• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New dp digs

What do you think of the new digs?

  • Total voters
    53
Zyphlin said:
On the flip side we have increased security abilities, likely helping to reduce the number of spammers and socks popping up not to mention general closing of security loopholes.
Click to expand...

Could you tell me how you are able to reduce the number of spammers? I am having a hellacious problem at my piddly forum, Virginia Whigs Forums. I get upwards of 50 spammers a day. I figure they are automated scripts which build an account then post. Do you have any advice for me to reduce this? Thanks very much!
 
reefedjib - PM incoming.
 
Sadly no clue. I understand there's security upgrades to VB4 but I don't deal with the administrative side and thus am not really sure of what the software does to help it.
 
I see no improvement; but anti-spam and malicious posting are a problem, without a solution that I know of, other than better people...
I do not like change for the sake of change; only change for improvement.
This site is still too inefficient, too much wasted (empty) space and too much garbage.
For one, over-sized avatars should go.
 
Let's see if this works. Will the following quote end up in a vertical line like it did the last time?


missypea said:
Anyone know why, under New Posts, some envelopes are blue and others are red?
Click to expand...

Nope. It worked this time, but there are many others that came out almost unreadable.
 
Last edited:
missypea said:
My multiquote is squished inbetween each post. Can you tell me how can I get it next to the two other Reply options?
Click to expand...

It is one of the numerous bugs in the new format. My hunch is only the webmaster can fix it.
 
Today, I tested DP's new "digs" on a dial-up internet connection.

As I suspected, DP is considerably slower--anywhere from two to four times slower.

After this observation, my vote is to go back to the old format--or better yet, to an even simpler and more efficient one.

I know that the extra colors and other bells and whistles are prettier. But their benefit falls far short of saving the time wasted just waiting for the next screen to come up. In other words, function always trumps styling.

May I suggest to using the following formula for everybody who owns a web site or is building one: Do it on a computer using a dial-up connection. Check out how every page responds. Note how much time it takes to see the next screen. If you actually build or modify a site on a dial-up, you can catch the problems right away and avoid them.

Try to make the format as simple as is reasonable. Make most of the text plain text or a simple format. Use font styles that are not slow to load up. Avoid frivolous embellishments. And NEVER use a PDF format.

If your site contains photos, use low resolution thumbnails on the inital page. These can be clicked on separately to view the high resolution counterparts.

Since I am not a geek, I cannot say what specific items are most problematic in slowing the speed of a web site. But I have abandoned several otherwise great sites that waste too much time.

I repeat: Whenever you construct or alter a web site, use a dial-up connection. If it works ok on dial-up, it will work great with everybody else.
 
Last edited:
ronpaulvoter said:
Today, I tested DP's new "digs" on a dial-up internet connection.

As I suspected, DP is considerably slower--anywhere from two to four times slower.

After this observation, my vote is to go back to the old format--or better yet, to an even simpler and more efficient one.

I know that the extra colors and other bells and whistles are prettier. But their benefit falls far short of saving the time wasted just waiting for the next screen to come up. In other words, function always trumps styling.

May I suggest to using the following formula for everybody who owns a web site or is building one: Do it on a computer using a dial-up connection. Check out how every page responds. Note how much time it takes to see the next screen. If you actually build or modify a site on a dial-up, you can catch the problems right away and avoid them.

Try to make the format as simple as is reasonable. Make most of the text plain text or a simple format. Use font styles that are not slow to load up. Avoid frivolous embellishments. And NEVER use a PDF format.

If your site contains photos, use low resolution thumbnails on the inital page. These can be clicked on separately to view the high resolution counterparts.

Since I am not a geek, I cannot say what specific items are most problematic in slowing the speed of a web site. But I have abandoned several otherwise great sites that waste too much time.

I repeat: Whenever you construct or alter a web site, use a dial-up connection. If it works ok on dial-up, it will work great with everybody else.
Click to expand...

Why would a website owner confine himself to a fringe market using an outdated technology?
 
Yep, its the aesthetically pleasing look and the enhanced features without looking overly cramped or gawdy that helped keep me at DP originally. Political Debate can be found anywhere and while DP's is great you need to be here for a bit to really realize it. A good, professional, aesthetically pleasing website can help hook someone to keep them here longer when they first visit. I can't tell you the amount of boards that were just all white or too jumbled or to blah that I had visited and just skipped right on by.

If this was 2000 and a vast majority of people were accessing the net over AOL I'd say you're right. In todays day and age though you attract far more by catering to broadband and giving a site that takes advantage of it by looking good then you do by having a shoddy looking basic and bland site that looks good for the minority population still using dialup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom