# <blink> <blink> <blink>



## Casey (Sep 5, 2009)

Is it a new feature?


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 5, 2009)

no i don't think so


----------



## Berean (Sep 5, 2009)

Today's the first time I've seen it.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 5, 2009)

Some of the mods were just discussing it. I posited three potential reasons:

* An ungrade by Rich that is still in process.
* An intrusion by the devil.
* Another one of Joshua's tricks.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Sep 5, 2009)

Huh?


----------



## Wayne (Sep 5, 2009)

<blink> ???? 

Please explain.


----------



## historyb (Sep 5, 2009)

I'm confused


----------



## Berean (Sep 5, 2009)

It's this blinking notification in the top center (not the usual upper right).


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 5, 2009)

Berean said:


> It's this blinking notification in the top center (not the usual upper right).



Hahaha! I thought he was talking about the icon scratching his head!


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 5, 2009)

Again, that's what I thought he meant and the mods were just discussing it. Again, my suggested explanations are as above.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Sep 5, 2009)

Hmm, haven't seen it and I've been on all day (Vista/Firefox with Tulip skin).


----------



## Berean (Sep 5, 2009)

> * An ungrade by Rich that is still in process.
> * An intrusion by the devil.
> * Another one of Joshua's tricks.



I vote for (B), or (C) if he's around.


----------



## Lady of the Lake (Sep 5, 2009)

Thank you for this thread. I thought an alien being had touched my screen. At least now I know I'm not being <blinked> alone.

Waiting to hear the source and solution.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2009)

Is this a suggestion or a question about why there is a blinking notice when you have a new notification?


----------



## Scottish Lass (Sep 5, 2009)

Rich, 
Posts 8 and 9 have a screen shot of an odd placement for the notifications. Not all of us are experiencing it, though.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2009)

It only occurs if you have an unread PM.

Standby and I'll show you...


----------



## Lady of the Lake (Sep 5, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> It only occurs if you have an unread PM.
> 
> Standby and I'll show you...



I have the number 4 flashing at me in red and I've read all four messages which are actually quite old.


----------



## Casey (Sep 5, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Is this a suggestion or a question about why there is a blinking notice when you have a new notification?


*Suggestion:* It would be cool if there were a way to turn off the blinking notification.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2009)

CaseyBessette said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Is this a suggestion or a question about why there is a blinking notice when you have a new notification?
> ...



Read your notifications.


----------



## Casey (Sep 5, 2009)




----------



## Berean (Sep 5, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Read your notifications.



So is there...a way to turn it off? Where are our "notifications"? Thanks.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Sep 5, 2009)

Berean,
Your notifications are in the upper right as always, right under Welcome, Berean. You last visited on ----.


----------



## ewenlin (Sep 6, 2009)

Speaking about strange board behavior, none of the signatures are showing up. Everyone it seems no longer have signatures...


----------



## AThornquist (Sep 6, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> Speaking about strange board behavior, none of the signatures are showing up. Everyone it seems no longer have signatures...



They just have it set so that after an initial post in a thread their sig doesn't show up in subsequent posts within that thread.


----------



## ewenlin (Sep 6, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> ewenlin said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking about strange board behavior, none of the signatures are showing up. Everyone it seems no longer have signatures...
> ...



Why!!! That is so.... inconvenient. =p


----------



## Berean (Sep 6, 2009)

Can we vote on whether we prefer it the 'old' way or the 'new' way?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2009)

I changed it to a less obtrusive symbol. You may vote but this is not a cheerocracy. It is a cheertatorship.


----------



## Berean (Sep 6, 2009)

Maybe a separate topic, but I do miss having the sigs in all the posts. If you use the "Go to first new post" link in a 2 or 3 page thread, most posts are missing their sigs by that point in the discussion. I would find it helpful to have the signatures in all of the posts. What say you?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2009)

I've been tweaking the backend and figured out how to repair the original functionality of the Popup box that appears with new Messages.

I've also found a less obtrusive notice for New PM's in the NavBar.

As to the Signature thing, I like having only one sig per person per thread. It unnecessarily clutters the thread on long threads. If you want to remember who they are you can check their profile.


----------



## Berean (Sep 6, 2009)

> As to the Signature thing, I like having only one sig per person per thread. It unnecessarily clutters the thread on long threads. If you want to remember who they are you can check their profile.



okey-dokey


----------



## PointingToChrist (Sep 6, 2009)

I don't know if this is the place, but I would like to sound my opinion:

I don't have a great memory, and if I am reading a thread that has many posts, it is convenient to have the signature below the members' posts in every post, because it helps to know their name, church, and perhaps points to their stance (and thus may be useful).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2009)

Mitch,

As I noted, if you want to remember such things then click on the user name and view the Public Profile.


----------



## PointingToChrist (Sep 7, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Mitch,
> 
> As I noted, if you want to remember such things then click on the user name and view the Public Profile.



I know I can do that, but it wastes extra time when I can simply scroll faster on a thread.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Sep 7, 2009)

PointingToChrist said:


> I know I can do that, but it wastes extra time when I can simply scroll faster on a thread.



Sorry, meant to quote, not thank. I think the old way takes up more server or bandwith or whatever.


----------



## Skyler (Sep 8, 2009)

Semper Fidelis--could you make the signature disappearance optional? Or would that not help with performance issues? As in, a profile setting, I mean.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 8, 2009)

Skyler said:


> Semper Fidelis--could you make the signature disappearance optional? Or would that not help with performance issues? As in, a profile setting, I mean.



Thanks for the response Josh. It cannot be customized in the User CP. You can turn all signatures and images off from your UserCP but the mod I made was to the postbit template that affects all users.


----------



## Edward (Sep 8, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis--could you make the signature disappearance optional? Or would that not help with performance issues? As in, a profile setting, I mean.
> ...



It seems like doing away with the avatars would save more bandwidth than doing away with a few lines of text in the sigs. At least that's my recollection from my dial-up days. Although I do recall at least one sig that had an image in it.


----------



## PointingToChrist (Sep 8, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis--could you make the signature disappearance optional? Or would that not help with performance issues? As in, a profile setting, I mean.
> ...



Rich,

Is this change set in stone, or subject to members' opinions?

I can't emphasize enough how convenient and useful it is to have the signature in every post, especially for multi-page threads. Most members don't end their posts with their names, so it's nice to be able to put a real name to a username (as well as congregation) quickly while I'm scrolling through posts.

Moreover, I was writing a reply in another thread, and I had to hit back and scroll up to remember the posters' names that I wished to address.

If I'm in the minority, I'll shut up, but I wanted to express my opinion on it while the subject was hot. Could we have a poll on it?

Thank you,

Mitch


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 8, 2009)

Edward said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...



 and take away my entertainment???? tie your lips!  I'm not sure what the big deal is guys!!! Just think of it this way: more ppl will be clicking onto your site to get your name which will give you more visits and then you can start a thread/poll to see who gets the most visits! How fun is that!?!?!


----------



## Skyler (Sep 8, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis--could you make the signature disappearance optional? Or would that not help with performance issues? As in, a profile setting, I mean.
> ...



So the postbit template can't check for individual settings then?


----------



## Brian Withnell (Sep 8, 2009)

PointingToChrist said:


> I can't emphasize enough how convenient and useful it is to have the signature in every post, especially for multi-page threads. Most members don't end their posts with their names, so it's nice to be able to put a real name to a username (as well as congregation) quickly while I'm scrolling through posts.
> 
> Moreover, I was writing a reply in another thread, and I had to hit back and scroll up to remember the posters' names that I wished to address.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward (Sep 8, 2009)

OPC'n said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Although I do recall at least one sig that had an image in it.
> ...



It's their site, they can do what they want with the sigs. Speaking of that, what happened to the image that used to be in yours prior to the most recent name change? 

And I don't keep track of visits - just my thank you ratio (given thanks to received thanks).


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 8, 2009)

Edward said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



It's illegal to have an image in your sig so I got rid of it.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 9, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> PointingToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > I can't emphasize enough how convenient and useful it is to have the signature in every post, especially for multi-page threads. Most members don't end their posts with their names, so it's nice to be able to put a real name to a username (as well as congregation) quickly while I'm scrolling through posts.
> ...



There is no need for a poll. And there is no need for multiple signatures. You can find all the information you need by clicking on the user's name and opening up his profile. You can do that either in a new window, or a new tab.

This saves bandwidth, and therefore costs, and stops the need to scroll past signature after signature when browsing a thread.


----------



## Edward (Sep 9, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> There is no need for a poll. And there is no need for multiple signatures. You can find all the information you need by clicking on the user's name and opening up his profile. You can do that either in a new window, or a new tab.
> 
> This saves bandwidth, and therefore costs, and stops the need to scroll past signature after signature when browsing a thread.



I was going to question the 'saving bandwidth' argument, but it appears that there are well over 1000 characters in your signature block (mostly in the various clickable links including the 4 that are automatically put at the bottom of each post). I can see how that would add up.


----------



## Wayne (Sep 9, 2009)

I don't know about bandwidth (probably), but it sure shortens the overall length of a thread and shortens the time it takes to scroll down through it all. I'm for it.

[I'm also trying to post recklessly towards 500. Say anything, just get those posts up there.]


----------



## Baptist-1689er (Sep 9, 2009)

Quote:
[I'm also trying to post recklessly towards 500. Say anything, just get those posts up there.][/QUOTE]

And I thought I was the only one employing this methodology!


----------



## Scottish Lass (Sep 9, 2009)

Just for the record, I do like the new popup system with pm's. I just received a time-sensitive one I would have missed for at least several minutes, if not entirely, since I was well into a thread and beyond the point of the traditional notification.


----------



## Wayne (Sep 9, 2009)

Baptist-1689er said:


> And I thought I was the only one employing this methodology!



Well, since you give me the opportunity to reply, and since I've replied to about everything else that I can reply to, and since this will put me at my goal, I will reply and say "Yes, you're not the only one."

500. How sophomoric of me.


----------



## Baptist-1689er (Sep 9, 2009)

Wayne said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> > And I thought I was the only one employing this methodology!
> ...



Congratulations!


----------



## Wayne (Sep 9, 2009)

That and $5.00 will get you (or me) a cup of coffee!!!


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 9, 2009)

Wayne said:


> I don't know about bandwidth (probably), but it sure shortens the overall length of a thread and shortens the time it takes to scroll down through it all. I'm for it.
> 
> [I'm also trying to post recklessly towards 500. Say anything, just get those posts up there.]





Baptist-1689er said:


> And I thought I was the only one employing this methodology!



I knew it! You were giving me too many "thank you's" thought I!


----------

