OpinionDiscussionator will never get up to the amount of traffic that SoapBoxxer did.
      – Bensci, 2009-10-14 at 09:16:22   (31 comments)

On 2009-10-14 at 09:17:13, Bensci wrote...
oops I meant SoapBoxxer my bad. they both start with S so I get them mixed up in my mind
On 2009-10-14 at 09:55:25, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Bensci: I've corrected the topic title, from StumbleUpon to SoapBoxxer.
On 2009-10-14 at 09:59:45, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The problem is with the user interface and styling. SoapBoxxer also drew people in because it focused on opinions, although the majority of topics weren't opinions at all which is why I have topic types here. People don't much like the scrolling boxes here - they'd be happier if the whole page scrolled instead. It's an improvement that you don't have to click between sub-pages of comments, but changing the design to not be squeezed into a single vertical page would be difficult now. Perhaps the most important thing to have is a diverse mix of people who have differing views. Most of the people who used SoapBoxxer have had their time, and are glad of the excuse to do other things rather than keep coming back to catch up with what's being said.
On 2009-10-14 at 12:44:29, DigitalBoss wrote...
Never say never.
On 2009-10-14 at 21:47:34, Bensci wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: could you perhaps lengthen the length of the screen so that it extends beyond the bottom of the window, thus affording a larger area in which to read comments and making the page scrollable?
On 2009-10-15 at 05:29:19, BorgClown wrote...
Oi, although most of the traffic in the last weeks was made by spambots. To be fair, I was recovering from surgery when I found SB, so I had plenty of time to enjoy it. Then I quit my job, that gave me less but still significant free time. Now I have a full time job, and even DNr's low traffic is sometimes too much to keep up. Aw shit, I miss having lots of free time...
On 2009-10-15 at 05:32:20, BorgClown wrote...
If DNr reached the levels of participation of SB there would be lots of silly topics, like "Wuzza!" or "I'm hungry". Would it be bad? I seriously don't know, I only know that DNR looks better prepared to user abuse.
On 2009-10-15 at 09:01:36, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Bensci: But then you'd have 2 scroll bars, which would be a complete failure of design. Hmm, actually - with a lot of effort you can already do this - just keep clicking the 'increase height' gadget in the bottom-left. @BorgClown: Yes, I had a lot of free time then too.
On 2009-10-15 at 11:52:49, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Huh, I just noticed there's a Facebook group for this site and it has more members than there active users here. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=60380250849
On 2009-10-15 at 17:39:17, Melchior wrote...
What borg said. Do we want hordes of people? I'd guess that for Lee or future moderators it would become largely about managing trolls and crap, and not really fun anymore. On a related note I suddenly know a group of humanists. I could give them a heads up about DnR? More non-theists unfortunately(?), but still...
On 2009-10-15 at 18:42:40, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Melchior: It doesn't really matter who signs up - the site is supposed to be about opinions, but not just those about religion. More people would be better, but it's up to individuals as to whether they're interested or not.
On 2009-10-15 at 20:23:03, Bensci wrote...
Its not that I want hordes of people, its just that it would be nice to have more than four active users.
On 2009-10-16 at 03:10:55, BorgClown wrote...
I feel you brah, sometimes a topic is posted and everyone fully agrees and gives it 5 stars. Where's the thrill?
On 2009-10-17 at 14:28:19, Thelevellers wrote...
I think that if it got busy here a 'chat' tab could be good, for all the 'wazzaaaaap' type topics that would become frequent... That's my only issue with this site is the lack of 'tabs' that SB had. Though i prefer this lay out, maybe have an 'exclude this filter' option, as opposed to 'all' with this filter'. I dunno, I just find browsing this site doesn;t work as well. That said, I now have very little free time to enjoy this site anyway, which is saddening... Like Borg says - it's hard enough keeping up with the 4 or so of us on here at the moment! But more points of view would be more interesting, maybe even interesting enough to wrestle my attention away from The Rest Of The Internet (TM)!
On 2009-10-17 at 14:34:11, Lee J Haywood wrote...
If there were really too many comments to read them all, then the Watch list tab would be used - which I guess no-one bothers with at the moment. It has the advantage of only showing topics you've actually commented upon, which is how SoapBoxxer worked. You'd then only have to scroll through new topics to see which ones interest you.
On 2009-10-17 at 14:56:41, Thelevellers wrote...
Yeah, I think it would help to use that, but, until I stopped visiting recently, I commented on 90% of the current topics, so it was (is?) unnecessary! If traffic improves I'll probably be better at not trying to read all the current posts/topics, which at present puts me off replying to any, as I don't have time to! It's a silly part of me that likes completion - the same part that is making me go back through all Charlie Brookers old columns now I'm subscribed to his Guardian RSS... And indeed makes me buy CDs that I don;t even like much just to complete a bands discography... *sigh* :P
On 2009-10-17 at 16:11:35, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Thelevellers: Obsessive compulsion is a useful thing.
On 2009-10-17 at 22:28:36, BorgClown wrote...
It looks like we are more gatherers than hunters
On 2009-10-18 at 15:46:58, Thelevellers wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: It is useful sometimes, but you need to be able to control it, and I'm not always able to... Luckily at the moment tight finances force me to, which is fortunate as there are a few very expensive things which I'm hankering after!
On 2009-10-20 at 10:48:30, Bensci wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: For some reason that gadget is always grayed out for me.
On 2009-10-20 at 14:13:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Bensci: It's not 'greyed-out', it's just grey. Each time you click it it only adjusts the height by 4 pixels, hence my words 'lot of effort' and 'keep clicking'. There's a cookie called <tt>dadj which you could potentially edit instead, e.g. with JavaScript.
On 2009-10-20 at 20:04:39, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: I'm curious, why would you even implement a 4-pixel-per-click resizer? I only used it once, out of curiosity.
On 2009-10-20 at 22:42:59, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Because the automatic calculation might not work in some browsers, so it provides a way for users to fix the problems themselves. Making it draggable would be too much work though.
On 2009-10-21 at 02:12:43, BorgClown wrote...
If the automatic calculation failed, adjusting it 4 pixels at a time each time would be very inconvenient anyway. I played with it again, it's a little bit confusing how you can end up with a scrollable page with a nested scrollable area. And it takes will to realign the page each time you want to click the tiny arrows. Interestingly, after all my time here, I feel more comfortable with the full-page scrolling too. It's more natural for a web page. Maybe you had in mind web apps when you designed DNr.
On 2009-10-21 at 11:42:14, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: It's just easier to detect when you hit the bottom for an auto-reload with the DIV element. I guess it's possible for a whole page too, but I didn't look into it. Google Reader works much the same as Discussionator, it just utilises vertical space better so you don't notice as much. Indeed, on my display the boxes work well here because I have more vertical space than most people. The fact is that SoapBoxxer had boxes for comments too - you had to scroll down to read them, and when you clicked to the next page of comments the entire page reloaded. The current Discussionator design will automatically look better in the future, when everyone uses better monitors. (-: If the automatic calculation 'failed' it would mean you'd have a scroll bar because of a few stray pixels, or not have a scroll bar but not quite be utilising the full height - the adjust really would only need to be small. Maybe I should work out a way for you to get onto Dark, and see where I started from.
On 2009-10-21 at 20:14:56, BorgClown wrote...
Google reader, that's what I meant with DNr having the feel of a web app, although I was thinking of GMail. It's also more efficient since you consume less bandwidth and server time About the screen real state, I see the benefit of a taller resolution. If I unmaximixe Firefox and play with the zoom, the page seems to fill better the screen. On a wide screen monitor there are several blank areas, which I've accustomed to anyway. About Dark, is there any possibility to make quick money with gullible users?
On 2009-10-21 at 22:24:49, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: I don't understand the question. (And where would I find gullible users?)
On 2009-10-22 at 16:01:36, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I've spent the day getting <tt>Dark running, although it's by invitation-only e-mails so I'm only able to add BorgClown and Thelevellers at present - if anyone else wants to see it, just e-mail me. It should be running every day, but only at certain hours (daytime in the UK). http://discussionator.com/Dark.html
On 2009-10-22 at 16:50:57, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Thelevellers: Try that again.
On 2009-10-23 at 02:33:10, BorgClown wrote...
What is Dark anyway?
On 2009-10-29 at 19:40:09, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
I agree, but as a lot of you mentioned, that's probably a good thing. I'd rather just have the old guard to talk to, maybe a few cool new people. Staying under the radar is sexy.