Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Announcements:
Forum Post Rating
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Announcements

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All


Partner j_ung


Feb 11, 2009, 7:17 AM
Post #151 of 176 (2784 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
I have noticed a definite slowdown on the loading of pages. Originally, I thought it was my DSL connection, which has been wonky lately, but now the DSL is fixed, and things are still crawling.

It seems to be an issue with the rendering of the CSS, rather than the actual downloading of the data. The style sheet seems to take a lot longer to load/interpret/draw than previously.

This is under firefox on a PPC mac running leopard, for what it's worth.

Thanks Valarc, I'll bring this directly to the developers.


clausti


Feb 11, 2009, 7:44 AM
Post #152 of 176 (2778 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2004
Posts: 5690

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Valarc wrote:
I have noticed a definite slowdown on the loading of pages. Originally, I thought it was my DSL connection, which has been wonky lately, but now the DSL is fixed, and things are still crawling.

It seems to be an issue with the rendering of the CSS, rather than the actual downloading of the data. The style sheet seems to take a lot longer to load/interpret/draw than previously.

This is under firefox on a PPC mac running leopard, for what it's worth.

Thanks Valarc, I'll bring this directly to the developers.

my situation is the same as Valarc's- mac, firefox, leapoard. and i told you it was slow on day 1 or two Tongue

and the threads in campground with no stars load fine, so....


Partner j_ung


Feb 11, 2009, 7:58 AM
Post #153 of 176 (2774 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [clausti] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

clausti wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Valarc wrote:
I have noticed a definite slowdown on the loading of pages. Originally, I thought it was my DSL connection, which has been wonky lately, but now the DSL is fixed, and things are still crawling.

It seems to be an issue with the rendering of the CSS, rather than the actual downloading of the data. The style sheet seems to take a lot longer to load/interpret/draw than previously.

This is under firefox on a PPC mac running leopard, for what it's worth.

Thanks Valarc, I'll bring this directly to the developers.

my situation is the same as Valarc's- mac, firefox, leapoard. and i told you it was slow on day 1 or two Tongue

and the threads in campground with no stars load fine, so....

Ergo... gotcha. Blush

Valarc, question: do you also load 50 posts at a time?


(This post was edited by j_ung on Feb 11, 2009, 7:59 AM)


Valarc


Feb 11, 2009, 8:14 AM
Post #154 of 176 (2768 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Nah, I've got it set to whatever the default is.

When a page loads, I can actually watch it render the individual posts - you can see each new post being added to the end of the list.


yokese


Feb 11, 2009, 10:06 AM
Post #155 of 176 (2755 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 672

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
Nah, I've got it set to whatever the default is.

When a page loads, I can actually watch it render the individual posts - you can see each new post being added to the end of the list.

Same thing here in any of my computers (single 1.42 GHz PowerPC G4, Dual 1.42 GHz PowerPC G4 and 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo), OS X 10.4, Firefox and default number of post/page.
In Safari, however, the rendering is noticeably faster.


Partner j_ung


Feb 11, 2009, 12:04 PM
Post #156 of 176 (2745 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [yokese] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Gotcha. Thanks for the info, folks.
J


qwert


Feb 12, 2009, 1:10 AM
Post #157 of 176 (2715 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I also have the feeling that posts load noticably slower. I am also on a ppc mac and firefox. Tried it on opera on my linux box and it seemed faster, but maybe still a tad slower than before?
IF you need more feedback on this, i could test it on a variaty on browsers on OSX, Linux and windows.

And another vote on setting the no vote rating on 3. That seems to be more neutral than 0, as it is now, expecially considering that it will be mingled with the search funktion.

qwert


adatesman


Feb 12, 2009, 7:34 AM
Post #158 of 176 (2706 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479

Post deleted by adatesman [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


Partner j_ung


Feb 12, 2009, 9:20 AM
Post #159 of 176 (2697 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [adatesman] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Don't know, but it sure bears thinking about before we upgrade the search.


sungam


Feb 12, 2009, 11:23 AM
Post #160 of 176 (2686 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26577

Re: [adatesman] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
Doesn't setting it to 3 really just bring us back around to a turd/trophy model? If neutral is 3 and good is 5, who's going to give a 4?
I give lots of 4s, but then I'm assuming 3 is nuetral.
If it's funny as fuck, or very informative, I give 5. If it's a fair point, I give 4.
Is there a constant tally going? I think NA would be winning right now if the SPCI had votes.


mojomonkey


Feb 12, 2009, 12:01 PM
Post #161 of 176 (2685 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 841

Re: [sungam] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
adatesman wrote:
Doesn't setting it to 3 really just bring us back around to a turd/trophy model? If neutral is 3 and good is 5, who's going to give a 4?
I give lots of 4s, but then I'm assuming 3 is nuetral.
If it's funny as fuck, or very informative, I give 5. If it's a fair point, I give 4.
Is there a constant tally going? I think NA would be winning right now if the SPCI had votes.

