Feedback thread
9 years ago
Scotland

Why does the generic text:

"Note: newly submitted or approved runs may take a few minutes to appear. Thanks for your patience!"

Appear on every leaderboard? Can be quite misleading as it can take weeks for runs to be approved. Just seems a daft statement to me.

6oliath and diggity like this
Antarctica

@ckellyedits That was added as a result of a site wide bug that prevented newly approved runs by mods of an LB from actually showing on the LB immediately (yet another bug I'd love an update on from Elo on whether or not it's actually fixed!!!) so that text was added and the Users page was turned off to try and help with it. Although I will agree that including the word "submitted" in there seems quite misleading, that seems like it should be removed since most LBs require some form of verification so "submitted" doesn't make much sense to be there.

HopeTrash, Pear and 5 others like this
Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, France

Hey, is this possible to add TikTok as a social network in the profile settings?

REQUEST: Please allow leaderboard mods to set the specificity of time measurements to 0.1 or 0.01 or 0.001 seconds, for each leaderboard.

BACKGROUND: Right now the only two options are seconds or milliseconds. Most games run at 30 or 60fps. By far most video evidence of runs is recorded at 30 or 60fps. Why the is millisecond timing the default and only subsecond timing method on the site?

WHY THIS IS A PROBLEM:

  1. It causes a significant number of inaccurate submissions because users will VERY often write two digits in the ms field thinking centiseconds can be accepted in that field.
  2. It also causes misleading time display on many leaderboards, because the site automatically adds a 0 or two as a significant figure(s) to times that are only specific to deciseconds or centiseconds when, in reality, the time should show only two decimal places.

EXAMPLE: A game uses centisecond in-game-time to rank runs. A run is completed with a time of 1:23:45.67. The submitter has to avoid the ridiculous pitfall of typing 1, 23, 45, and 67 because that will show up on the board as 1:23:45.067. The runner needs to add a 0 after the 67. This is basic math but the way it's presented by the site is very unintuitive, submitters have to know the proper definition of a millisecond and why that means they need to add a 0 to the right of their field entry. It could be so much easier for the runner if, when they type 67 in the field, it populates the field box visibly as 067 so they can fix it. Or if the leaderboard could be set up so that only two digits can be entered and the "millisecond" label is removed, since the game in this example is measured by two decimal places. And continuing the example, even if the submitter correctly completed the run submission with 67 centiseconds converted into 670 milliseconds, the other problem remains. All the runs on the leaderboard show up with a trailing 0 in the third decimal place. To anyone who knows about significant figures, this is one too many. It implies the runs are measured with an order of magnitude more precision than they actually are.

Pear, skyweiss and 9 others like this
Germany

Can exact game title matches be prioritized in the search? It's inconvenient to have to go through extended results when you typed the full name already. Example: https://i.imgur.com/oO2dXMG.png

Edited by the author 3 years ago
HopeTrash, Merl_ and 7 others like this
Israel

The release date of a game (that game moderators can set in the game settings), should be visible to runners. Maybe add it in the statistics page. Right now runners can see the year of the release date only, and that doesn't give all the information.

Background: I just experienced a peculiar thing. I did a speedrun of a game back in 2019, but the game wasn't on speedrun.com at the time, and I never bothered to request it. Now the game is on speedrun.com, so I want to submit my run. However, when I try to submit, I get the message "Please enter a date after the game was actually released.".

I have no idea what is the current "release date" set by the game moderators, only that it is also somewhere in 2019. (I messaged the game moderators about that, but that's besides my point)

Edited by the author 3 years ago
Gaming_64, 6oliath and 3 others like this
European Union

It would be super helpful to mods of more popular games if we could see more than 50 pending runs at a time without needing to do some custom JS + API magic.

TheFirstOreo, Pear and 6 others like this
Pennsylvania, USA

Don't see any obvious way to search a thread, so sorry if this was already posted.

It would be great if moderators/verifiers could "assign" a run in the queue to themselves. There have been a few times where one person is verifying runs, and somebody else ends up reviewing the same run by accident. Even if it's just an asterisk/icon next to the run saying "claimed"

Quivico likes this
Germany

Warn a user that is about to post in a thread where the last response is multiple months old. Because oh boy, many here necro old threads.

HopeTrash and Quivico like this
Germany

@ckellyedits its not about saying that its forbidden. But some users are necroing a thread that is not really relevant or answer questions that were answered 2 or 3 years ago. It is mostly about making people aware that this thread is very old and if they are sure that they want to post something. Necroing is just something that people should avoid. And a lot do not even realize that they are about to necro a thread from a few months/years ago.

Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, France

Hey, I really don't know if this suggestion has been already made but how about adding a comment section under a run page?

I mean this could be really cool to discuss about a specific run and its skips/cuts with other runners. Most of the games got their own Discord server but I don't know, I'm just wondering about it! :)

Shac0le and ckellyspeedruns like this
Germany

It is common courtesy to not necro threads. Simple as that.

To be honest, the forums need to get reworked. Also a last point, it would be great if we could know that the ELO team at least acknowledges the feedback that is written on the forums (or as matter of fact, anywhere), as it honestly feels and seems like they do not really care.

Merl_ and ckellyspeedruns like this
Argentina

Often times when people come up with topics that have already seen discussion before, we give them a stern look, mention that this is the case and then point out the old thread to them. When people avoid making new threads to prevent clutter and post on the original thread however, we yell at them for necro-ing. Isn't it a bit of a mixed message?

Unless the post is merely a repeat of the question in the original post of the thread or the new post is completely unrelated, I see absolutely no problem with necros, and specially more so when we only get like 10 new posts on average each day. In my eyes, it's perfectly acceptable to necro a thread if you have new important information to add or a new point to raise in the topic, as it helps to keep all the information in one place as opposed as having it distributed amongst a myriad of different threads.

That being said, I agree that the idea of a warning when posting to a thread that's 6+ months old would be useful in case the user is about to reply to a question from 4 years ago (in which case the OP's query would probably already have been resolved), but it'd be a Quality of Life kind of feature at best, not trying to enforce the abolition of necros.

Edited by the author 3 years ago
Merl_ and ckellyspeedruns like this
Germany

Necro implies the negatives that you described. Posting to a still relevant thread is something else, but just adding your opinion for example to a discussion that took place 3 years ago and came to a conclusion, that is annoying.

Posting in an old thread is not necessarily necroing. Posting something to an old thread that adds nothing of value is necroing. Also as I already mentioned, a lot of common features are missing here such as a search function for threads and so on. Which is why I am often quite suprised on how some people find those really really old threads.

Merl_ and MrMonsh like this

Can submitted runs be sorted by the submission time not when they were "done"?

Merl_ likes this
French Southern Territories

"Hey, I really don't know if this suggestion has been already made but how about adding a comment section under a run page?"

This has been suggested before, but there are better ways to talk about this stuff, yt comments, discords, etc. and it would be impossible to moderate a sr.c comment section.

Israel

@Shadow_Dog "Can submitted runs be sorted by the submission time not when they were "done"?"

Can you specify what you mean? Sorting the runs in which page(s)?

Edited by the author 3 years ago
Gaming_64 likes this
Massachusetts, USA

Please for the love of gawd fix the homepage so it shows more than just my followed runs on the page. Just because I don't follow the games doesn't mean I'm not interested to see games and runs other communites are doing. The cock tease when the ESA stream went down on the homepage and those runs reappeared just made me miss seeing other game recent submissions and the fact that it's the video player that's causing this is an absolute joke considering it never did this with old management.

HopeTrash, 1 and 2 others like this
Argentina

@2003041 I agree. Why can't we have both the stream AND latest runs from games other than the followed ones? Even if they don't all fit on the screen, I'd much prefer to have to scroll and be able to see them rather than have to choose whether to see the stream or those runs.

HopeTrash, Quivico, and Shac0le like this
North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Agree with both of them.

Thats how ppl get introduced into new Speedrunning Communitys