FlamingMangos said: I think you have a real problem if a bit of scrolling bugs you. Seriously.... Its like.... not that much of a difference for scrolling. I'm not saying I can't live with it or it creates real problems, I just preferred the old way No need to be rude about it, I'm just putting in my two cents |
 |
| Was this format ever suggested? If not why implement it? I would have recommended 1x1, If someone truly wanted more reviews or recommendations they would click the view "more" link. |
 Behold of my awesomeness~ controversial and/or sensitive topics likely devolve into the same repetitive, derogatory, abusive, and harassing comments can no longer be posted. But my feels. |
Rasco said: Was this format ever suggested? If not why implement it? I would have recommended 1x1, If someone truly wanted more reviews or recommendations they would click the view "more" link. No, it wasn't. As always, they completely ignore all the hundreds of thousands suggestions on The Queue and decided to go for this one. |
Veronin said: I think three reviews would be a nice a middle-ground, but yes, four does not work with the current design of the site. It takes too long to scroll down, especially if you're trying to get to the anime's forum page. ^Three would be better than four or two with the current system, imo. Also, if we were to go back to just two reviews on the front page, I'd like to see MAL incorporate a "most helpful positive review" and "most helpful negative review" style, and maybe even split up the positive and negative reviews within the review section. Making positive reviews and negative reviews compete against one another for the top spots isn't working, since postive-bias tends to greatly outnumber critical-bias. |
Rasco said: Was this format ever suggested? If not why implement it? I would have recommended 1x1, If someone truly wanted more reviews or recommendations they would click the view "more" link. View more was the best option, because then it was a choice but now you just get too many reviews and recommendations in your face. |
 |
Sacredhearts said: FlamingMangos said: I think you have a real problem if a bit of scrolling bugs you. Seriously.... Its like.... not that much of a difference for scrolling. I'm not saying I can't live with it or it creates real problems, I just preferred the old way No need to be rude about it, I'm just putting in my two cents Well u guys make it seem like the scrolling is such a big deal when its just a couple more scrolls which isn't that hard. I personally find it better to have 4 reviews rather than 2. |
FlamingMangos said: Well u guys make it seem like the scrolling is such a big deal when its just a couple more scrolls which isn't that hard. I personally find it better to have 4 reviews rather than 2. Yeah, let's have a useless battle of reference. My turn: "Well u guys make it seem like clicking on a single option when you're fucking interested is such a big deal when its just moving mouse a little and clicking which isn't hard. I personally find it better to have 2 reviews than other." On the idea of having them 3-3, I'm not sold on it. Would much prefer 2-2 as it takes less space and yet again, there is a damn option to display more for a reason. Still, 3-3 is of course better than 4-4. PS: When you go changing the thread's title, you can notify me about it, you know... friggen mods without a sense of art."Nope" is art. You are not. |
| I'll just hide them all with Adblock. |
   |
| In terms of being beneficial, I think the 3-3 would serve as a bigger benefactor. You get more information than you do with the 2-2 and sometimes, the 2-2 just isn't enough considering both reviews had a similar perspective, so I do end up clicking on more reviews for different perspectives or for more rec's (Rec's especially). I personally wouldn't mind have 6 rec's displayed on the main page. Imo I think the problem isn't so much the scrolling or clicking as it is with Veronin said: I think three reviews would be a nice a middle-ground, but yes, four does not work with the current design of the site.. In terms of this, I don't like the 4-4 one bit. In terms of serving as beneficial (for me anyway), I do like it. |
Happy Halloween  |
| > sometimes, the 2-2 just isn't enough considering both reviews had a similar perspective, so I do end up clicking on more reviews You are expected to do that if you are interested in the first place? > I personally wouldn't mind have 6 rec's displayed on the main page. Highlight: Then let's have an optional setting to choose how much reviews we would want displayed, just like we have that option on our panel for the recent reviews. Shouldn't be too hard to mirror it to database entries as well. Actually, I believe this would fix the entire dilemma... > It's not just about more scrolling or site layout, is also about not fixing what's not broken. Fixed that a little for you, but yeah, this is one of the last changes that have to be done at this point. |
Subpyro said: That's actually a legitimate suggestion. If only it were to be taken into consideration by them.> sometimes, the 2-2 just isn't enough considering both reviews had a similar perspective, so I do end up clicking on more reviews You are expected to do that if you are interested in the first place? > I personally wouldn't mind have 6 rec's displayed on the main page. Then let's have an optional setting to choose how much reviews we would want displayed, just like we have that option on our panel for the recent reviews. Shouldn't be too hard to mirror it to database entries as well. Actually, I believe this would fix the entire dilemma... |
Happy Halloween |
PDot19 said: That's actually a legitimate suggestion. If only it were to be taken into consideration by them. Hopefully it will. I mean, if they can screw it up even though they have other things to do, I'm sure they can fix it as well. |
SubbedFeb 15, 2015 12:20 AM
| I hate the way it looks, can we revert it? I don't see the point of having several reviews on one page, I think the simple 2 reviews and click to see more was ideal. |
cipheron said: What exactly are people scrolling down to see? It's not like there's anything particularly useful below the reviews and recs. A couple of page downs gets you past that anyway. Was waiting for someone to post something like this. As someone that surfs quite a few database entries per day, this "a couple of page downs" can multiple to quite an overall. The things I check are the Recent Forum Discussions, Recent News, Recent Updates by Users and Related Clubs. Pretty much all of that, in that order of importance. It allows me to quickly check whether a new episode has already aired, as well as see any news regarding the series/franchise in general. That is why I see any arguments towards the idea useless after you actually read the "Highlight", but if you still have one and somehow disagree with it, then do tell how and why. Your post doesn't touch the matter, even though I've added it to the OP. It remains with the "all of nothing" essence, which as we have seen won't get us on the same wavelength. |
SubbedFeb 13, 2015 6:51 AM
| just revert it to 2 and put a button at the bottom like the "see more reviews" button except it just expands it to 4. This is just a horribly unclean idea design-wise and forces people to install user scripts to save tracking the page needlessly. |
 |
Serhiyko said: Okay Good boy. Syrup- said: just revert it to 2 and put a button at the bottom like the "see more reviews" button except it just expands it to 4. This is just a horribly unclean idea design-wise and forces people to install user scripts to save tracking the page needlessly. Can you tell me what is wrong with the thread's idea? Subpyro said: Highlight: Then let's have an optional setting to choose how much reviews we would want displayed, just like we have that option on our panel for the recent reviews. Shouldn't be too hard to mirror it to database entries as well. Actually, I believe this would fix the entire dilemma... Give me a single thing you think could not work out. 1. It already exists (panel), so it would only have to be mirrored 2. It would please everyone once set. Why the hell keep on going down the path that only a specific part would like, if we have a universal solution here for everyone that anyone has yet to express a flaw about? But yeah, you're right in my eyes. :3 |
| If you are using adblock, the following custom rules may help you out. No review or recommendation: 1 review and 1 recommendation: 2 reviews and 2 recommendations: 3 reviews and 3 recommendations: |
 |
| I prefer two as well. |
 |
Subpyro said: next time you think someone is attacking your thread please read their post instead. :)Syrup- said: just revert it to 2 and put a button at the bottom like the "see more reviews" button except it just expands it to 4. This is just a horribly unclean idea design-wise and forces people to install user scripts to save tracking the page needlessly. Can you tell me what is wrong with the thread's idea? |
|
| I think the development team is just going to implement random shit and hope we like it. As users we hope to see some results or just tell us you won't take our opinions and thoughts. (seeing as how this format wasn't even suggested before) xbobx said: And now We wait. Rasco said: Was this format ever suggested? If not why implement it? I would have recommended 1x1, If someone truly wanted more reviews or recommendations they would click the view "more" link. No, it wasn't. As always, they completely ignore all the hundreds of thousands suggestions on The Queue and decided to go for this one. [spoiler] I shall see which method I will use, thanks zanetu and Serhiyko for the Codes. |
Behold of my awesomeness~ controversial and/or sensitive topics likely devolve into the same repetitive, derogatory, abusive, and harassing comments can no longer be posted. But my feels. |
Syrup- said: Subpyro said: next time you think someone is attacking your thread please read their post instead. :)Can you tell me what is wrong with the thread's idea? Next time you think someone is attacking your post, please read their post instead. :) Because it's you who missed the point of my reply to you. But you won't see that if you only partly quote my message. And yes, everything below the sentence you quoted in that post is directed to you personally, even if it includes quoting myself. I even made the text characters bigger for the sake of you reading them, but you didn't. So yeah, funny to see you post something like that when clearly you're the one who is not reading and understanding. |
