 | | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) Auctions create a lot more traffic than regular sales. At least thats what I've always thought was the reason (it's the reason why I don't read RTL anymore, anyway). They clutter up a newsgroup. Maybe Todd feels the same way? (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) <snipped bits> (...) I generally try to avoid "me too" posts, but wanted to do so here, and add some reasoning. I agree with Mike. My personal preference is to not see any market traffic unless I go looking for it.(1) Also, if the double (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) messages (...) aren't (...) I keep being amused in a confused kind of way by this seeming double standard. Let me demonstrate how this bst vs auction double standard sounds to me. Some (maybe a lot, maybe just a few really "valuable") people (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: FT: King's Castle 6080
|
|
(...) Right, sorry. -Shiri (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: FT: King's Castle 6080
|
|
(...) That's not actually true. Only auctions are verboten outside of the .market .auction group by the Terms of Use Agreement. Non-auction solicitations aren't strictly verboten by the Agreement, but generally they're frowned upon by most people. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Horizontal scrolling while posting? (was: Re: whoop de doo)
|
|
(...) Hmm, that sounds very odd. What screen resolution do you run at (640x480?) and what font size do you use (higher than 12 pt?)? --Todd (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Good. All understood and completely clear in my mind. Now I simply have to adjust my lugnet HTTP viewing habits away from the nested/compact thread display view to the linear/all thread view. Now, if I could just figure out how to adjust the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) d'OH!!! My bad! Now I see what was causing you the confusion! The "compact" and "brief" thread views aren't supposed to have the "Submit Ratings" button on them. The thread display routine doesn't currently check what display mode it's (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Okay, my problem is not me and it is not a browser problem (Netscape v4.51). The problem is that I have been using (for months) the nested/compact thread display. I guess to make this Submit All rating feature work, I need to switch to the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) nono -- it's not useless at all -- what the button simply means is "apply all of the radio button selections currently visible on this HTML page." (...) You -can- rate messages one at a time, but it's not required, no. (...) It can be used for (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Disagree. (...) This is not so. If you click on the submit button, whether it's for one post or for a whole tree worth, whatever ratings you have set will be reapplied (unless it's a very large tree, as I said before), because you do a POST. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Okay, I think I understand. So, right now the submit ratings button on a thread display page is useless and serves no purpose, as I understand you. I guess we are all resigned to submit individual ratings on a per-message basis (not a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Hmm. There actually isn't any next-post icon in the light blue band. Do you mean that you clicked an underlined number in the light blue band to proceed to the next message? If so, that causes an HTTP GET request, not an HTTP post request. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) (URL) -- to an excessive extent! (Note that Alan's post 1520 was 3 minutes before (...) I do not know why Alan did what he did, but there may be reason. I will concede that 83 messages is a bit excessive, however. Anyway, I just used Alans (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Susan -- thanks. Very Interesting. --Todd (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) If it helps you figure it out any, I think Alan was trying out the technique mentioned in this post: (URL) -- to an excessive extent! (Note that Alan's post 1520 was 3 minutes before the string of 108 messages started.) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) :) thanks (...) If it were thousands, I sure would. I'd probably ask you first, even. :) But I can definitely see the possibility of someone not even thinking twice about posting several dozen short messages to a .test group. In between (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Ahh, but you're special. No doubts in my mind that if you or DanB or JeremyS (for example) had done it, you'd've had a good solid reason. And if you weren't just bored and playing around, I'll bet you'd mention ahead of time that you were (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Step 1 is to disable his posting ability to that group ASAP -- nobody needs to post 108 messages -- many all the same exact copy -- to test any of those things shown above. If it turns out later that Alan had a legitimate reason to do what he (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Podracing bucket contents revealed . . .
|
|
(...) Ewwww... (...) No, but it is a Fight Club!!! Now where's Brad Pitt, I want to bash his face in! ;-) ~Nathan (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
