|
Post by Scott on Sept 1, 2008 21:02:58 GMT -8
So I'm not sure when this might have happened, as I haven't looked at it lately, but the archived section that used to be at the bottom of the main page seems to have gone AWOL. I have a sneaking suspicion that it disappeared with the cosmetic upgrade a few days ago. Any particular reason? Is there some way we can still access them? That was how I passed the time when I was ridiculously bored - by reading old posts and remarking on how much this forum has improved. Sad, I know. Maybe this will be an improvement....... Don't worry, it's still there.. just hidden to clean up the appearance of the forum. If you want to access it, click here: ferriesbc.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=BCFFor the non-BC Ferries archives: ferriesbc.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=oldnonbcI haven't really done anything with it for a long time, but if you want to go way back like I sometimes do, it makes for some interesting reading:)
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Sept 1, 2008 21:35:22 GMT -8
When I click on the link, I'm told I don't have permission to access it. I want to be able to access the old stuff, and site design doesn't really concern me much, as long as I can find everything I want.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 1, 2008 21:37:12 GMT -8
It should work now.
I've added a thread to the "Rules, Reasons, and Recommendations" category that will serve as a "gateway" to the archives sections so you don't need to type the URL in or try and find my previous post every time you want to access them.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Sept 7, 2008 18:23:12 GMT -8
This was sort of asked and sort of answered in the "New Signature Restrictions" thread, but I guess this is the real question that I don't understand:
If a picture in a post can still be 800 pixels wide, then why can't a signature picture (or the signature text itself) also be 800 pixels wide? It doesn't seem like it would make the page any wider. But what do I know?
Nope, this isn't a complaint or anything. It really is just a curiosity about the technical details.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Sept 8, 2008 21:57:36 GMT -8
Sorry for the delay on this response.
Depending on each individuals screen resolution, photo threads might be stretched width wise compared to those topics which are just typed discussion. With the graphical upgrades, specifically the centering of the forum, this has caused us to enact a reduction in signature image size width to 700 from 800.
I would also like to mention that staff are going to start cracking down on signatures in their entirety that are too big - that's image combined with text.
As a general rule, if you already have an image that is of maximum or near maximum dimensions we ask that you do not add more than three lines of text (standard text size) .
Thank you for your co-operation.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Sept 9, 2008 4:52:47 GMT -8
I've noticed that a bunch of the signature photos are centred under the forum and I thought it looked pretty good. Took me a minute to figure out the coding; for those of you that would like to do the same, but weren't sure how, here goes:[center][img]imag_name_and_location.imag_type[/img][/center]
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Sept 9, 2008 15:00:39 GMT -8
I still don't understand why the signature image has to be 700px wide, but a posted image can be 800px wide. All we end up with is blank space on the sides of the signature image.
Also why do we have to support old computer resolutions? Any monitor bought within the last 5 years or so will support greater than 1024 x 768 and if your running that low a resolution it is time to get on with it. We shouldn't have to support archaic hardware here. This is the 21st century.
Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Sept 9, 2008 15:58:17 GMT -8
How very Fort Street of you, Cadmunkey--"Denman Islanders are going to have to move to the mainland, we aren't going to stop at your island anymore." ;D
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Sept 9, 2008 16:48:50 GMT -8
The 700x200 only centes the sig pic. Did one of the staff try 700x200 on a 1024x768 display? I am not noticing any difference.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Sept 9, 2008 16:53:09 GMT -8
I still don't understand why the signature image has to be 700px wide, but a posted image can be 800px wide. All we end up with is blank space on the sides of the signature image. Because topics that have photos may appear stretched to those who don't have a higher resolution monitor. For those individuals, we prefer to keep those stretched topics to those topics that only contain photos, not every single topic on this forum. Also why do we have to support old computer resolutions? Any monitor bought within the last 5 years or so will support greater than 1024 x 768 and if your running that low a resolution it is time to get on with it. We shouldn't have to support archaic hardware here. This is the 21st century. There are people who may not have the funds just to run out and purchase a new monitor and video card that supports a higher resolution. There is some who may feel intimidated by new technology, as well. Participation is what this forum is all about, no matter if they are running a computer that is 10 years old or if they are running one that is brand new - we need to treat everyone equal and work together to make this work for everybody. We understand that this is an inconvenience for those of you that have images in your signature. We appreciate your understanding with this matter.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Sept 9, 2008 17:21:06 GMT -8
I don't have a signature because it has seemed a bit of a hassle to create one. Perhaps it is just my own ignorance of the process. I am proficient at what I need to be with my computer but not by any means a technical person.
And I fully understand the need to keep the forum with a certain standard and support that. And we want to be inclusive as possible.
However, my comment to the mods is that the confusion and changes such as this lessens the chance of me adding a signature. Perhaps a poll should have been taken as to how many people are impacted by this scrolling issue. Knowing if it is a few or many would be helpful. If a large number of forum members are impacted than obviously a change is good. If it is a smaller percentage than changing the rules when the majority see no difference is a not worth the change.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Sept 9, 2008 17:50:19 GMT -8
I hope this issue isn't becoming confusing. We could take a poll on who and who isn't effected, but that would only be for members not guests to the forum. Just for clarification... We are reducing the width of current signatures from 800 pixels to 700 pixels. This goes in to effect tonight at 9:00 PM.Since most use photobucket to host their images, the following is how to reduce uploaded images... - Select the photo you wish to resize.
- Select the resize option and scroll to more options.
- Once in the photobucket editor click on the basic tab.
- Where it says new size put 700 in the first box, it will automatically resize it proportionately.
- Click the 'replace original' button at the bottom.