SubbedFeb 13, 2015 9:48 PM
| You could just click the tabs above the synopsis instead of having to scroll down. I personally like it, though it would be better if it was 3 reviews instead. The first one being the most helpful "positive" review and the most helpful "negative" review like as the second, but with the 3rd review being random. |
 |
VitaminCaim said: I personally like it, though it would be better if it was 3 reviews instead. The first one being the most helpful "positive" review and the most helpful "negative" review like as the second, but with the 3rd review being random. Can you, or anyone else tell me what's wrong with the OPs suggestion? Subpyro said: Highlight: Then let's have an optional setting to choose how many reviews we would want displayed, just like we have that option on our panel for the recent reviews. Shouldn't be hard to mirror it to database entries as well. Actually, I believe this would fix the entire dilemma easily... Yet again, what you guys are implying for the last few pages now, excluding a single user besides me, is something that would please only a specific part of the community alongside yourselves. The OPs idea would cover everyone's desire, so tell me... Why push it your own way and say "1/2/3/4/x would be best" when you can support the idea of each user having it set however they would like, just like this already exists in the panel? |
Subpyro said: Syrup- said: next time you think someone is attacking your thread please read their post instead. :) Next time you think someone is attacking your post, please read their post instead. :) Because it's you who missed the point of my reply to you. But you won't see that if you only partly quote my message. And yes, everything below the sentence you quoted in that post is directed to you personally, even if it includes quoting myself. I even made the text characters bigger for the sake of you reading them, but you didn't. So yeah, funny to see you post something like that when clearly you're the one who is not reading and understanding. I think you're getting too mad when we could just have a really easy fix instead of something that takes longer and most people will ignore. |
|
Syrup- said: I think you're getting too mad when we could just have a really easy fix instead of something that takes longer and most people will ignore. What? "Takes longer"? What takes longer? Mirroring something that already exists? And honestly, I don't care if people would ignore it or not. All that matters is that they would have the option to adjust it if they would want to. I surely would use it, and I'm pretty positive that everyone who replied on this thread would use it to their personal preferring as well. |
| It wouldn't be mirroring it though. The settings on the panel work only for that page. It takes user options and grabs things, and then presents them based on it. Your option might be an okay one if there was a place other than the panel options that had settings like that, but from what I've browsed there's no way to configure what you see other than for the forums. My idea is a much simpler one, and still allows the thoughtful people who had suggested the change in the first place to still have their way. It also doesn't create clutter in the user settings, which are already beyond messy and confusing. Or you know, we could just save the maximum time and effort, and settle the difference by setting it to 3 instead of 4, or even return it to its original state. |
|
| I agree, it's very annoying when you have to scroll twice as much to get to the series discussion forums or stuff like that. People who are looking for reviews will find them either way, and people who don't care just waste more time this way. e: An individualized option to display however many you like would be the best of course, then I could tune it down to 1 and other can display 100 if they feel scrolling isn't a waste of time. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
| Better yet, get rid of reviews completely. Saves a lot of trouble, and effort. |
 |
Syrup- said: It wouldn't be mirroring it though. The settings on the panel work only for that page. It takes user options and grabs things, and then presents them based on it. Your option might be an okay one if there was a place other than the panel options that had settings like that, but from what I've browsed there's no way to configure what you see other than for the forums. My idea is a much simpler one, and still allows the thoughtful people who had suggested the change in the first place to still have their way. It also doesn't create clutter in the user settings, which are already beyond messy and confusing. Or you know, we could just save the maximum time and effort, and settle the difference by setting it to 3 instead of 4, or even return it to its original state. You see, the issue we face here is that people like yourself have absolutely no idea or even cannot imagine what is hard to execute and what not. You see a relatively simple matter such as this hard just because CraveOnline never did shit for Mal. You get a feeling that moving a finger is a god's work because of it. No. Having the number of reviews displayed made optional and differing from user to user would not be something relatively hard to execute. If we weight it to the outcome of everyone being pleased, you cannot even compare your idea with the situation of there being no complaint from the community whatsoever after implementation. CraveOnline probably screwed up your view on possibilities and general efficiency. As a general rule any programmer keeps to, is to write the code as open as possible. Specializations are only there if we are 100% sure that there would be no damage done. At any other case, options should be grabbed on all sides. The thread's idea is not one hard to implement. And looking at the outcome on a long-run, it is a better one than yours which is half-assed, even if it would be slightly easier to work with yours. Your suggestion simply seems to be there to work for you while not giving a fuck about others, while the thread's suggestion covers everyone, which is what developers aim for if it's possible. Also, know that now we have an actual development team, as said by Xinil. He didn't say we have a bunch of clueless idiots than know nothing beyond changing a single number or two in the code, which is what you are suggesting. So please, back off on this one, since your point is not as rational, as subjective as this might sound. |
| Did we get any staff comment/official note on the subject so far? |
| Of course not, since it was me opening the thread. They are making preparations and double-checking everything just in case "someone" would try to burn them with their own words and turn them against them. It wouldn't surprise me if there would be no word shared on the matter at all, but yeah, we'll see. And yeah, we didn't even get a hint on this, nor on the change from 2-2 on 4-4 in the first place. |
Subpyro said: Please don't refer to me as a simpleton because I expect administrators to be lazy. You're not helping your point by constructing it on top of ad hominems. Syrup- said: It wouldn't be mirroring it though. The settings on the panel work only for that page. It takes user options and grabs things, and then presents them based on it. Your option might be an okay one if there was a place other than the panel options that had settings like that, but from what I've browsed there's no way to configure what you see other than for the forums. My idea is a much simpler one, and still allows the thoughtful people who had suggested the change in the first place to still have their way. It also doesn't create clutter in the user settings, which are already beyond messy and confusing. Or you know, we could just save the maximum time and effort, and settle the difference by setting it to 3 instead of 4, or even return it to its original state. You see, the issue we face here is that people like yourself have absolutely no idea or even cannot imagine what is hard to execute and what not. You see a relatively simple matter such as this hard just because CraveOnline never did shit for Mal. You get a feeling that moving a finger is a god's work because of it. No. Having the number of reviews displayed made optional and differing from user to user would not be something relatively hard to execute. If we weight it to the outcome of everyone being pleased, you cannot even compare your idea with the situation of there being no complaint from the community whatsoever after implementation. My idea isn't 'half assed' because it's simple. It's more efficient because it is simple. CraveOnline probably screwed up your view on possibilities and general efficiency. As a general rule any programmer keeps to, is to write the code as open as possible. Specializations are only there if we are 100% sure that there would be no damage done. At any other case, options should be grabbed on all sides. The thread's idea is not one hard to implement. And looking at the outcome on a long-run, it is a better one than yours which is half-assed, even if it would be slightly easier to work with yours. Your suggestion simply seems to be there to work for you while not giving a fuck about others, while the thread's suggestion covers everyone, which is what developers aim for if it's possible. Also, know that now we have an actual development team, as said by Xinil. He didn't say we have a bunch of clueless idiots than know nothing beyond changing a single number or two in the code, which is what you are suggesting. So please, back off on this one, since your point is not as rational, as subjective as this might sound. I'm not going to waste time on this anymore since you seem very inflexible to the idea. |
|
Syrup- said: Please don't refer to me as a simpleton because I expect administrators to be lazy. You're not helping your point by constructing it on top of ad hominems. We are having an actual development team now, as referred to by Xinil, meaning that requesting half-assed features on a long-run is nothing but a wasteful action made. Syrup- said: My idea isn't 'half assed' because it's simple. It's more efficient because it is simple. I'm not going to waste time on this anymore since you seem very inflexible to the idea. It is half-assed because it doesn't cover the preferences of the entire community, only a part of it. And it's not much "simpler" than the thread's idea. The only thing inflexible here is your idea, and it's rather funny you used that word towards me here. While your idea represents something that would be static as well as pretty much carved into stone, the thread's idea offers a flexible solution to every user so they could set the number of content displayed however they would desire. The question we face is, who do you want to please. Yourself? The majority? Everyone? The latest out of these three options can pretty much only be achieved through the thread's idea, and not yours. Yours fits the majority at best. And once again, we have an actual development team. Putting off as little work for them as this means that Mal has no future, and while you're free to think like that, I won't. Developers aren't people that change numbers in the code, but the ones who develop, hence the name/title. ------------------------------------------------------ What I would like to know is why you are being so antagonistic. I am disagreeing with you because clearly you are limiting the horizon of possibilities with your idea. The thread's idea, on the other hand, would get you what you desire. So why do you fight it? Too afraid that this new development team wouldn't want to do shit like CraveOnline? I will take the chance, and with something relatively easy as this that could cover everyone's preferences, I see no reason to back down. I'm going in circles here, but instead of trying to win this fruitless argument with me by sticking to your original idea as a weapon, try being flexible as you've said. I've given this idea some though, and I see your point of view. I'm just afraid you don't see mine, or just discard it too quickly. |
SubbedFeb 14, 2015 9:37 AM
Subpyro said: Syrup- said: Please don't refer to me as a simpleton because I expect administrators to be lazy. You're not helping your point by constructing it on top of ad hominems. We are having an actual development team now, as referred to by Xinil, meaning that requesting half-assed features on a long-run is nothing but a wasteful action made. Syrup- said: My idea isn't 'half assed' because it's simple. It's more efficient because it is simple. I'm not going to waste time on this anymore since you seem very inflexible to the idea. It is half-assed because it doesn't cover the preferences of the entire community, only a part of it. And it's not much "simpler" than the thread's idea. The only thing inflexible here is your idea, and it's rather funny you used that word towards me here. While your idea represents something that would be static as well as pretty much carved into stone, the thread's idea offers a flexible solution to every user so they could set the number of content displayed however they would desire. The question we face is, who do you want to please. Yourself? The majority? Everyone? The latest out of these three options can pretty much only be achieved through the thread's idea, and not yours. Yours fits the majority at best. And once again, we have an actual development team. Putting off as little work for them as this means that Mal has no future, and while you're free to think like that, I won't. Developers aren't people that change numbers in the code, but the ones who develop, hence the name/title. lmao okay whatever if you want to grasp at straws. I've already provided my flexibility towards the idea. Your option might be an okay one if there was a place other than the panel options that had settings like that, but from what I've browsed there's no way to configure what you see other than for the forums. Where are these "competent" developers? If there were as competent as you describe they would have done more than change numbers in the last update they made. Your idea is only what would be ideal. I'm talking about what is actually possible right now with what options have been shown to be available through what has been able to be changed. In the end you are trying to convince someone who doesn't give a shit nor has the power to change anything anyway. What is your point? Why did you start getting defensive when I prepared a more easy solution? My option keeps the site clean without having to add extra features for "flexibility". Have you ever stopped to think once in this argument that this feature is completely useless in day to day usage? That it would just get in the way after you've switched it once? I'll stick to my user scripts tyvm Subpyro said: I'm going in circles here, but instead of trying to win this fruitless argument with me by sticking to your original idea as a weapon, try being flexible as you've said. I've given this idea some though, and I see your point of view. I'm just afraid you don't see mine, or just discard it too quickly. Okay. I acknowledge this. We're just not seeing eye to eye on this. I think it's completely useless, and you think it's worth adding. In the end I think it's just because we expect different things from a site. That is all. I will agree to disagree. |
