A working sticker stat would be nice.

At 10/18/09 01:21 PM, citricsquid wrote:

At 10/18/09 01:16 PM, DumbassDude wrote: A working sticker stat would be nice.

http://dumbassdude.newgrounds.com/purcha ses/

What is the point of the sticker stat when it doesn't even update anymore? Either fix it or get rid of it.
Thanks for reminding me on what i've bought.

At 10/18/09 02:32 PM, DumbassDude wrote:

is the point of the sticker stat when it doesn't even update anymore? Either fix it or get rid of it.

Thanks for reminding me on what i've bought.

I think they just don't use that feature anymore. Thats why that page was created; to show you all you bought. Yes that is what is was for, but i don't think it is in use anymore. It's probaly is going to sit there on our userpages for sometime since its not to important.

At 12/28/09 08:22 AM, reverend wrote: Hi James. :)

This is not really suggestion but more of a tweak. I use Google search to search around the BBS and I noticed that they are also caching the quotation of a user (pic below). I was wondering if you could tweak the robot.txt so that it won't do that.

Picture included in reverend's post: http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/3/20535000/ngb bs4b38b1330acf8.jpg

--

I thought that maybe a PM to reverend would be better, but I have noticed that not many people use this method to look for things in the BBS, so I'll leave this here so that other people can see it:

Sorry, but this is unnecessary. When searching something in Google, you can use site:* to search in a certain domain (for example site:newgrounds.com). Probably you are thinking this is useless because you still get the "quote" and "post reply to" results. But when looking for threads, you can easily use site:newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/

That way you won't get any "post reply to" or "quote" results ;)

It's not the fact that I can't find what I'm searching for, but rather it's stuff that should not be cached on Google's site. Having the Post Reply page really shouldn't be indexed there.

But thanks for helping me find a better way of searching topics. I usually just used the old site:newgrounds.com/bbs but this will help out much better.

I actually had a poke around in webmaster tools, and it was a recommendation of those tools that those pages be omitted. So I've gone ahead and done it.

From MK 3 thread.

At 5/1/10 01:56 PM, ughanation wrote: Copied from my thread:

What if newgrounds had a feature, when you're submitting your flash, that you could set a time and date you wanted it submitted. Say a NG Holiday like Pico Day comes along and you know that you're not going to be able to submit anything that day. So at that point you'll either be early or late. The handy dandy new NG feature would be there to help. Idk I think it'd be nice.

Think of how many people would set their shit to midnight of clock day. One second there's 3 UJ flashes, the next, there's 325. You can still submit your flashes from holidays on different days. They trickle in for a few days afterwards. I don't think it's that big of a deal. And half of this is to remind people this thread exists. :p

You know I actually was mulling an idea similar to the one listed by jedi-master regarding moderation in the Flash Portal. I think it would be worth considering to have a couple of so called Flash Mods who have to ability to pull a flash directly to the Administrative Review page . It would really cut down the PMs that Wade receives regarding Stolen Flash and might help expiate removal of them since it's the user who could notify the Flash Mod and he/she would have to verify it being stolen themselves to pull it from the Portal. So in reality, Wade would only have to check the one's that were flagged Under Judgment and just delete the one pulled via Flash Mods.

I'm not saying the whistle system is flawed, but not everyone who votes on items Under Judgment is versed in knowing what is stolen and what is not and some are not even bothering to check. And when you do find a stolen one and shoot a PM to Wade sometimes is gets lost and forgotten like a PM I sent on 4/6/10 regarding this stolen one and its original.

I just think it might be an idea worth considering since the staff already trusts users to vet music, art, posts, and reviews and have more pertinent things to do.

At 5/9/10 07:56 AM, michelinman wrote: And half of this is to remind people this thread exists. :p

Ditto.

At 6/19/10 11:45 PM, reverend wrote: You know I actually was mulling an idea similar to the one listed by jedi-master regarding moderation in the Flash Portal.