If you are confused please send an e-mail with your signature attached to contactwcff@gmail.com. A staff member will gladly reduce your image and e-mail it back to you.
|
|
|
Post by cohocatcher on Sept 9, 2008 17:51:15 GMT -8
I agree with the concept of a survey of the video capabilities of the members of this forum. I think that the moderators should determine both these capabilities and the various speeds of the members' INTERNET connections.
In addition, I have also seen sites where there is a text only version of those locations, omitting any and all graphics. Is that a possibility with this forum?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 9, 2008 17:56:53 GMT -8
[ Participation is what this forum is all about,. It is until you do/say something that is not agreed by them. Isn't it funny how some characters on this forum have a hard time letting things go and can't seem to know how to move on? It reminds me of an apology thread, where someone complained that he kept getting dragged back into things. I like that kind of stupid irony. Now look who keeps coming back again-and-again as a guest, bringing up his old hurts that still seem to torment his fragile ego. Kyle, there must be a support-group for you somewhere.....but it's not here. This forum is obviously an obsessive part of your life. And like the school-bully who was expelled, you keep coming back to school to poke your nose through the chain-link fence and wonder why your kept outside while everyone else is having fun inside. Keep playing that martyr role......its your area of talent. I look forward to seeing you on the Jerry Springer Show some day.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Sept 9, 2008 17:59:19 GMT -8
I have also seen sites where there is a text only version of those locations, omitting any and all graphics. Is that a possibility with this forum? In your profile there is an option available to not show signatures. There is no option to omit all images and graphics on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Sept 9, 2008 18:06:13 GMT -8
[ Participation is what this forum is all about,. It is until you do/say something that is not agreed by them. FYI you are using an American proxy. Your spam is being actively recorded and sent to the various internet providers you are 'borrowing'. If pursued by those providers you will be prosecuted under American law.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Sept 9, 2008 22:50:24 GMT -8
OK
Scott has explained the issue in greater detail to me and it makes sense.
And I'm not Fort Street, I'm thinking of the better part of the members who this change does not effect.
Although I will be changing my signature ASAP.
Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by cohocatcher on Sept 11, 2008 12:41:39 GMT -8
I have also seen sites where there is a text only version of those locations, omitting any and all graphics. Is that a possibility with this forum? In your profile there is an option available to not show signatures. There is no option to omit all images and graphics on this forum. Actually, there are options in each user's profile (1) not to display avatars (2) not to display signatures, and finally (3) not to display graphics and images. If one were to use all three options, the only graphic to be displayed would be the header image for this forum. Since the width of the forum is 960 (160 for subject and member information, and 800 for actual entries, there will always be scrolling for those with monitors that do not have at least that width.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Sept 11, 2008 14:14:10 GMT -8
In your profile there is an option available to not show signatures. There is no option to omit all images and graphics on this forum. Actually, there are options in each user's profiles (1) not to display avatars (2) not to display signatures, and finally (3) not to display graphics and images. I stand corrected. Since the width of the forum is 960 (160 for subject and member information, and 800 for actual entries, there will always be scrolling for those with monitors that do not have at least that width. You are correct that the header image determines the width of the forum. This will create side scrolling, but the side scrolling that we are trying to reduce for the users affected is the kind that make it inconvenient to read - the kind of forced scrolling to read the actual bodies of each post throughout the forum. The actual signature size that we could have accepted was somewhere around 780 pixels, but to make it simple and less confusing we dropped it down to 700. We researched the aspects of this prior to implementing it forum wide.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 16, 2008 11:10:38 GMT -8
Now that everyone has settled in to the new signature requirements, how about we start streamlining other aspects of the forum...? For starters, what about mandatory spell-check requirements on all new posts (to be done by each poster... violators will post a spelling mistake at their own risk ). This will undoubtedly help to conserve space, shorten the length of some posts considerably, thereby improving the appearance of the forum and facilitating ease of access by decreasing the resolution needed on a screen to read a post.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Sept 17, 2008 7:51:12 GMT -8
Now that everyone has settled in to the new signature requirements, how about we start streamlining other aspects of the forum...? For starters, what about mandatory spell-check requirements on all new posts (to be done by each poster... violators will post a spelling mistake at their own risk ). This will undoubtedly help to conserve space, shorten the length of some posts considerably, thereby improving the appearance of the forum and facilitating ease of access by decreasing the resolution needed on a screen to read a post. whatyoudontlikereadingonebigword I concur! If there is a way to institute the spell checker I would like to see it done...though I would suspect that, were there a way to do this, some of our mods would have already seen to it. I recommend keel hauling for spelling offenders, and prop washing for the grammar impaired. I really like Firefox for the inline spell checker...maybe Brainsoft will take the time to learn something and implement a similar feature.
|
|
|
Post by cohocatcher on Sept 17, 2008 8:26:15 GMT -8
And some people even make two words out of one - such as "my self" and "keel hauling". ;D
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Sept 17, 2008 9:03:05 GMT -8
And some people even make two words out of one - such as "my self" and "keel hauling". ;D Hmmm, but that would assume that I meant keelhauling and not keel hauling!
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Oct 4, 2008 0:16:42 GMT -8
So I've been here for a little while now, and I have yet to figure out exactly what the stars under each person's rank symbolizes. At first I thought it was to do with seniority, but then I noticed "Political Meltdown" has been around since 2003, and he has the same number of stars as me, so that kind of threw that theory out the window.
So, those people in the know, can you shed some light on this?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 4, 2008 8:49:21 GMT -8
They're directly related to rank... and therefore serve no purpose except convey a person's rank to people who can't read.
|
|