List of Suggestions & Feature Requests

acco

Woodpecker
Try now. I changed the minimum search term length is 3 characters.
Thank you, Sir! It works fine. :cool:

If I set it to 2, it would reduce the relevancy of the results.
Which should be clear to everybody who use two-digit terms, won't be that many.
Would this slow down the search or worsen the quality of the search results in general?
 

Roosh

Cardinal
Thank you, Sir! It works fine. :cool:


Which should be clear to everybody who use two-digit terms, won't be that many.
Would this slow down the search or worsen the quality of the search results in general?
Both, but moreso lowering the quality of search results.
 

flaghunter

Sparrow
When looking at old threads, I cannot see how many likes a post has on the new forum - only in the archived forum.

I find this a very efficient way of filtering out valuable posts from a thread.

Is it possible to have all likes showing in the new forum (if the archives are still planned to be permanently deleted in July)?

Thanks.
 

Roosh

Cardinal
When looking at old threads, I cannot see how many likes a post has on the new forum - only in the archived forum.

I find this a very efficient way of filtering out valuable posts from a thread.

Is it possible to have all likes showing in the new forum (if the archives are still planned to be permanently deleted in July)?

Thanks.
Likes from the old forum are not displayed on the new forum.
 
Things I like to see added/changed/improved:

1. Consolidation of sub-forums (sort of). I'm fine with there being a bunch but if we click "Culture", Faith", "Current Events", etc, can we get a consolidated page of all the sub-forums postings listed under that particular main section onto one page?

I really miss just having a few sections to browse through and seeing the cross-pollination of various related posts. I think few sections (or the ability to view consolidated sections as an alternative) is way better for user engagement and participation.

2. Make every other post slightly off-color from previous post. RVF 1.0 did this (very subtly I think) and it made reading threads more pleasant and easier. Right now, it's just white, white, white. Experiment with White/gray or some other combos.

3. I feel like the font for posts should be different. Maybe a slight bit bigger or a different font all together. This includes user names as well. Font size needs to go by several notches for user names.

5. Likes should list out every name. It made quick scrolling for high value/well regarded posts much easier.

6. Really need post counts under user names. Given all the haters out there, seeing if someone has 3 posts makes quick filtering easier.

7. Would prefer square avatar pictures. Also, anyway to get rid of the auto letter avatars (if named Flagstaff you get a "F" generic avatar for example)?

I really appreciate some of the added functionality the forum has now but I much prefer the aesthetic/workflow/vibe of RVF 1.0 from a user engagement standpoint. I waited a few weeks to see if it was just nostalgia but the old forum had a very inviting layout and feel that made reading/browsing/posting far more enticing and enjoyable.

RVF 2.0 layout/vibe/structure wise (not content) feels like a significant step backwards and I think will hurt user engagement going forward in its current form. This can be fix relatively easy with some adjustments. Not trying to be hater and I know it's still real early with the forum and dealing with loose ends; just offering some constructive criticism.
 

HermeticAlly

Kingfisher
Biggest gripe I have is that on mobile, I have to scroll to the bottom of a thread to go to another page. There should be a page indicator at the top of the thread.

I think there are too many subforums as well. I remember this happened on Old RVF for a bit a couple years ago and eventually it all got consolidated back into a few, so I'm guessing that will happen here as well.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
@Roosh - This was a difficult topic to approach early because nobody wanted to be seen to be jealously guarding their e-benis but I suppose I'm in a position now to say that I think what passes for the current rep system is broken. It favors spam-posting generically favorable sentiment over making fewer high quality posts. I'm not sure but I also think it counts reactions given to PMs meaning that folks who use PMs they way they would a messaging app and mutually like each other's messages are going to farm a lot of reaction points with little to no actual forum presence.

I don't really know of a solution. I always thought reactions divided by post-count would be the best measure but since a lot of people had heaps of posts from being here for years that no longer have likes attached to them it wouldn't really work unless you could wall off pre-shift posts from the equation.

But as it stands? We have some stellar members who this quantity-over-quality rep system is going to bury when newcomers are trying to figure out who to follow and listen to. Maybe the most simple and patriarchal system would be for Roosh to get rid of the highest-reaction-score part of the members tab and just provide a list of forum elders picked by him personally.
 

Roosh

Cardinal
@Roosh - This was a difficult topic to approach early because nobody wanted to be seen to be jealously guarding their e-benis but I suppose I'm in a position now to say that I think what passes for the current rep system is broken. It favors spam-posting generically favorable sentiment over making fewer high quality posts. I'm not sure but I also think it counts reactions given to PMs meaning that folks who use PMs they way they would a messaging app and mutually like each other's messages are going to farm a lot of reaction points with little to no actual forum presence.

I don't really know of a solution. I always thought reactions divided by post-count would be the best measure but since a lot of people had heaps of posts from being here for years that no longer have likes attached to them it wouldn't really work unless you could wall off pre-shift posts from the equation.

But as it stands? We have some stellar members who this quantity-over-quality rep system is going to bury when newcomers are trying to figure out who to follow and listen to. Maybe the most simple and patriarchal system would be for Roosh to get rid of the highest-reaction-score part of the members tab and just provide a list of forum elders picked by him personally.
You don't think the Reaction Score is a useful guide to a member's contributions?
 
Is it possible to have info pooled somewhere for why specific members are banned? I scanned a recent ban but nothing stood out. Not a deal breaker, obviously.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
You don't think the Reaction Score is a useful guide to a member's contributions?
As I said, I think it buries the low-quantity-high-quality members. Even if someone posted literally a dozen great datasheets they might end up with a mere 250 reaction score out of that. The old rep system wasn't perfect but there were guys with double digit, triple digit or low quadruple digit post counts who deservedly had high rep scores for providing really high quality content or supporting the forum brotherhood in other ways such as with meetups.
 

Athanasius

Kingfisher
I'd like to see an "Interesting" like. That is, I may only partially agree (or even mostly disagree) with something, but still found it a thought-provoking contribution. There may be a better word for it.
 
Top