I completely agree with everything regarding the idea of Flash mods. It just doesn't make any apparent sense to have a trusted group of people moderating audio, reviews and art, but not flashes.

However, I know this idea has been around for years, and yet nothing of the sort has happened. There's probably a reason why, but... damned if I can find any explanation for it.

It'd be nice if an admin would explain it, but considering how little attention this thread gets (and the fact that I've asked one before in a PM and got no response), I'm not holding out much hope.

At 5/9/10 07:56 AM, michelinman wrote: And half of this is to remind people this thread exists. :p

Ditto.

Tritto. :P

Before I suggest it, what do you guys think of having reviews still count towards your total number of reviews after they were deleted as long as it was the author or an administrator that removed the submissions and not because your review was found to be abusive?

It almost discourages me as a reviewer when my total goes down because it takes me 20+ minutes to review a submission at times. Then a week or two later one of the older reviews are deleted by an author removing their submission or by administrative deletion.

It would be nice for reviewers. I've had at least 400 to 600 total reviews deleted this way. Like I said, it takes me an average of 20 minutes to review/play/watch these things. That's 133 - 200 hours that I have had deleted from my reviewing.

At 6/20/10 09:52 AM, Sheizenhammer wrote: It'd be nice if an admin would explain it, but considering how little attention this thread gets (and the fact that I've asked one before in a PM and got no response), I'm not holding out much hope.

Don't say that. liljim posts in this forum quite often, and I'm sure he pays attention to the suggestions in the evolution thread (he has even responded to some in the past).

Personally, the idea of flash mods wouldn't be that bad if flash mods deleted only rulebreaking (stolen / malicious / unsuitable) flashes, and not the crappy/spammy ones. They could also be in charge of approving edited flashes, to avoid file-swapping.

At 6/20/10 10:04 AM, Fro wrote: Before I suggest it, what do you guys think of having reviews still count towards your total number of reviews after they were deleted as long as it was the author or an administrator that removed the submissions and not because your review was found to be abusive?

I think I only got 2 reviews deleted this way, but for someone who writes as much good reviews as you do, it can be a pain in the ass. I support you suggestion, if you spent your time writing a decent review, then it's not your fault that the submission was removed and it should still count towards your total reviews. After all, reviews for deleted submissions still exist and can be found in the obituaries.

At 6/20/10 09:52 AM, Sheizenhammer wrote:

At 6/19/10 11:45 PM, reverend wrote:

At 5/9/10 07:56 AM, michelinman wrote: And half of this is to remind people this thread exists. :p

Ditto.

Tritto. :P

Dorito :P

At 6/20/10 10:04 AM, Fro wrote: Before I suggest it, what do you guys think of having reviews still count towards your total number of reviews after they were deleted as long as it was the author or an administrator that removed the submissions and not because your review was found to be abusive?

It almost discourages me as a reviewer when my total goes down because it takes me 20+ minutes to review a submission at times. Then a week or two later one of the older reviews are deleted by an author removing their submission or by administrative deletion.

It would be nice for reviewers. I've had at least 400 to 600 total reviews deleted this way. Like I said, it takes me an average of 20 minutes to review/play/watch these things. That's 133 - 200 hours that I have had deleted from my reviewing.

Try to make your suggestion focus on helping authors and not on stats. Like, if your reviews for blammed submissions counted, you would be more apt to offer advice to the guys who most need it - the authors who can't pass judgment, and not count toward admin-removed submissions. Those submissions typically are stolen or malicious and it's clear that the author wasn't going to use any advice provided in reviews.

maybe to avoid people leaving crappy reviews for submission they know wont pass judgment or will eventually be removed by the author in order to boost their stats, make reviews on eulogy pages flaggable.

At 6/20/10 08:40 PM, Malachy wrote:

maybe to avoid people leaving crappy reviews for submission they know wont pass judgment or will eventually be removed by the author in order to boost their stats, make reviews on eulogy pages flaggable.

Yeah, I thought of exactly this while typing my post up. Plus, trust me, all of my reviews are on submissions that either need the reviews or people want/need advice. I'm always quality and help first and stats second.

I guess what I would like to see is the review stick around and the link to the title of the review just lead the the obituaries/blammed submission. I'm assuming this will create trouble for review mods though. I can't really think of a way around it, but it would just be nice to stop losing reviews all the time when the author deletes a submission.

It's funny, the only things that I review are the ones that need the reviews and those are the only submissions that lose them.

When I said it may leave trouble for review mods I meant more that it would be hard to find and mark these reviews because their wouldn't be a place to showcase them on a userpage and whatnot. The only way to find the abusive review would be to find the person through another abusive review, which I guess really isn't much of a problem.

Yeah, I think I'll suggest this idea. It helps the site as it encourages people to review more and to review the submissions that really need it.

Excuse me, I've had one too many tonight and either I'm really not explaining as I want or I think I'm not explaining it well enough and I really am. Either or I obviously can't keep my thoughts straight. :P

I meant they wouldn't show up on userpages as easily because when an author deleted a submission the submission wouldn't show up on their userpage and therefor it would be harder to find the abusive reviews on these types of submissions.

Bans self because he had one too many after work. I'll lurk till morning when I can type straight.

Interactive Movie Category
So, this would be a different submission category instead of Movie or Game. Interactive movies would be like Movies where you decide the fate of your character or alter the movie in any way. Quizzes might also fall under this category.
Here's what the symbol for it would be:

I would enjoy the "User is online" function, and have it be not only for the forums, but for when someone is logged into their account in general.

At 8/12/10 07:56 PM, citricsquid wrote: This is the thread for discussing ideas that have been posted. To post an idea use the actual thread:

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/9731 38

or you can get a job and let us use your greasemonkey scripts again

I was just wondering if this is a good idea...?

At 9/19/10 05:44 PM, Rabid-Animals wrote: In reference to this post, about a proposed "Newgrounds Platinum" or the like, I think it's a great idea. It's working out well for Reddit; they were able to redo their in-site search and upgrade their servers, along with other updates just from some small fees. I'd definitely be willing to pay for some extra features, but not ones that make me "superior" to other users. A star by the name may be too much, but a little indication on one's Gear page could do nicely.

lol I was just about to post the same thing. It is a good idea. Some of it I like but some of it I don't like. The private forum lounge doesn't seem like it would fit but all the other stuff I like. That platinum thing I would definitely pay for and its a great way for newgrounds to make money.

in regards to this post by DiMono:

Right now the difference between 3rd and 50th all time is 0.00

I'd like a different measuring stick for that. I have no idea what that would be, but I definitely think something has to be done here. Maybe retire submissions from the list after some number of weeks, and have a Hall of Fame for submissions that were so good they broke the list?

I do believe that scores are kept in the system as far as .000001 or so, so while it only displays the 0.01 of each score, it is actually graded far beyond that, specifically because of the close scores in the top submissions lists.

for example, when I voted 5 on a submission with about 1000 votes, the display score didn't change, but after the vote goes through, you see a note of how far up it actually went:

"Current Score: 4.31 / 5.00 (+ 0.00091)"

At 9/20/10 11:49 PM, Malachy wrote: in regards to this post by DiMono:

They are calculated to a much greater precision than even that. Here's a real world example:

4.61926495888086

Obviously, the scores are truncated to make them look prettier.

At 9/21/10 10:19 AM, liljim wrote:

At 9/20/10 11:49 PM, Malachy wrote: in regards to this post by DiMono:

They are calculated to a much greater precision than even that. Here's a real world example:

4.61926495888086

Obviously, the scores are truncated to make them look prettier.

Well of course they are; I know that. But that doesn't change anything as far as perceived homogeneity is concerned. The scores may be different in the database, but what we see looks like a crapload of 4.46 with no variation. And for artists it makes it almost impossible to get a new submission to enter the top 50 and stay there, because eventually it will be voted down below 4.46 and be gone; just a handful of votes and a new submission can drop from 5th to 55th in less than an hour.

That's why I think submissions that have been in the top 50 for a long time should be retired from the top 50 list to a hall of fame of some sort.

does any1 think this is a good idea?

"i think there should be some way for people who review only and dont make anything to make money without making flash or audio. I was thinking like a mini-ad on reviews that are helpful and the review generates revenue for as long as the review is on the main review page of the flash. But i dunno. It seems like a good idea to me."

From my ideas for NG's evoulution thread.

At 9/30/10 09:42 PM, Kingdomflash wrote: does any1 think this is a good idea?

"i think there should be some way for people who review only and dont make anything to make money without making flash or audio. I was thinking like a mini-ad on reviews that are helpful and the review generates revenue for as long as the review is on the main review page of the flash. But i dunno. It seems like a good idea to me."

From my ideas for NG's evoulution thread.

I don't want to be mean but no. A little miniature ad on a review would just make the reviews more ugly and it would be real hard to implant. Plus the problem with users making really short and crappy reviews just to climb the ranks would become even a bigger issue cause now they could make money off of it and would also put a lot more stress on the review mods.

Also you can make money not just from your flash but also your userpage. Just activate your renevue share and you could b making money off of your ad on your page. But its not a lot. I have had it activated for a month and only made 8 cents.

At 9/30/10 09:42 PM, Kingdomflash wrote: Text.

This would cause more users too spam useless reviews.

To be completely honest, I hope they don't change too much more shit at all. I can see the reason why the past changes were made, and they are all totally reasonable, but I see a LOT of just atrocious ideas in the suggestion thread. Newgrounds is different than any other website and people are asking to have certain aspects of the site changed that just wouldn't make it Newgrounds anymore. I'm actually really impressed with whoever manages the actual website because of the criteria they employ for changes and the taste in design that they have. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I like the website the way it is and I hope they don't go edit crazy and add a bunch of features that really change the whole classic newgrounds atmosphere we have grown to love. I suppose I could list some examples but anybody who read through that suggestion thread might understand where I'm coming from...I don't want to point fingers...

That being said, I'm 99% sure someone has suggested a 'preview post' feature in the past but I'm curious as to why this would have gotten shot down. Is it too much to ask that we double check our spelling and quote formatting before posting? I mean...you can't edit a post once you've made it. Idk, maybe that's just me...

At 9/30/10 10:22 PM, Domo wrote:

At 9/30/10 09:42 PM, Kingdomflash wrote: does any1 think this is a good idea?

Plus the problem with users making really short and crappy reviews just to climb the ranks would become even a bigger issue cause now they could make money off of it and would also put a lot more stress on the review mods.

yeah i no about all that but thats why i said only helpful reviews could get revenue

In response to DiMono's suggestion to get rid the Network News forum, Tom has actually stated in this news post that the threads in the forum will eventually be moved to General and the defunct forum will be deleted so it is on their minds.

At 10/10/10 09:20 AM, Bahamut wrote: DiMono

It was actually Domo that suggested that.

At 10/2/10 11:58 AM, ixfd64 wrote: When a user is renamed, the pages from their old user space should be redirected to their new one.

That would mean that there old username would be unavailable, which would really suck in some cases.

At 9/17/10 12:43 AM, Domo wrote: New Rule for reviews

The rules for the reviews right now is pretty good but I thought a new rule that could be added is something like " no telling how to get the medals to a game " Cause I see all the time people in the reviews telling users how to get the secret medals and it does help but the author made that medal secret for a reason not so people can tell how to get the secret medals.

Isn't that kind of already the case?

At 9/15/10 12:13 PM, Niallmcfc wrote: -Whether your thread has been posted in

This is only a good idea if you can enable it for each thread you make. If you made a popular club or something, it would probably get really annoying after a while.