New look

[Overread]

*is very confused because this new skin is more akin to VB than anything we've had since VB - so why hate it?*


Buck as for the suggestion section most of the suggestions we get are for new sub-sections. We try to resist that because we don't want 100001 subsections spreading out the sites load too much - a site like that with a population of our size can very quickly distil activity to a point where the site appears near dead.

Also you seem to have totally missed the several times that a "street photography" section has come up - I've defended that idea a few times before. Other times I've also said very clearly that "YES" we can add a section, but what we really need before we do it is MORE activity to a point where other section(s) are suffering increased load (ergo if the wildlife section got so full of pictures of tiger-cubs to the point where there was almost nothing but tiger cubs for a prolonged period we could and might open a tiger-cub subsection - that's how we work them).


The admin are normally very happy to provide changes requested - sometimes it takes some time (we are not the only site managed) and sometimes a little heads up is nice; but other times changes like a whole new forum skin or forums software are not forum level choices but company level choices. Forum Foundary changed all their sites (Far as I know) from VB to the new system due to security concerns and other factors - it wasn't something done only to one site (though at a practical level it, of course, was not rolled out on all sites at once).

 

[Designer]

I feel like lots of so much has changed here...

I like your new avatar J

Thank you! I made that photo yesterday in honor of the new skin on TPF.

 

[mmaria]

I feel like lots of so much has changed here...

I like your new avatar J

Thank you! I made that photo yesterday in honor of the new skin on TPF.

well... the smile is there, that's the most important thing... besides the fact that you need to cut off your meat intake

 

[Braineack]

I hate the font on the threads list. Doesnt match the rest of the LnF. Needs to be a serif font.

 

[Dagwood56]

My BIG PROBLEM with this change is the bright white! Did I mention its BRIGHT? I've spent the past 30 minutes reading thru everything in this thread and I have to say that right now my eyes are bothering me from the White glare! I have no intention of dimming down my monitor every time I come here and then brightening it again when I leave. If the ability to switch back to the skin prior to this one can be a permanent user choice fine, I'll switch back. If its only temporary and this bright white will remain the only skin choice in the end, then I honestly think I'll be moving on - something I have been thinking about doing recently anyway....

 

[Designer]

I hate the font on the threads list. Doesnt match the rest of the LnF. Needs to be a serif font.

I agree. Way too many graphic designers mix up the font styles on purpose, with no apparent reason. There might be a reason in some special cases, but most of what I see is just random stuff thrown against a wall to see if any of it sticks.

 

[Designer]

My BIG PROBLEM with this change is the bright white! Did I mention its BRIGHT? I've spent the past 30 minutes reading thru everything in this thread and I have to say that right now my eyes are bothering me from the White glare! I have no intention of dimming down my monitor every time I come here and then brightening it again when I leave. If the ability to switch back to the skin prior to this one can be a permanent user choice fine, I'll switch back. If its only temporary and this bright white will remain the only skin choice in the end, then I honestly think I'll be moving on - something I have been thinking about doing recently anyway....

Here's an idea that you web designers can use for a nominal commission paid to me:

Switch around the fields to that the light gray is the field and the post boxes are white. That way, the messages would be written with black type face on a white background, and the surrounding spaces would be easier on people's eyes.

 

[runnah]

I agree with the dark backgrounds. So much easier on the eyes. Adobe has done this and it looks so much better.

 

[bribrius]

I agree with the dark backgrounds. So much easier on the eyes. Adobe has done this and it looks so much better.

i suggested a nice black matte a couple pages back but i think it went unnoticed.

 

[bribrius]

*is very confused because this new skin is more akin to VB than anything we've had since VB - so why hate it?*


Buck as for the suggestion section most of the suggestions we get are for new sub-sections. We try to resist that because we don't want 100001 subsections spreading out the sites load too much - a site like that with a population of our size can very quickly distil activity to a point where the site appears near dead.

Also you seem to have totally missed the several times that a "street photography" section has come up - I've defended that idea a few times before. Other times I've also said very clearly that "YES" we can add a section, but what we really need before we do it is MORE activity to a point where other section(s) are suffering increased load (ergo if the wildlife section got so full of pictures of tiger-cubs to the point where there was almost nothing but tiger cubs for a prolonged period we could and might open a tiger-cub subsection - that's how we work them).


The admin are normally very happy to provide changes requested - sometimes it takes some time (we are not the only site managed) and sometimes a little heads up is nice; but other times changes like a whole new forum skin or forums software are not forum level choices but company level choices. Forum Foundary changed all their sites (Far as I know) from VB to the new system due to security concerns and other factors - it wasn't something done only to one site (though at a practical level it, of course, was not rolled out on all sites at once).

it will be better in the end. i really liked vb but i think this will be better than what was here at least once the get done "tweaking" it. I think the reason things are such a big deal here is this is a photo site. so we kind of like to view the photos in a easy on the eyes and complimentary to the task at hand format. Far as making money on the site, all a matter of perspective. i know owners of another site that are involved in what the sites subject is. They actually do it. They also refuse to put adds on the site and refuse to orient it toward making money. The costs of operating one of these is peanuts, so they can let it sit without making a dime and not concern themselves with it. They are also running v bulletin. But as i said, they actualy do the subject at hand so arent into the forum to make money just to support their interests.

 

[runnah]

I agree with the dark backgrounds. So much easier on the eyes. Adobe has done this and it looks so much better.

i suggested a nice black matte a couple pages back but i think it went unnoticed.

I like to take other people's good ideas and rephrase them so they seem like my good ideas.

 

[Overread]

At least one of the admin is an ex-pro-photographer in a previous life - but in general they let the site run itself. Most of the income is from ad-revenue and in general we keep that fairly restrained (advertising bodies paying to be here can only advertise within their own subsection). The admin don't even put too much pressure on things like the Subscribers section (indeed they opened up the gallery which WAS A feature of that into open access for all members).

I suspect most admin just don't have time to devote to being involved in each site - they leave that to mods. The admin's job is running the sites, which is mostly in the background (day to day things like keeping the servers going - backups - security maintenance - sourcing new backing companies etc.. all happens all the time).

 

[bribrius]

At least one of the admin is an ex-pro-photographer in a previous life - but in general they let the site run itself. Most of the income is from ad-revenue and in general we keep that fairly restrained (advertising bodies paying to be here can only advertise within their own subsection). The admin don't even put too much pressure on things like the Subscribers section (indeed they opened up the gallery which WAS A feature of that into open access for all members).

I suspect most admin just don't have time to devote to being involved in each site - they leave that to mods. The admin's job is running the sites, which is mostly in the background (day to day things like keeping the servers going - backups - security maintenance - sourcing new backing companies etc.. all happens all the time).

why i turned down buying one. i was offered one for a grand a while back from someone (enough they could recoup software costs to a extent), but i didn't want to deal with the headache of the day to day running of it. PITA. If you can find good mods though it takes a lot of the headache away.

 

[limr]

The new look really doesn't bother me as everything essentially works the same, and I suspect most of us will get used to it or switch back to the red skin. But I'd like to add one more vote for the darker background, please! Or at least, if possible, those thicker message separators.

 

[Designer]

The new look really doesn't bother me as everything essentially works the same, and I suspect most of us will get used to it or switch back to the red skin. But I'd like to add one more vote for the darker background, please! Or at least, if possible, those thicker message separators.

Woo-Hoo! I can already visualize the cash payments as the whiz-bang website designers all jump on the bandwagon and start paying me for my brilliant suggestion.