Setting unrated to a neutral score doesn't make the two voting methods the same. Both would have to deal with non-voted items.

But polling systems are really interesting, and I started looking into them because I wondered how the number of choices impacts the result. Will thumbs up/down (or turd/trophy) give equivalent scores as one with 5 options? 10?

Seems to be no. And from the little digging so far, it seems that people are less likely to give the extremes as there are more voting options. "That was good, but I'll leave some room to allow that there could be something better".


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 12, 2009, 2:35 PM
Post #162 of 176 (2668 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Still haven't rated a post. Am I the only one?


Partner j_ung


Feb 12, 2009, 2:53 PM
Post #163 of 176 (2666 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Maybe the only one in this thread. It's certainly not a requirement for you to do so, nor is it a necessity. But you will. One day. When you see something so amazingly awesome or so completely shit filled... you will. Devil


Partner j_ung


Feb 12, 2009, 2:54 PM
Post #164 of 176 (2664 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Maybe the only one in this thread. It's certainly not a requirement for you to do so, nor is it a necessity. But you will. One day. When you see something so amazingly awesome or so completely shit filled... you will. Devil

Aaaaannnnd, just in case: Tongue


Partner robdotcalm


Feb 12, 2009, 3:02 PM
Post #165 of 176 (2659 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1023

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Still haven't rated a post. Am I the only one?

You're not the only one. Real posters don't rate things. Only anonymous cowards do. Real posters use words to say they like or don't like something.

Cheers,
Rob.calm


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 12, 2009, 3:03 PM
Post #166 of 176 (2659 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Maybe the only one in this thread. It's certainly not a requirement for you to do so, nor is it a necessity. But you will. One day. When you see something so amazingly awesome or so completely shit filled... you will. Devil

Aaaaannnnd, just in case: Tongue

I did get the humor. I still didn't rate that post. So there.


jt512


Feb 12, 2009, 4:36 PM
Post #167 of 176 (2651 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Don't know, but it sure bears thinking about before we upgrade the search.

This is pretty simple. If a user chooses to sort results by rating, then either the unrated posts show up last, or they don't show up at all. If the user wants to see unrated posts, then he should choose a different sort criterion.

Jay


notapplicable


Feb 12, 2009, 7:48 PM
Post #168 of 176 (2633 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [mojomonkey] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mojomonkey wrote:
sungam wrote:
adatesman wrote:
Doesn't setting it to 3 really just bring us back around to a turd/trophy model? If neutral is 3 and good is 5, who's going to give a 4?
I give lots of 4s, but then I'm assuming 3 is nuetral.
If it's funny as fuck, or very informative, I give 5. If it's a fair point, I give 4.
Is there a constant tally going? I think NA would be winning right now if the SPCI had votes.

Setting unrated to a neutral score doesn't make the two voting methods the same. Both would have to deal with non-voted items.

Thats a good point. If for the purposes of the search function a rating of 3 stars is considered neutral but the people doing the voting in the forums are not voting based on that assumption, then the search results will not reflect the intent of those voting in the forums.


notapplicable


Feb 12, 2009, 7:52 PM
Post #169 of 176 (2631 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [sungam] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
adatesman wrote:
Doesn't setting it to 3 really just bring us back around to a turd/trophy model? If neutral is 3 and good is 5, who's going to give a 4?
I give lots of 4s, but then I'm assuming 3 is nuetral.
If it's funny as fuck, or very informative, I give 5. If it's a fair point, I give 4.
Is there a constant tally going? I think NA would be winning right now if the SPCI had votes.

I voted this post 5 stars because it portrays my online persona in a favorable light.


Partner j_ung


Feb 13, 2009, 6:29 AM
Post #170 of 176 (2615 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [robdotcalm] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

robdotcalm wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Still haven't rated a post. Am I the only one?

You're not the only one. Real posters don't rate things. Only anonymous cowards do. Real posters use words to say they like or don't like something.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

I appreciate that, Rob, and admire it, too (when it doesn't cause a flame war), but for the typical drive-by user-guest looking solely for climbing info and the hardened forum vet searching for climbing info, that does only minimal good.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 15, 2009, 11:23 AM
Post #171 of 176 (2549 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Still haven't rated a post. Am I the only one?

