|
j_ung
Feb 11, 2009, 3:17 PM
Post #151 of 176
(6491 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
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, 3:44 PM
Post #152 of 176
(6485 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
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 and the threads in campground with no stars load fine, so....
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 11, 2009, 3:58 PM
Post #153 of 176
(6481 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
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 and the threads in campground with no stars load fine, so.... Ergo... gotcha. Valarc, question: do you also load 50 posts at a time?
(This post was edited by j_ung on Feb 11, 2009, 3:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Feb 11, 2009, 4:14 PM
Post #154 of 176
(6475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
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, 6:06 PM
Post #155 of 176
(6462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 11, 2009, 8:04 PM
Post #156 of 176
(6452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Gotcha. Thanks for the info, folks. J
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Feb 12, 2009, 9:10 AM
Post #157 of 176
(6422 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
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, 3:34 PM
Post #158 of 176
(6413 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 12, 2009, 5:20 PM
Post #159 of 176
(6404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Don't know, but it sure bears thinking about before we upgrade the search.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Feb 12, 2009, 7:23 PM
Post #160 of 176
(6393 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
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, 8:01 PM
Post #161 of 176
(6392 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
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, 10:35 PM
Post #162 of 176
(6375 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
Still haven't rated a post. Am I the only one?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 12, 2009, 10:53 PM
Post #163 of 176
(6373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Feb 12, 2009, 11:03 PM
Post #166 of 176
(6366 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
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. Aaaaannnnd, just in case: I did get the humor. I still didn't rate that post. So there.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 13, 2009, 12:36 AM
Post #167 of 176
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
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 13, 2009, 3:48 AM
Post #168 of 176
(6340 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
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 13, 2009, 3:52 AM
Post #169 of 176
(6338 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 13, 2009, 2:29 PM
Post #170 of 176
(6322 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
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, 7:23 PM
Post #171 of 176
(6256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
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 16, 2009, 2:02 AM
Post #172 of 176
(6242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
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 16, 2009, 2:30 AM
Post #173 of 176
(6237 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Feb 16, 2009, 2:36 AM
Post #174 of 176
(6232 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
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 16, 2009, 6:06 AM
Post #175 of 176
(6221 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|