| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 01/23/2011 : 21:20:18
|
Well it's taken me long enough (and there's still some left to do), but I figure the new site is at a good enough place now for you all to give it a spin.
PLEASE NOTE: The new site does not and will never work with IE6- there's just far too much fiddly stuff in there. You'll need to upgrade to IE7+ or switch to Firefox, Chrome or Safari if you want to join in the fun.
Without further ado, here's the URL- give it a spin and let me know what you think...
http://www.fwxr.com |
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 21:24:23
|
Two more things, in case you're wondering...
1. The data is a copy from a few months ago and changing anything on fwxr.com will NOT affect anything on fwfr.com. The data is coming from the same place as here to give you a more accurate comparison on how things compare. Therefore, anything you edit/ submit/ delete on fwxr.com will also happen on fwfr.com
2. I should mention the list of Things That Aren't There Yet, just so you know I haven't forgotten and haven't dropped the functionality...
The review report button
The ability to add/ remove statistics from your user |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:18:48
|
I like the new versions of the icons. Are the haloes not going to bob any more? I'd be glad if so because it always gets to me that the colours are not all in sync.
It seems like a lot more titles are going to be partially obscured than is currently the case. That seems a shame, especially if it means that a title isn't recognised and thus potential votes are lost. Yes, I know they'll scroll but people are less likely to do that if they are just browsing casually.
I've always liked the clean look of the current site, and certainly your aesthetic judgment is far better than some F.W.F.R.ers', going by the way they format some posts. So, to be honest, it's rather font overload now. However, if you prefer it like this then I'm certainly more than happy to live with it.
It seems that number of accolades achieved is going to be lauded along with total reviews. Apart from the fact that there is a correlation between these, so they are not unrelated achievements, there are many other things which I'd rather see highlighted.
Sorry not to be more cheerful about it. Other than the clunkiness of accolades and your take on punctuation, I've always admired the design of the site as it is and will be sorry to see it go.
I'm going to have a look on my 'phone now. (I don't have a computer any more, and am currently just on a friend's.) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:28:11
|
It's definitely harder on the 'phone than the current site, probably because everything is more spaced out.
I can't quite tell, but it seems as though one will be able to sort reviews by more or better parameters, such as approved reviews by submission date, so that is very welcome if so.
I'm also happy to see number of passes listed with rejected reviews, something I have been asking for for many years.
Does the cross by reviews remove them from that view? If so, please would it be possible to opt out of being able to do that? With a touch screen one is far more likely to do that accidentally than clicking the current check box. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:33:53
|
The message Not found: C:\Inetpub\fwfr2009\_templates\toplinks\Filmadmin.asp is at the top of my screen so I assume the access to my reviews, the Fourum &c. is under there somewhere.
Talking of touch-screen technology, I'm rather worried about accidentally voting for reviews all the time, even if it is supposed to be a double click. (In fact, a single touch-screen click normally does what double mouse click does, so this may very well be a big problem.)
When I click on a film, I get a Not found message. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/23/2011 22:35:47 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:34:13
|
WOW! What a great piece of work, benj! Congratulations and THANK YOU!
I'm guessing the accolade thing still has a few kinks to sort out, such as I'm not sure I can add one.
Just a tidge on the search function ... I tried to enter Chico & Rita. The system found it in the search box, but replaced the ampersand with some code and then it couldn't load. I think there was always a prob with titles that have diacriticals - umlauts, accents graves, etc
Is that a huge sort-out hassle, or something easy-peasy?
Whatever - it's wonderful and I can't wait to use it 
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 01/23/2011 22:36:37 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:38:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I like the new versions of the icons. Are the haloes not going to bob any more? I'd be glad if so because it always gets to me that the colours are not all in sync.
Yep- no bobbing, for a technical reason I won't bore you all with.
quote:
It seems like a lot more titles are going to be partially obscured than is currently the case. That seems a shame, especially if it means that a title isn't recognised and thus potential votes are lost. Yes, I know they'll scroll but people are less likely to do that if they are just browsing casually.