You're not the only one. Real posters don't rate things. Only anonymous cowards do. Real posters use words to say they like or don't like something.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

I appreciate that, Rob, and admire it, too (when it doesn't cause a flame war), but for the typical drive-by user-guest looking solely for climbing info and the hardened forum vet searching for climbing info, that does only minimal good.

This may get to the heart of our philosophical disagreement. I believe that no one should look at something on a random web site, and based on the number of stars on the post, go out and try to execute the moves.

I “lurked” here for a solid month before opening an account. I got to read some of the posters and got familiar with who was here. Eventually I got an account so I could ask n00bish questions as appropriate.

I still don’t know anyone here outside of the virtual worlds, and still don’t trust any of the advice. And I shouldn’t. Rating, stars, poo, etc. while they may make the process of detecting BS from knowledge easier, can not, and should not ever replace brains. If you are nearly as pig ignorant as I am, you may confuse the number of stars on a particularly witty comment with good advice.

It is the development of critical reasoning around climbing topics which is the main skill. Everything else is just facts. Stars don’t make the reasoning easier.


jt512


Feb 15, 2009, 6:02 PM
Post #172 of 176 (2535 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
j_ung wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Still haven't rated a post. Am I the only one?

You're not the only one. Real posters don't rate things. Only anonymous cowards do. Real posters use words to say they like or don't like something.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

I appreciate that, Rob, and admire it, too (when it doesn't cause a flame war), but for the typical drive-by user-guest looking solely for climbing info and the hardened forum vet searching for climbing info, that does only minimal good.

This may get to the heart of our philosophical disagreement. I believe that no one should look at something on a random web site, and based on the number of stars on the post, go out and try to execute the moves.

I “lurked” here for a solid month before opening an account. I got to read some of the posters and got familiar with who was here. Eventually I got an account so I could ask n00bish questions as appropriate.

I still don’t know anyone here outside of the virtual worlds, and still don’t trust any of the advice. And I shouldn’t. Rating, stars, poo, etc. while they may make the process of detecting BS from knowledge easier, can not, and should not ever replace brains. If you are nearly as pig ignorant as I am, you may confuse the number of stars on a particularly witty comment with good advice.

It is the development of critical reasoning around climbing topics which is the main skill. Everything else is just facts. Stars don’t make the reasoning easier.

But not everybody has the difficulty with critical reasoning that you do.

Jay


adatesman


Feb 15, 2009, 6:30 PM
Post #173 of 176 (2530 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479

Post deleted by adatesman [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 15, 2009, 6:36 PM
Post #174 of 176 (2525 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [jt512] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
j_ung wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Still haven't rated a post. Am I the only one?

You're not the only one. Real posters don't rate things. Only anonymous cowards do. Real posters use words to say they like or don't like something.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

I appreciate that, Rob, and admire it, too (when it doesn't cause a flame war), but for the typical drive-by user-guest looking solely for climbing info and the hardened forum vet searching for climbing info, that does only minimal good.

This may get to the heart of our philosophical disagreement. I believe that no one should look at something on a random web site, and based on the number of stars on the post, go out and try to execute the moves.

I “lurked” here for a solid month before opening an account. I got to read some of the posters and got familiar with who was here. Eventually I got an account so I could ask n00bish questions as appropriate.

I still don’t know anyone here outside of the virtual worlds, and still don’t trust any of the advice. And I shouldn’t. Rating, stars, poo, etc. while they may make the process of detecting BS from knowledge easier, can not, and should not ever replace brains. If you are nearly as pig ignorant as I am, you may confuse the number of stars on a particularly witty comment with good advice.

It is the development of critical reasoning around climbing topics which is the main skill. Everything else is just facts. Stars don’t make the reasoning easier.

But not everybody has the difficulty with critical reasoning that you do.

Jay

All evidence points to the contrary.


sungam


Feb 15, 2009, 10:06 PM
Post #175 of 176 (2514 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26577

Re: [adatesman] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I still don’t know anyone here outside of the virtual worlds, and still don’t trust any of the advice. And I shouldn’t. Rating, stars, poo, etc. while they may make the process of detecting BS from knowledge easier, can not, and should not ever replace brains. If you are nearly as pig ignorant as I am, you may confuse the number of stars on a particularly witty comment with good advice.

Another good point.... There's users here whose lips are moving but they never say anything and there's others who infrequently chime in with wisdom only gained through years of experience. Or to put it another way, there are people I would believe most anything they say without question and there's everyone else. The stars thing doesn't really differentiate between funny and good information, does it?
Sure it does. Low stars = info, high stars = funny.
No?

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Announcements

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$17.06 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)
$37.76 (10% off)
$12.56 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook