2013

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: idiotek]
    #18658009 -

How can you guys complain when it's essentially the same thing, but easier to use in that it's threaded and better in that it allows for multiple recipients. Sure, stuff like secure PMs aren't doable yet, but Sell Your Soul is working on it.


--------------------
AI Thread

Northerner said:
I agree psilocybin is smokable though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: s240779] * 2
    #18658252 -

I find it hard to read whose involved in the messages compared to the old version. (However I am on a phone)
The whole format in general is just less intuitive for me, and I would really like to have the option between the two


--------------------
I'm stupid, Falcon91Wolvrn03 is smart.
I'm ugly, Falcon91Wolvrn03 is beautiful.
I'm a loser, Falcon91Wolvrn03 is a winner.
Someday, I hope to be like Falcon91Wolvrn03 but secretly know I never will.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: Mr.PhilCybin]
    #18658372 -

The only problem with messagebox with me is when I go to preview a post and then send it, it only ends up sending like a small portion of the whole message

I don't have this problem when I don't preview it first


--------------------
"Ur cat died because he hated u" - Koods
"I hope JSB kicks your ass one day." - Vandago
"you are the biggest 'internet guy' I have ever come across"- Jokeshopbeard
"The more I see you post the more I realize you're just this fuckin tie dye loser who trolls the Shroomery 24/7." - Herbologist
"Sheekle you cannot vile the dice of bullshit you have posted on this forum over the years, I like databases" - thelastoneleft
"or maybe i just come from a blood line of superior intelligence" - trees

R.I.P Kelsy, ?/?/?? - 6/11/16

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: s240779] * 1
    #18659542 -

Da2ra said:
How can you guys complain when it's essentially the same thing, but easier to use in that it's threaded and better in that it allows for multiple recipients. Sure, stuff like secure PMs aren't doable yet, but Sell Your Soul is working on it.



Neither of those features appeal to me at all, really, but I can live with them.  If SYS can format the inbox/interface to be more like the old PM system then it will be perfectly fine.  I appreciate that you are essentially playing Andy's advocating parrot who has no concept of differing opinions, kind of just like him.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: idiotek] * 2
    #18659577 -

I don't understand why both systems can't coincide with each other. I feel like the new "MsgBox" has potential, but releasing it while it's still in development doesn't make any sense to me, along with the majority of Andy's decisions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: s240779] * 6
    #18659934 -

It is not easier to use and it is stupid


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Kilgore Trout] * 10
    #18660095 -

Exactly, MsgBox can be its own thing. There can be a MsgBox link and and Private Message link, LIKE THERE ALREADY IS! Pretty novel idea, huh? All they have to do is put the PM system that was here since 1998 back up so everyone isn't forced to used Andy's shitty MsgBox feature that he's not even finished with. I don't know why Andy decided to do that, besides making people have to pay attention to the feature since they didn't care about or want it and hadn't bothered paying attention to it until they were forced to.

Andy just needs to learn how to hype shit up and market new features, and then he won't have to break the forum to get people to pay attention. Or, he could also even iron out the bugs in his previous projects before starting new ones. That also may help people care about his work and put stock in his ideas. Let's do stuff the smart way

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: John Nada] * 7
    #18662286 -

It's beyond stupid.  Why on earth would we want threading in a pm system?  People are used to emails without threading, so why is it so important here?  Unless you're trying to make it like text messages on a phone, but even those are threaded by sender/receiver, not by subject.  It's retarded as fuck.

Adding the option to send a PM to multiple people is something that could be done to the old PM system without creating this Frankenstein system of private forums.

In addition, I see real security issues with this.  Someone send a message to several people and suddenly every reply gets sent to everyone, when the replying person might think he is only replying to the one dude.  It's all kinds of fucked up.

Ultimately, this will only lead to more people resorting to off-site options for private communications....which will only lead to less security for everyone.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Enlil] * 3
    #18662333 -

Andy, everyone is clearly opposed to it. Just bring back the damn :pm: already.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #18662401 -

Enlil said:
It's beyond stupid.  Why on earth would we want threading in a pm system?  People are used to emails without threading, so why is it so important here?


GMail uses threading.


--------------------
AI Thread

Northerner said:
I agree psilocybin is smokable though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: s240779]
    #18662404 -

Tats GMail not mail.shroomery:awehigh:


--------------------
Ethno-Garden: My seeds and Herbs
My Contests/Give-aways
Get on it!

WE DID IT :kratom: for kratom




I have my rating privileges back, BITCHES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: NoxADVANCED] * 8
    #18662448 -

Also, google has a team of professionals. We have Andy.
If this was editing his registration date, he would have had it done, with no errors, in a matter of minutes.

Edited by Big L (08/05/13 08:09 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: s240779] * 1
    #18662508 -

Da2ra said:
Enlil said:
It's beyond stupid.  Why on earth would we want threading in a pm system?  People are used to emails without threading, so why is it so important here?


GMail uses threading.


The reason threading is useful is because it allows you to see all previous messages in a conversation at a glance without a lot of nested quote boxes. With normal PMs you could quote a few times before you had to leave out the old replies from subsequent messages. If you want to find an old reply after that, you have to look back through the list of messages which are often all called the same thing ("RE: Hi man" or whatever.)

That said, the current implementation doesn't look like it's ready for prime time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: psi] * 2
    #18664081 -

I think Andy has too much time on his hands that he felt he had to fix something that wasn't broken.  Consider the Hippocratic Oath.  "First, do no harm."


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: s240779] * 1
    #18664372 -

Da2ra said:
GMail uses threading.


That's just one of the reasons Gmail blows.  Lets not adopt the shitty parts of other sites.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Enlil] * 5
    #18664426 -

Andy, this fucking sucks unto death


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: zappaisgod]
    #18666740 -

zappaisgod said:
Andy, this fucking sucks unto death


For real, at the very least it should be removed until it's fully functional. Even then, still seems kind of pointless.:shrug:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Big L]
    #18666865 -

Big L said:
Also, google has a team of professionals. We have Andy.
If this was editing his registration date, he would have had it done, with no errors, in a matter of minutes.


Wait, he edited his join date? :freshwtf:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Everlong] * 3
    #18667065 -

lol, yeah. He regged in like '07 or '08. He is just really vain about it. I think he said he had an account here back in the olden days but lost his password. So it's all cool.
:gayvirgin:


--------------------
Whoop whoop.
Pull over that ass. Too fat.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Big L]
    #18667114 -

:rofl2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Constantine]
    #18667130 -

...yeah. It is tough to take him seriously.

Edited by Big L (08/06/13 07:52 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Big L]
    #18667311 -

Big L said:
...yeah. It is tough to take him seriously.



He does a lot of work for this site, you should take that seriously.

I certainly can't do what he does, and I doubt very many other people can.


From a usability perspective, I think it would be less confusing if the subject line column was moved further to the left in the msgbox screen, sort of like it is for PM's.  It would be more intuitive to click on the leftmost major column rather than all the way to the right.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages. [Re: John Nada] * 1
    #18667464 -

MaxFresh said:
This system is stupid and clunky and just a poor idea if it's going to replace the traditional PM system like it already has now. Wasn't MsgBox already there already? Anyway, why do away with something that works fine to replace it with something the vast majority didn't even want that is full of bugs and just functions poorly inherently? Did anyone even ask for this, or is it just another one of the random projects which you start and then aren't able to fix?

I don't like anything about "MsgBox", from it's layout on up. It's silly and is like throwing away all the kitchen knives for some homemade "electric chopping box" which you made out of salvaged machine parts and filed scrap metal strips in your basement. It serves no advantage, and I wish you would stop trying to replace the features of this site with terrible hair-brain projects.


I also like how you said to "PM" you suggestions, as that's impossible since PM's are currently down in favor of "MsgBox", as you already know. Do you mean "MsgBox" you? You are never even able to fix the bugs you're pm'ed about in your own projects anyway.
:archiebunker:


There's obviously a purpose.
Perhaps MsgBox is easier to intercept and read without knowledge or consent?
Maybe MsgBox makes it easier for Andy to delete PMs before they are read?
These are some of Andy's favorite things, so lets cut him a break.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: johnm214] * 2
    #18667474 -

johnm214 said:
Big L said:
...yeah. It is tough to take him seriously.



He does a lot of work for this site, you should take that seriously.

I certainly can't do what he does, and I doubt very many other people can.


From a usability perspective, I think it would be less confusing if the subject line column was moved further to the left in the msgbox screen, sort of like it is for PM's.  It would be more intuitive to click on the leftmost major column rather than all the way to the right.


If the interface was more like the PM system in terms of its layout and organization of tables, this whole transition would go over much more smoothly.  I think the whole idea is to reject that notion outright for the sake of pride and Andy being able to say he updated it all from scratch and replaced the design with a "better" one himself.  I hate to say it but it really does seem that way. 

No admin that gives a fuck at all about the users would do something so unnecessary that goes against the grain of such a large number of users - especially the ones that have been here for a long time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: idiotek]
    #18667501 -

When the messagebox was around a few months ago, a conversation looked just like a regular forum thread. Seemed to work pretty well because the forum is already set up to display threads. Redoing the visuals from scratch was not necessary IMO.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: psi]
    #18667509 -

The forum look looks too bulky. If it was like that, there would be even more complaints. People want private messages to have a different feel.


--------------------
AI Thread

Northerner said:
I agree psilocybin is smokable though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: s240779]
    #18667521 -

They could strip it down a bit if desired (e.g. mini avatars and a skinnier bar at the top of each post) but I think it's a better starting point.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: s240779]
    #18667529 -

Da2ra said:
The forum look looks too bulky. If it was like that, there would be even more complaints. People want private messages to have a different feel.


I remember there being far less complaints when it was that way, and we had the option to send regular PMs.
I can only speak for myself, but you speak for all people?


--------------------
Whoop whoop.
Pull over that ass. Too fat.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: johnm214]
    #18667753 -

johnm214 said:
Big L said:
...yeah. It is tough to take him seriously.



He does a lot of work for this site, you should take that seriously.

I certainly can't do what he does, and I doubt very many other people can.


From a usability perspective, I think it would be less confusing if the subject line column was moved further to the left in the msgbox screen, sort of like it is for PM's.  It would be more intuitive to click on the leftmost major column rather than all the way to the right.


From what I have heard it is certainly true that Andy is excellent.  This fiasco, however, does not come up to that standard.  Or a good or fair standard.  It is a cock up and a nuisance.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: zappaisgod]
    #18667814 -

I will give credit where it is due. I have faith that he wouldn't have been made an admin otherwise.

I just want to be able to trade again. I know he said he is working on secure stuff, but he didn't answer why they can't co-exist. At least until all the wrinkles get smoothed out of the new system.
I don't really use the pm system to chit chat. So, I don't really have a need to have threaded convos with multiple recipients. I thought the old system was perfect, and am pretty surprised to see it being thrown in the trash completely.


--------------------
Whoop whoop.
Pull over that ass. Too fat.

Edited by Big L (08/06/13 11:56 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Big L]
    #18668433 -

I want to know, Why fix something that's Not broken?  Usually, attempting to fix something that's not broken breaks it.


--------------------
OP is now RP!  Read about it here!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Maverick]
    #18668581 -

I see you reimplemented the old Messages system alongside.  Awesome job there Sell.  Is there a way for us to export all our messages and stuff so we don't have to worry about them later?


--------------------
OP is now RP!  Read about it here!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Maverick] * 1
    #18668586 -

No he didn't. What are you talking about?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: John Nada]
    #18668609 -

Look up at the top next to Message Box, there's Messages there now too.  To the right.  Maybe he just enabled it for me?  There's also a way to download a zip of all your messages.

Thanks Sell Your Soul.  You came to the rescue.


--------------------
OP is now RP!  Read about it here!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Maverick]
    #18668631 -

" Messages " was always there. You can read your old messages but still have to use MsgBox if you want to send a new one.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Constantine]
    #18668640 -

Oh he hasn't fixed it so we can still use it?  Tisk tisk.

:crankey:


--------------------
OP is now RP!  Read about it here!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Maverick]
    #18669626 -

Damn, dude, next time try it out before you just start saying stuff. This is WAF, we're trying to solve problems in here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Maverick] * 1
    #18669903 -

Maverick said:
I want to know, Why fix something that's Not broken?  Usually, attempting to fix something that's not broken breaks it.



QFT... :typing:  . . . :peace:


--------------------

"All mushrooms are edible; but some only once." Croatian proverb. BTW ...
  Have You Rated Ythans Mom Yet ?? ... :taser:  ... HERE'S HOW ... (be nice) .  :mod: ... :peace:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: John Nada]
    #18670252 -

Okay, the old system is back up and I'm glad. Like I said, I can't even think of a reason to be opposed to "MsgBox" being there, but it can be it's own thing and exist on it's own instead of completely replacing the old system which people obviously want. No reason to go out of the way to force the userbase to have something it hates when they like and prefer what they have already and don't want it to leave, that is pure insanity from a business standpoint alone.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: John Nada]
    #18671939 -

Indubitably  :strokebeard:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: messagebox is not a suitable replacement for private messages [Re: Shroomism] * 5
    #18672203 -

Perhaps Andy would be wise to recruit a willing group of Shroomerites to beta test his new features before implementing them site-wide without warning.  Also, being able to take criticism and forfeit some creative license for the sake of aesthetic ease-of-use helps a lot

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

North Spore Shop: Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Feedback and Administration > Website Announcements and Feature Feedback
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* New Feature: Secure Private Messages!
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 YthanA 15,486 76 05/03/15 01:33 PM
by milonix
* Re: Private Message are a security risk YthanA 1,334 2 08/01/99 05:45 PM
by Ythan
* Notification about changes concerning private messages
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 AnnoA 10,592 68 02/20/04 04:37 AM
by Anonymous
* Secure Private Messages delta9 1,407 11 08/13/05 03:45 PM
by delta9
* Re: Problem with private message... Anonymous 756 1 09/22/99 09:44 PM
by Ythan
* Re: private messages not working? YthanA 1,706 6 10/13/99 04:04 PM
by Ythan
* Re: Private Messages YthanA 1,156 4 04/29/00 12:48 AM
by Ythan
* Re: Private Message Problem PanTrop 1,124 3 12/14/99 07:15 PM
by Submob

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Ythan, Thor, Seuss, geokills
3,906 topic views. 0 members, 58 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.054 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.