Forums  /  The Site  /  Feedback thread (Locked)
  Merl_Merl_

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-chickenBob-chicken, QuivicoQuivico and 5 others like this. 
  NiamekNiamek

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.

 
  diggitydiggity

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

SnodecaSnodeca, QuivicoQuivico and 2 others like this. 
  ckellyeditsckellyedits

@SuperAL1SuperAL1 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.

QuivicoQuivico, Bob-chickenBob-chicken and Merl_Merl_ like this. 
  KendKend

Twitter embeds should be a thing

GarshGarsh and LivLiv like this. 
  hahhah42hahhah42

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.

 
  [user deleted]

Not like you all are going to read what I say, so first off thanks for sticking with the name 'feedback' whilst all misleading us into thinking you actually do listen. But instead of doing 'feedback' I'm gonna rant instead.

I've been on the site for 6 years at this point (I was already on the site before making an account here). The best I saw the site, was when I first joined. Just looking back at images of the old layout brings me nostalgia, sure it wasn't perfect and I expected the former site owner Pac and the other staff to make improvements. 2014/2015 SRC was the best I've seen it imo. Then we go to 2016/17, a new layout is introduced, I wasn't a fan of it (still not today). At that point, I predicted a situation of the site going down into decline. Jump way towards to the end of 2020/start of 2021, the site is transfered to a new owner. The immediate moment I thought that this wasn't a good thing. Boy has that aged like a century old bottle of wine.

I absolutely hate the new staff, the new layout and forcing things on us like this 'news feed' on our profiles you all keep pushing on us rather than focusing on the main importance of the site: improving bugs, listening to community feedback and thinking about us. You all don't do any of this. Good job on the disastourous 'update page' btw, I can't even read anything because my wallpaper is bright unless I highlight the text or paste it in a text file somewhere. We've been asking for features like linking to 3rd party leaderboards for games not hosted on the site, better search functions, private message improvements and many many more listed here in this thread. What's the hold up here? We've been here for YEARS asking for these things. I initially wanted to think a new leadership would help better the site, I really wanted to because you all clearly have experiences in other places, but you have a really scummy way of showing it. WHY is there a need for a news feed on someone's profile? If I was a viewer looking at the list of runs my favorite speedrunner has, it's no better than a clickbait Youtuber trying to force their content down your throat, like you all DESPERATLY want attention. This isn't Facebook or Twitter people, it's a site that hosts leaderboards. What's next? You all gonna paywall us for things that were previously free? If you do that, I'm deleting my account permanently and never coming back.

I'm fed up. It's been years we've all been asking for improvements. I understood when Pac was the owner considering the much MUCH smaller team, but you can't use that excuse anymore. The site is a complete joke.

RaggedDanRaggedDan, TheJayJayTheJayJay and 15 others like this. 
  Merl_Merl_

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

OxkniferOxknifer, discranoladiscranola and 3 others like this. 
  Oreo321Oreo321

@Merl_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.

GarshGarsh, MrMonshMrMonsh and diggitydiggity like this. 
  Merl_Merl_
(edited: )

@Oreo321Oreo321 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

 
  TimmiluvsTimmiluvs

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.

discranoladiscranola, SnodecaSnodeca and 3 others like this. 
  Matse007Matse007

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.

 
  11

@TimmiluvsTimmiluvs 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).

TimmiluvsTimmiluvs and Merl_Merl_ like this. 
  TimmiluvsTimmiluvs
(edited: )

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.

 
  LivLiv
(edited: )

Perhaps an alternative way to have this is allow users to edit their runs freely, but instead have a notification to game moderators if users have edited a previous submission, with a link to the specific submission in the notification.

This could get annoying/easily spammed by users though, I guess.

 
  GarshGarsh
(edited: )

Maybe there could be a setting in the "Edit Game" menu where moderators can choose whether or not to have runs require reverification for a description edit. This would allow games that have crucial information in run descriptions to reverify runs but games that don't can disable it.

NotTheJohnNotTheJohn and MrMonshMrMonsh like this. 
  ShikenNuggetsShikenNuggets
(edited: )

@GarshGarsh 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.

discranoladiscranola, SymysterySymystery and 6 others like this. 
  Shadow_DogShadow_Dog

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.