GateWorld Suggestion Box

[LoneStar1836]

Not entirely accurate. A show gets a folder if it hits on enough of these factors to convince me:

- It seems to have a strong following in the General Sci-Fi folder (e.g. multiple threads, or a main thread with a large number of regular posters)
- It's currently in production (not a classic or cancelled show)
- It has prospects for renewal
- It has a sub-site on GateWorld's sister site, SciFiStream.com
- I watch it and think it'd be good to support it with a dedicated folder.

I haven't poked my head into the "Supernatural" thread(s) in General Sci-Fi, but I'm guessing it's probably one- or two-for-five on that checklist.

So how about a Supernatural folder? Please!?

1. Currently in production? Check! Its fifth season will begin on September 10 on the CW.

2. Has prospects for renewal? Well is was easily renewed for a 5th season. It is one of the top three rated shows on the CW considering its tough Thursday night spot at 8 pm CST. The two lead actors are contracted through a 6th season.

3. Strong following in the Gen folder? Well I'd say so.

- General Discussion thread has over 5,000 posts. (Almost as many posts as the entire Smallville folder combined)
- Four thunk threads here, here, here, and here. Even a thunk thread for the '67 Impala over in off topic.
- Two whump threads here and here.
- A couple of game threads here and here.
- A fav quote thread.

4. Does SciFiStream cover it? No, but it should!

5. Do you watch it? Apparently not, but you should! I didn't watch the show either until about two months ago when I bought the dvds because a number of people on GW said I needed to check it out. The show is definitely worth watching, imo. And it needs it's own folder on GW.

That's 3 out of 5, and board members have no control over whether you watch the show or cover it on ScifiStream.

Just thought I'd ask again to see what you thought.

[Thunder Hawk]

can probies have the option to use subscribed threads it would be helpful to navigate the forum easier like everyone else and keep up with conversations

[SeaBee]

Signatures seem to be getting out of hand again. Almost every page of posts seem to have at least 1 or 2 posters with over sized sigs.

It seems to me there are 4 choices

1: Ban sigs outright. This is like the nuclear option. It's too heavy handed and would punish the majority who post within the rules.

2: Force everybody to host their sigs on GW, and set it up so that no sig outside the rules gets through. I don't know a great deal about web hosting but I assume that this option would cause an increase in GWs bandwidth and cause Darren increased costs.

3: Get tough on rule breakers and withdraw sig rights for persistant offenders. This would cause a massive workload increase for the Mod team until the message got accross that rulebreakers won't be tolerated.

4: Scrap the rule and let everybody have whatever size sig they want. This is not an option. There are enough problems with timeouts due to slow loading sigs now, imagine what it would be like if everybody had a massive sig.

Something does need to happen. I'm on broadband and sometimes I have problems loading pages. I hate to think what it must be like for those on dial up connections.

[Guest]

There's a possible fifth option; the mods could set up some assistants, normal members selected by the mods charged with the responsibility to identify members with over sized signatures and encourage them to change them to be within the limits before being moderated for it. I'm not sure whether this would be a viable option but it would take some of the work out of the mods hands in dealing with signatures.

[Jeffala]

I have a signature, but I turn off displaying them for me so I don't have to see them.

I think mine is within the size requirements, but can't remember checking.

[immhotep]

6th Option, Have a New sig policy which has leeway for the majority and include the minority. Most Sigs are not unbearable, i will admit my sig is larger than it should be but Its not unbearable. Text Should be limited to 8 Lines, with a single Image of standard sig size. Or a single larger image of Say 200px by 150px.

[SeaBee]

6th Option, Have a New sig policy which has leeway for the majority and include the minority. Most Sigs are not unbearable, i will admit my sig is larger than it should be but Its not unbearable. Text Should be limited to 8 Lines, with a single Image of standard sig size. Or a single larger image of Say 200px by 150px.

The trouble with that option is there are always people who break the rules.
The current rule says everything in a sig, graphics and text, should fit in a box 700 long by 200 high and have a maximum of 50kb.

In the UK we have a maximum speed limit of 70mph on the motorways, but lots of people drive at 80. If the government were to raise the limit to 80mph so those people are no longer speeding then there will be a number of people who will drive at 90.

There are loads of sigs that break the rules we have in place now. If the rules are relaxed to bring those that are outside the rules in it will just encourage people to break those rules. These rules are not there to make posters life difficult, they are there to help make the forum load faster. Every sig adds to the time it takes to load a page, and every oversized sig adds more time than it should.

[Jeffala]

Or they could just set the height of the signature area to 200px like it's supposed to be and add an overflow:hidden attribute so no matter how large people make it, only the top 200px will be seen and the rest will be worthless.

[Falcon Horus]

In the UK we have a maximum speed limit of 70mph on the motorways, but lots of people drive at 80.

And yet when I was in the UK around Easter I didn't see a single car that drove 70 Mph, unless there was a speedcamera coming up (which are announced no less).


Some exagerate greatly when it comes to the signatures and some don't even have one. I'd say report and hope for the best - you just won't catch them all.

[immhotep]

Does oversized sig really burden the forum to the point of breakage? For the number of people with oversized sigs there are those who have smaller or no sigs that dont load, cancelling the debt out. Personally i would rather see a limit on the type of sig's allowed rather than the sig size etc. 50kb is not enough for the record, there are very few images that can be shrunk to that size in kb's while also matching the 700x200 limit, which is why people choose to host offline rather than of GW so they can fit the limit in size but not in kb. Its really difficult to to have both properties and ive had a good number of sigs to know that from experience. I would like to know how much text and links contribute to GW's load time. Also i have rarely experienced slow load speeds on GW, maybe its the time i log on but its been consistently good after the WPOD problem ended.

[Jeffala]

50kb is not enough for the record, there are very few images that can be shrunk to that size in kb's while also matching the 700x200 limit

My sig image is 646x180 and it's only 10.2KB so it can be done.

[Falcon Horus]

My sig image is 646x180 and it's only 10.2KB so it can be done.

And your image-quality shows.

Most people have these artsy-signatures that if scaled down in Kb size, won't look as good as they are. Of course, no one says you have to make your signature 700 by 200 px - you can always make something smaller which will automatically mean less Kb to worry about. 72px/inch equals webquality and then save it as .png or .jpg - .gifs will pixelate and ruine your quality.

But the problem is not just the images - there's text and what else is there, hidden in spoiler-space, or those pesky dragons *whistles innocently*, and not to mention the gazillion smilies people put in there *still whistling* and half of their life's story if they feel like it.

[Thunder Hawk]

i turned sigs off i would go to read a post and then the page would jerk up or down after loading.

the eggs and clitano (sp) really slow things down at times

[Darren]

Or they could just set the height of the signature area to 200px like it's supposed to be and add an overflow:hidden attribute so no matter how large people make it, only the top 200px will be seen and the rest will be worthless.

Excellent idea -- let's try that.

Jeffala wins the booby prize!

[Lythisrose]

Would it be possible to remove the "Atlantis Cancelled" line on the main page fairly soon?
It almost feels like a slap in the face whenever I come to the site, hopefully most fans who come here have already got the message.
Thanks...