So, a little over 80% of site users would like everything put back the way it was.
Does the new management have any comment on this? Is the customer always right?
I can see 3 photos of yours, Burtman, by clicking your profile link on the bottom of your post, then choosing "photos" top right.
The idea is that the drop down menu for which category you post in would have all the options for that... but none of the ones that start "Women seeking...". Women wouldn't have any of the ones that start "Men Seeking..." either.
Just to save my scrolling finger... pages are always 20 posts long, the length of those 20 posts makes no difference, they could all be novels or one-liners!
Newly discovered glitch... the 'report this advert' oprion in the photo ads gives an SQL error message if you include quotation marks in your report.
Less seriously, but in the same section, I think it would be an improvement if the "view members gallery" icon was removed from adverts where the member has no photos in their gallery, as it only serves to drive traffic to an error page.
Agreed, this is an idea I've been touting since the revamp. It won't cure the problem of people pretending to be female, but it will help with the flood of misplaced adverts.
While on the subject of the photo ads, given that we have a large influx of people writing incomprehensible single line adverts that are unlikely to be of any interest to most viewers, how about adding a facility to remove ads less than (say) 500 characters long from search results? I think this would greatly improves the photo ad section's usability.
I think there's a simple technical fix... since the site now knows if a member is male/female or a couple, why not Restrict the drop down menu to only the options that are relevant? If men don't see a "women seeking men" option, then they can't post there!
From experience, this is probably a cacheing issue - AOL users seem especially prone to it. A workround is to rename the problem images (" " and " ") and change the HTML to reflect the new names, which will force the caches to request the images again.
Oh and while we are on the topic on the logo, why does the letter S cast a shadow, but the H does not?
I'm tempted to knock 70 years off my declared age just in case it would ge the 'fancy a shag' crowd PM-ing me!
Unfortunately I'm blessed with a huge endwoment of 12 over letters, which means I can't be PMed at the moment!
How to PM a site member with a long name (more then 12 characters)
When sending a PM, check the URL at the top of your web browser. It will look something like this:
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/members/new-message.html?user=Mister_Discr
if the bit at the end isn't the full name of that person, type the missing letters back in and reload the page, liike this:
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/members/new-message.html?user=Mister_Discreet
Use this page to send your PM and it will go to the intended recipient.
More of a feature request than a bug... as the site now 'knows' if a person is a man, woman or couple, how about limiting the choice of advert category in the 'my adverts' section to just the relevant ones? If the option to post in 'women seeking men' was only available to women, then loking after that section of the site would be a lot less work for the mods, and a lot more useful to readers!
I've mentioned this in the glitch thread, but as I have a temporary solution too, I'll repost here...
It's possible, with a little bit of time and effort, to find the location of members EVEN IF THEY HAVE POSTCODES TURNED OFF!
The 'my search' page shows distances to members who have their postcodes turned off.
By moving your location then searching again it's fairly simple triangulate locations. For example, if I wished to stalk a particular user I could find out that they are 107 miles from East London, 57 miles from Devon, and 28 miles from Portsmouth, which narrows their location down to a very small area.
If you are worried about your privacy, I suggest that until this issue is confirmed as fixed, you change your postcode to something chosen at random.
The Quick Search shows people without adverts... and worse, people who are looking for something incompatible (ie I'm seeing names/postcodes of women looking for other women, and I'm a man).
To get to the postcode setting:
1. Click "My Account" from the right hand menu.
2. This takes you to a page titled "edit your account", which has "Account Settings | Profile Settings | Forum Settings" written just to the left of the right hand menu.
3. Click "Account Settings" from that list.
4. Halfway down the page is a set of 4 radio buttons to choose " Show Other Members My: Town County Postcode None". Select the button to the left of "None", then click "Update" at the bottom of the screen
5. Look at the page to see if your changes have been accepted. If not, try choosing a town from the pull down menu just above the 4 radio buttons and try again.
There seem to be problems with long usernames, so far I've seen long names in the "Latest Ads" box on the right exceeding the size of the frame, and causing a horizontal scroll bar to appear, and attempts to sent mail to my mailbox seem to be failing as my name is truncated to "Mister_Disc".
The page that shows all topics on the forum has the titles in light blue on slightly lighter blue, which is hard to read - switching to the new red would be a quick fix for this, probably just 1 line of the CSS to change.
We also seem to have lost the list of members (which means no more 'who's in my threesome' thread)
Another tip that people might find useful while we are plagued with mysql errors...
Instead of clicking on links here, use your right mouse button (or hold the only button down on a Mac) and select "open in a new window". That way if you get an error, you can simply close the new window and try again from the previous page, rather than losing the page you were on too.
I think it's a useful feature, but it should be turned off by default.
The same goes for the automatic signing up to recieve newsletters, which I believe leaves the site owners open to prosecution in it's current form.
The AUP says you can't indulge in "Abusive or aggressive behaviour towards other people on here."
Since ex members are not "on here", I suppose that technically they can be slagged off with wild abandon :!:
Yes, there's a song called "Big Muff" by Depeche Mode, on the "Speak and Spell" album,
i'm going to dive in here... I'm worried that policy lumps together truly undesirable people (such as ones who don't understand that no means no) and people who verbally transgress the rules by (for example) mentioning another site, but ignores a third type of problem person, the serial confirm-but-non-attender. I think an ideal solution would let munch organisers have their lists monitored, and problem people highlighted, before blame is put on them.
If there is no public list of who is banned and how serious their offence was, it's unreasonable to expect munch organisers to be able to filter out banned people.