Syrup-Feb 14, 2015 9:46 AM
|
Syrup- said: Where are these "competent" developers? If there were as competent as you describe they would have done more than change numbers in the last update they made. Your idea is only what would be ideal. I'm talking about what is actually possible right now with what options have been shown to be available through what has been able to be changed. In the end you are trying to convince someone who doesn't give a shit nor has the power to change anything anyway. What is your point? Why did you start getting defensive when I prepared a more easy solution? I cannot defend the new developers because I haven't yet seen any result, and nor did you. They've actually come to Mal only recently, so they are still a blank page. I have nothing to say as of why they simply changed it from 2-2 to 4-4, but it was a stupid move made. I'm taking Xinil's words for now. He called them "developers", and for developers, this isn't mission impossible. It's more of a walk in the park. Syrup- said: My option keeps the site clean without having to add extra features for "flexibility". Have you ever stopped to think once in this argument that this feature is completely useless in day to day usage? That it would just get in the way after you've switched it once? I'll stick to my user scripts tyvm It would be a single-use for most, yes. But that is not an issue, as far as I see. Everyone would simply have an option to display as many reviews as they would desire, not be limited by the site's default number. This thread doesn't recommend a feature that would be used daily, but a feature that would display as many reviews as a user would want. Anyone could change it whenever they would want, however, and I do not see what your point is when you bring the frequency of usage in this topic. Syrup- said: Okay. I acknowledge this. We're just not seeing eye to eye on this. I think it's completely useless, and you think it's worth adding. In the end I think it's just because we expect different things from a site. That is all. I will agree to disagree. I expect nothing since I have nothing to grab on. I'm simply giving it a chance and trusting the words of the website's owner. He said "developers", so I will see them as developers until something is done. Regardless of what they are, this suggestion is not an ideal. It is realistic. And it pleases everyone. Indeed, it is simply a matter where we would have to disagree, but I would be surprised if your idea would be acknowledged as the more rational one between the two. |
| It's really weird to me we still haven't seen an official statement about any of this yet... |
|
10th_man_down said: It's really weird to me we still haven't seen an official statement about any of this yet... I thought my site was broken when I found out about it lol. I like the idea, the execution is not good though. I have a feeling that they've updated it like to that to build on top of something else for series pages, otherwise it doesn't really feel that well thought out. Maybe they're gonna rearrange everything :P I always thought forum discussion was a little tucked away out of sight near the bottom anyway ;o I'd imagine that's the most visited part of each page, seems weird that it should be at the bottom, not very community friendly navigation wise for me at least. Reverting back to two reviews, or possibly three would be good. I do like the panel option sub suggested though, definitely preferable. Then people who are happy with 4 can set theres as 4, and everyone who ain't happy can just have the default two, or even zero if they're not interested :3 Tbh the option already exists, but for the panel section only. |
| the official MAL hall of fame/cursed comments is now open for business - you are welcome to PM me any potential quotes to include |
xbobx said: No. Though I'm sure the staff would've said something if they wanted to implement this—unless it was done without anyone else's opinions (Aka the new owners only).Did we get any staff comment/official note on the subject so far? |
 |
| Supporting the optional idea. |
[right] "The big secret to breaking the rules is to make it look as though you're following them." |
| @lpf Actually, I was never really an excessive fan of the 2-2 setting but the reason I put up with it was CraveOnline. I was beautifully let known not to expect any changes (on such minor department), but I was never really pleased with the number being so random. Due to me wanting to have it all collected on a database site (where that should be expected), I was up for optional display way back then, or having the reviews stockpiled on their own "reviews" tab while the main database page of the entry being free of them (like AniDB has). I'd much prefer the former, however, with zero also being a possible choice, which is why it is also this thread's suggestion. The reason I suggested this now is because clearly, we see a change made. Things actually moved, even though not really in a pleasurable direction. Still, it is now quite possibly a lot more probable for them to turn the right way eventually than before, when there was no wind whatsoever. Which brings me to the point that I was not totally fine with the 2-2 system, but I gave the more important stuff priority, as this wasn't as major. The reason why I'm not giving them priority now is because nothing was changed to the "more important stuff department", but we see a random change (for the worse) here, hence a thread for it was made. Simply because no one was overly loud about it doesn't mean we like(d) it. It just means that CraveOnline has brought such a doomed and no-future atmosphere to the website. ------------------------------------------------ On-topic, your last statement pretty much sums it up. Optional setting pleases everyone and is adaptable per personal preference, while everything else is static and carved into stone. The former works out for everyone, while the latter only for specific parts of the community, and it would be foolish to aim for the majority if we can cover everyone. |
SubbedFeb 14, 2015 8:52 PM
| May I know why you are going backwards now? The thread's discussion proceeded through time and your previous post seemed like you're up-to-date with the topic and have contributed in the latest fashion. But now, this post just unnecessarily brings it all to the beginning. We've passed that, so there is no reason to make quotes of those posts. Of course you can do it, but there's no reason to do so. Edit: Splendid, you will now proceed to editing messages over posting new ones as well as make no sense. You've quoted me there without understanding where the topic is going, as well as then tried making it up with fancy words that 90% of users browsing Mal forums probably don't understand even after re-reading them for the tenth time. I still remember how symbv lectured you on this matter, but it seems you didn't learn anything from it. Sorry pal, but I'm not in the mood to uselessly discuss anything with you on a failed classy way. The suggestion is simple. The gain is evident. There is no need for complicated implications and then making even more confusing replies when someone just doesn't get your point. It's a bad habit of yours to not be able to be straightforward, but always beating around the bush. When it comes to suggestions of technical implementations, beating around the bush and colored speeches are not wanted. Be blunt and understandable. |
SubbedFeb 15, 2015 4:55 AM
| Hold on, you say that writing colored sentences is easier than being blunt? What are you, an artist or something? If you are, then I take it back. :P It's precisely because it's minor that I don't want it taking extraordinary turns and wandering into celestial worlds beyond. > Ideal world? Make the number of reviews/recs customisable. For those too lazy to use adblock. Thread's idea. We have an agreement. > Not gonna change? Not a big deal. You don't need to scroll down for much in the first place, and the main thing to scroll down for (forums) is accessible through a tab at the top of the page. It still looks annoying to me. I mean, the overall space the review and rec sections take now in comparison to other sections on the database entry page is just huge. Before, they used to be comparable more or less, now these two dominate the page and it looks... off. Edit: Removed responses to the last two points because they are unnecessary. |
SubbedFeb 15, 2015 8:55 AM
Tyrel said: That makes me wonder if the development team will make MAL profiles. It would be interesting if they already have one but stay in the shadows. xbobx said: No. Though I'm sure the staff would've said something if they wanted to implement this—unless it was done without anyone else's opinions (Aka the new owners only).Did we get any staff comment/official note on the subject so far? I think the real issue is the fact that they do things without notice, and thus we feel less in control and have to deal with changes accordingly. I'm ready to drop this whole suggestion board for that reason. |
Behold of my awesomeness~ controversial and/or sensitive topics likely devolve into the same repetitive, derogatory, abusive, and harassing comments can no longer be posted. But my feels. |
More topics from this board
» Japanese Language BoardLifelineByNature - Sep 23 |
10 |
by Captain-577
»»
Yesterday, 6:57 AM |
|
» I think it's now time to update abuse section on mal forum guidelines to add "anime tourist" in insult category.jacobPOL - Sep 22 |
9 |
by NS2D
»»
Sep 25, 11:49 AM |
|
» Remove Non-Anime Content from MAL (Music Videos, PVs, CMs, etc.)TaviiTavii - Sep 22 |
2 |
by Shishio-kun
»»
Sep 23, 12:08 AM |
|
» Stop with the 'We value your privacy' pop-ups_cjessop19_ - Sep 9 |
7 |
by Shishio-kun
»»
Sep 22, 12:13 AM |
|
» Request to Increase Favorite Character LimitENANO7211 - Sep 21 |
0 |
by ENANO7211
»»
Sep 21, 2:46 PM |