Gangolf Haub wrote:Example (not a good page for sure)
Montana Matt wrote:nartreb wrote:Centered photos also behave a tiny bit differently now - they don't force a full break in the layout.
Can you give an example of that?
Gangolf Haub wrote:Can we make the section titles a bit less intruding? If you have long sections with many pictures it looks ok but if you look at the back end of pages (Red Tape / Weather / Camping) you'll see blue bar after blue bar, which is oppressive.
nartreb wrote:Look at the last photo in this TR: http://www.summitpost.org/a-lion-head-fox-tale/188250 The centered Medium photo captioned "rime" . The top of the photo is higher than the bottoms of the small photos in either margin ("skiers" and "above the ravine") when viewed at a window width around 1500 pixels. I don't think that was the case before, though my mind may be playing tricks on me.
nartreb wrote:The snake photo previously intruded into Getting There section, but now it looks forlorn. I think I'll move it explicitly into that section. I have a bunch of cases like that, I'm sure. Well worth it in exchange for less confusing layout rules.
Montana Matt wrote:The layout rules are far less confusing. Photos will always appear in the section in which they're placed. No more having to worry about them floating down into the next section and being out of place.
Redwic wrote:I like the "Photo of the Moment" idea. However, I do hope it is purely random and not based solely on votes/score
Redwic wrote:I have definite concerns that the recent changes, especially the vote scores, will take away some of that individuality and creativity.
Redwic wrote:I am concerned that the necessity for a contribution to get a lot of votes to "appear" semi-decent will push some people away from making contributions.
Montana Matt wrote:Redwic wrote:I have definite concerns that the recent changes, especially the vote scores, will take away some of that individuality and creativity.
Why would you come to that conclusion?
Redwic wrote:I guess my concern is more along the lines of SP member favoritism over the quality of an actual contribution.
But perhaps that cannot be eliminated, no matter what the change is.
Redwic wrote:PERSON A makes a Mountain page. The mountain might not have an eye-catching name or be in a familiar region, but PERSON A spends many hours to make certain the page is full of useful information, including routes, driving directions gear, etc.
PERSON B makes a Mountain page, too. The mountain has an eye-catching name or is in a familiar region, but PERSON B spends a little time making the page with only basic information provided.
PERSON A's page gets little attention despite being a thorough and helpful page, and only musters two votes.
PERSON B's page gets more attention despite being a page with less usable content but with a lot of eye-catching photos, and musters 15 votes.
Montana Matt wrote:I do understand your concerns Redwic. And the goal with the new system was to try to make the voting system more "fair" for everyone and reward the people that submit the best content of the most valuable types of content. As rgg points out, it's not perfect and never will be. But I do think that the most recent change is an improvement over the previous system. If we see that it's not functioning as we hope it to, we can continue to change the score/power calculations until we have something that works for SP.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests