Feedback thread
9 years ago
Argentina

To be fair, at least they're not planning to tear down the feedback/bug report threads without putting something else in place to replace them, so if this actually proves to help them get organized and allows them to better track our requests, I'm personally ok with either method.

Though I really fail to see how it would be so hard to put someone in charge of monitoring this thread and saying "ok guys, we got this and this suggestion, thanks for the feedback!" every once in a while, but I'm sure they have their reasons.

Edited by the author 3 years ago
Bob-chicken, Quivico and 3 others like this
French Southern Territories

In almost every other sticky thread, there is some response. Sometimes the full mods like posts, and for the moderation one, mods will @users and respond. The only reason we know elo reads these threads is because the site staff told us, we've never even recieved confirmation from elo themself. Even if someone just liked a post, at least we know we're being heard.

Bob-chicken, Quivico and 5 others like this
Canada

Just a post to support the new things from the profile pages. It's wayyy too big. I can live with a 15ish % of the window being news crap or something. But almost 50%? No thank you. If you want some news, keep it away from profile pages or at the very least not make it as big as it is currently.

I also find that there are way too much empty space between games or categories.

Australia

I'm so absolutely done with ELO.

"It seems like we are talking against a Wall or only to each other in This Forum. ELO isn't Bad, but they Just don't Listen to the Community and what they want."

Yes, but that is exactly WHY they are bad at their job - they are not listening to us. A public forum is so much better than a form because we can bounce ideas off of one another and also vote on other people's ideas, and, once we submit an idea to a form, it's essentially lost forever. You just gotta hope and pray that someone back there read it and listened to it

Pixiuchu, Quivico and 2 others like this
Scotland

@SuperAL1 we need forum mods, someone to actually take an active role in modernising this place.

As it stands, only the highest tier of content moderator has forum mod privileges, which is nonsensical. Surely forum moderation should be the lowest tier of privilege? It is basically janitorial duties, with the exception of if they allowed someone to actually update the forums properly.

Quivico, Bob-chicken, and Merl_ like this
European Union

On a different note, happy page 100 Kappa

RaggedDan, Pixiuchu and 3 others like this
Québec

Twitter embeds should be a thing

Liv likes this

The "Total run views" number on the gamestats page doesn't seem to be tracking for one of the games I follow. Specifically, Shelled Shinobi hasn't had its run view count go up for days, maybe weeks, even as plenty of new runs have been submitted and approved.

French Southern Territories

I'm going to ask this in the feedback form and here. I doubt that changes to the site layout will happen soon, so I have a smaller suggestion. When you edit the description of a run, the run has to be verified again. I think that edited runs should only be resubmitted if changes to the video link or time are changed, but edits to the description shouldn't. I don't want to have to wait a week every time I want to fix a typo

Oxknifer, discranola and 3 others like this
Israel

@Merl_ I feel the same thing about fixing typos in descriptions. However, a counter-claim for that is that runners could abuse it to write stuff that shouldn't be written (according to site rules), and it will bypass the verifiers.

Gaming_64, MrMonsh, and diggity like this
French Southern Territories

@Oreo321 by that logic I should have to have a content mod review my forum post before I post it because I might say something really bad

Edited by the author 3 years ago
Antarctica

Forget the actual text content in a description, the biggest issue with editing descriptions is that currently the only way to post a run with multiple video parts is by posting the URLs in the description. So, you need to make the description flag a re-vertification in case the description contains video parts of the run.

This is also a problem with picture proof. You can technically put a picture as proof in the video link part of the forum but then it erroneously shows a run as having video so some mods want images to be put in the description field when using picture proof for runs. In both of those scenarios, the actual proof of the run is in the description so it needs to be reverified by a mod.

Unless the game submission form is changed to avoid these requirements, then I don’t see how you could not flag a description for re-vertification.

discranola, Pixiuchu and 2 others like this
Germany

That is a good point. I think that should def. change and we should be able to attach multiple sources of proof to a submission as you mentioned.

European Union

@Timmiluvs actually the way you're meant to do multiple parts is to paste all your video links in the video box space seperated. This causes the first link to appear in the video box and the subsequent links to appear under it (although they dont embed, you can argue if thats a feature or not).

Timmiluvs and Merl_ like this
Antarctica

That’s interesting, I didn’t know that it worked that way. Maybe the fact that it wasn’t embedding is what led people to start to put them in the description. My gut tells me that your way is the desired behavior to avoid a ton of embeds, but maybe people began exploring an unintended workaround to get multiple embeds by going after the description. I guess I’m not sure what the intention was - multiple embeds being supported or not.

Edited by the author 3 years ago
Canada

@Garsh I feel like something like that would just lead to confusion about how the site behaves on editing runs ("my run went through just fine everywhere else, why does it need to be re-verified here? Must be a bug" sort of thing), relatively obscure per-game settings are not really something I'd expect most users to be aware of or keep up with. Also, do people really edit their run descriptions so often that having a setting that affects that specific situation is really necessary?

Honestly, having to reverify runs with description edits wouldn't be an issue at all if moderators had an easy way (or, really, any way) to tell what exactly was edited, so that they only have to re-validate the things that changed. Would be extremely helpful in other situations as well, I've had a few cases where a run was randomly edited several years after the fact, and had to fully reverify it because I have no idea what they actually changed. On top of this, maybe it would be desirable if the original run stayed on the leaderboard until the edits are approved, though I'm not sure if that's even possible with how everything currently works.

Edited by the author 3 years ago
discranola, Symystery and 6 others like this
Russia

Can we get an option to pin certain game runs in the profile?

sWinTuZ, Swagorath and 12 others like this

Will ANYTHING be done to prevent bn accounts being able to spam post forums? Any sort of cooldown, verification, etc. If any1 w admin/-adjacent power is curious about exactly what I'm talking about they can pm me and I'll provide specific examples.