I see this as just a matter of figuring out how much space to set aside for the title. It's never going to be possible to allow for both Jaws and, say, I Killed My Lesbian Lover, Hung Her On A Meat Hook And blah blah blah... I just need to find the point at which it works for most films.
quote:
I've always liked the clean look of the current site, and certainly your aesthetic judgment is far better than some F.W.F.R.ers', going by the way they format some posts. So, to be honest, it's rather font overload now. However, if you prefer it like this then I'm certainly more than happy to live with it.
I've not considered the current site clean for a very long time. It has little consistency and the reviews in particular are quite shambolic. If anything, I thought I'd *cut down* the amount of text going on, most notable on reviews. Perhaps if you let me know where you think there's too much in the way of fonts going on I'll be able to better look into this.
quote:
It seems that number of accolades achieved is going to be lauded along with total reviews. Apart from the fact that there is a correlation between these, so they are not unrelated achievements, there are many other things which I'd rather see highlighted.
What would you rather see highlighted?
quote:
Sorry not to be more cheerful about it. Other than the clunkiness of accolades and your take on punctuation, I've always admired the design of the site as it is and will be sorry to see it go.
Can you clarify what you mean by clunkiness with regards to the accolades? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:44:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It's definitely harder on the 'phone than the current site, probably because everything is more spaced out.
Okay, maybe I should stress this isn't intended to be navigated on a phone (even an iPhone). There's quite a bit of double-click functionality that just won't work and the page is far too busy to be working your way around on a tiny screen. I plan to make a mobile-friendly version (likely streamlined down to quick browsing and review submission but not the more advanced features like accolade or statistic creation) once the new version is settled in.
quote:
Does the cross by reviews remove them from that view? If so, please would it be possible to opt out of being able to do that? With a touch screen one is far more likely to do that accidentally than clicking the current check box.
If you mean the blue cross beside reviews in MyFWFR, then yes- this clears them from that box. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:45:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The message Not found: C:\Inetpub\fwfr2009\_templates\toplinks\Filmadmin.asp is at the top of my screen so I assume the access to my reviews, the Fourum &c. is under there somewhere.
Yep- that's a bug. Looking at it now.
quote:
When I click on a film, I get a Not found message.
Ditto. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:47:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I'm guessing the accolade thing still has a few kinks to sort out, such as I'm not sure I can add one.
Are you logged in? If so, you should be able to add an accolade anywhere you see accolades listed by clicking the bar just below the box header.
quote:
Just a tidge on the search function ... I tried to enter Chico & Rita. The system found it in the search box, but replaced the ampersand with some code and then it couldn't load. I think there was always a prob with titles that have diacriticals - umlauts, accents graves, etc
Is that a huge sort-out hassle, or something easy-peasy?
Surprisingly fiddly this one. Still working on it. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:51:51
|
Benj, will you be able to see top reviewers by total votes and average votes? Also, I notice that reviews with 49 votes are not necessarily rosetted to indicate that they're in the top 500 reviews.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:55:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I see this as just a matter of figuring out how much space to set aside for the title. It's never going to be possible to allow for both Jaws and, say, I Killed My Lesbian Lover, Hung Her On A Meat Hook And blah blah blah... I just need to find the point at which it works for most films.
I couldn't estimate a proportion but there are definitely a lot of films being cut off at the moment (i.e. in the new site): it shows sufficiently little that it will often be ambiguous (pre-scrolling) between known films or not give enough of the title away of an unknown film to hit the reader's funny bone immediately.
quote:
I've not considered the current site clean for a very long time. It has little consistency and the reviews in particular are quite shambolic. If anything, I thought I'd *cut down* the amount of text going on, most notable on reviews. Perhaps if you let me know where you think there's too much in the way of fonts going on I'll be able to better look into this.
There are a few things that need(ed) sorting out functionally, but looks-wise the current one is very sharp other than when broken by very long titles or reviews. In the new one, there seem to be different fonts everywhere (I mean also in the designed headers, not just in the flexible text).
quote:
What would you rather see highlighted?
Total votes; average votes. Since the cap has been brought in, it has always been unfair to continue to put those people on a pedestal who simply submitted thousands of boring reviews when there were no restrictions. They still have an unfair advantage when it comes to total votes, but at least part of that figure is a reward for quality.
quote:
Can you clarify what you mean by clunkiness with regards to the accolades?
It's been mentioned lots of times: I'm sure it'll be in the Site Maintenance section. It's things like: having to go through lots of pages; trophy adding (or even retention) not working with lots of browsers; it saying that a trophy needs to be a .jpg or .gif when it already definitely is; film-adding rules (e.g. a certain star) and the addition of specific films clashing with each other; and by far the worst of all, it 'dropping' the accolade halfway through editing it. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/23/2011 23:20:08 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 22:56:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Benj, will you be able to see top reviewers by total votes and average votes?
Now I know it's wanted I can see about adding it, yep.
quote:
Also, I notice that reviews with 49 votes are not necessarily rosetted to indicate that they're in the top 500 reviews
Not a biggie- this'll just be because the top 500 rosette assigning code isn't presently auto-updating. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 23:04:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
What would you rather see highlighted?
Total votes; average votes. Since the cap has been brought in, it has always been unfair to continue to put those people on a pedestal who simply submitted thousands of boring reviews when there were no restrictions. They still have an unfair advantage when it comes to total votes, but at least part of that figure is a reward for quality.
Hopefully this will be remedied when I add the sorting function BB asked about just above.
quote:
quote:
Can you clarify what you mean by clunkiness with regards to the accolades?
It's been mentioned lots of times: I'm sure it'll be in the Site Maintenance section. It's things like: having to go through lots of pages; trophy adding (or even retention) not working with lots of browsers; it saying that a trophy needs to be a .jpg or .gif when it already definitely is; film-adding rules (e.g. a certain star) and the addition of specific films clashing with each other; and by far the worst of all, it 'dropping' the accolade halfway through editing it.
Ah okay, I see now- I thought you were referring to the new site's accolades. I'm hoping I've sorted all the above with the single page accolade creation approach on the new site, revised image upload code and whole new method of retaining whatever you're working on and not logging you out. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 23:24:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Okay, maybe I should stress this isn't intended to be navigated on a phone (even an iPhone).
Well, don't you think that is rather a retrograde step? I have gone through long periods almost entirely accessing the site on my 'phone, and other than occasional small things such as accolade and stat creation (neither of which I have tried that I can remember) it has been totally fine. I know we've had this discussion before, but except for Facebook (and then only because the application filters out stupider parts of the website) I don't like special versions of sites. Flash aside, the iPhone really is fine for looking at normal versions of them.
New users, used to Twittering and Facebooking from their 'phones, will take for granted that they should be able to navigate sets of a measly four words on them. Making the site much less mobile-friendly than currently is not in my opinion the optimal way forward. I have no chance of buying another computer in the immediate future so this might well significantly reduce my time here (I certainly can't see myself browsing reviews any more); perhaps some of the others would thank you for that if it weren't for the fact that the Fourum is likely to be the only part of the site I can safely navigate.  |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 23:33:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Benj, will you be able to see top reviewers by total votes and average votes?
Now I know it's wanted I can see about adding it, yep.
[quote]
Also, I notice that reviews with 49 votes are not necessarily rosetted to indicate that they're in the top 500 reviews
[/quote
Not a biggie- this'll just be because the top 500 rosette assigning code isn't presently auto-updating.
Cool. How do you get through to the top reviews of the day? Can't see it.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Long time coming (or "The new FWFR")...
