Quote from Ri5uxJavaScript exists for a reason, and you clearly have no clue what those reasons are. 80% of the websites we use today are heavily based off of JavaScript and there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON you should be disabling it. In fact, disabling it will not only make the websites appear incorrectly, but they will function incorrectly as well. The computers we have today have far more than enough power to run something as simple as JavaScript. If yours cannot, then you disable it, but don't be telling other people to do something that will only make their life more miserable. Also, Twitter, Facebook, and Google can not run scripts on a website without the scripts being defined directly in the markup code. You should not be giving out advice on a subject you know nothing about. Leave it to the people who make websites, that people, like you, use every day and take for granted. End of the conversation on this subject. Do not reply to me.
Oh, man, the last line in this rant... priceless.
I really question if you understand how javascript works. Particularly, I like how you say that other sites can't run scripts on the one you're visiting without it being hard-coded. You do understand that javascript is designed to get around the limitation of hard-coding a website, right? The entire point is to make it malleable, 'dynamic', and (incidentally) vulnerable.
For example, many sites use Google ads. That's a line of JS that Google wrote, which you insert (contractually-unmodified) in your site. That script sends queries to Google, using what information it can to match you to its database on you and send back ads submitted by third parties to Google. Those ads, which are inserted by Google, can have embedded script of their own, and as much advertising as Google hosts, they can't catch every bit of malicious code. Even if I didn't object to Google constantly trying to spy on me so that they can decide what ads to bombard me with, I've got an issue with people who have no connection to the site I'm on using Google's dating-sim setup to slap their own code that I have no assurance is not malignant on my screen. And that is assuming everybody in that chain of events has great security, never gets hacked, never has a disgruntled employee insert code, and... well, we're already into "pfft, you're a fool optimist" territory.
My computer is quite capable of handling JS. I have a degree in computer programming. I've been involved in websites' design. You don't need JS, it's a big security hole, and you're better off turning the few bits of it that you find needed on rather than throwing open the flood-gates and hoping nothing nasty comes through. Do you know why I used Google, Facebook, and Twitter as examples? Because they're trying to run scripts on this site every time I log in.
Quote from KioriBugI don't find it stupid, but useful. It makes something more visible instead of clicking on a user's profile to see if they are online or not. In the platforms sections, being able to tell if a user who is hosting their world is online or not easily is a major plus when looking through servers or games to join. I personally don't see how making your status visible on forum posts is going to encourage "chat boards". People were already able to, and will be able to still, get notifications when someone replies to you, or a topic you follow. I see no difference in posting habits. There is an option to turn off the indicator, You're entitled to your opinion though. If you don't like something, or have your own suggestion be sure to let the developers know on the beta forum.
Let's pretend you and I are online right now, both aware of the other. We're going to argue over whether or not seeing each other online encourages people to post like they're on a chat-board. In response to the above post, I respond with a dry one-liner about how you're online and I disagree with you. Since you knew I was online and were curious about my response, you try to be reasonable and point out that I didn't have to make a short post - but in doing so you validate my point by responding with something relatively short in quick succession to my own post. Then we start arguing over the finer details of it, but the posts remain fairly short as they're focused on the specifics of the moment. Other people post, but they kinda get drowned out by our back-and-forth and their slower post-rate.
I've seen this sort of crap happen. It's not good to build up this expectation that you and I will have a conversation of short thoughts punctuated by responses rather than working under the assumption that it could be a while between when we hear from each other. As I'm working now, I'm presenting you with a clear message of what I mean so that you can absorb it as a whole and consider it before making a similar response. That's lost in chat-board behavior. It's too 'now' for it to be thought-out conversation.
And it's funny that you say I should let the designers know I don't like things and offer other ideas. Been there, done that. I suggested that profiles should have options to turn off these various extraneous bits of information that some might find useful and others find annoying. I even pointed out that it would likely decrease bandwidth, thereby improving the site's performance. They think that checking a single field in your profile, to determine if you want to see everything that belongs in everybody else's profile but is not needed on every page that I'm viewing, is too much. And then they add a check to see if everybody involved in the given thread is online and 'visible', every time you load a page.
The new site seems like something I would have considered a grand accomplishment when I took my first classes on HTML and Java (yeah, I'm familiar with the language from which JS derives - enough so that I've coded using JS myself). The staff there seem like children trying to defend their poor code when their instructor wants to teach them how it could be better. They fight against improvement for the sake of pride and, in doing so, earn a failing grade. That is the feedback they've gotten, repeatedly, and they still choose to fail.
1
Oh, man, the last line in this rant... priceless.
I really question if you understand how javascript works. Particularly, I like how you say that other sites can't run scripts on the one you're visiting without it being hard-coded. You do understand that javascript is designed to get around the limitation of hard-coding a website, right? The entire point is to make it malleable, 'dynamic', and (incidentally) vulnerable.
For example, many sites use Google ads. That's a line of JS that Google wrote, which you insert (contractually-unmodified) in your site. That script sends queries to Google, using what information it can to match you to its database on you and send back ads submitted by third parties to Google. Those ads, which are inserted by Google, can have embedded script of their own, and as much advertising as Google hosts, they can't catch every bit of malicious code. Even if I didn't object to Google constantly trying to spy on me so that they can decide what ads to bombard me with, I've got an issue with people who have no connection to the site I'm on using Google's dating-sim setup to slap their own code that I have no assurance is not malignant on my screen. And that is assuming everybody in that chain of events has great security, never gets hacked, never has a disgruntled employee insert code, and... well, we're already into "pfft, you're a fool optimist" territory.
My computer is quite capable of handling JS. I have a degree in computer programming. I've been involved in websites' design. You don't need JS, it's a big security hole, and you're better off turning the few bits of it that you find needed on rather than throwing open the flood-gates and hoping nothing nasty comes through. Do you know why I used Google, Facebook, and Twitter as examples? Because they're trying to run scripts on this site every time I log in.
Let's pretend you and I are online right now, both aware of the other. We're going to argue over whether or not seeing each other online encourages people to post like they're on a chat-board. In response to the above post, I respond with a dry one-liner about how you're online and I disagree with you. Since you knew I was online and were curious about my response, you try to be reasonable and point out that I didn't have to make a short post - but in doing so you validate my point by responding with something relatively short in quick succession to my own post. Then we start arguing over the finer details of it, but the posts remain fairly short as they're focused on the specifics of the moment. Other people post, but they kinda get drowned out by our back-and-forth and their slower post-rate.
I've seen this sort of crap happen. It's not good to build up this expectation that you and I will have a conversation of short thoughts punctuated by responses rather than working under the assumption that it could be a while between when we hear from each other. As I'm working now, I'm presenting you with a clear message of what I mean so that you can absorb it as a whole and consider it before making a similar response. That's lost in chat-board behavior. It's too 'now' for it to be thought-out conversation.
And it's funny that you say I should let the designers know I don't like things and offer other ideas. Been there, done that. I suggested that profiles should have options to turn off these various extraneous bits of information that some might find useful and others find annoying. I even pointed out that it would likely decrease bandwidth, thereby improving the site's performance. They think that checking a single field in your profile, to determine if you want to see everything that belongs in everybody else's profile but is not needed on every page that I'm viewing, is too much. And then they add a check to see if everybody involved in the given thread is online and 'visible', every time you load a page.
The new site seems like something I would have considered a grand accomplishment when I took my first classes on HTML and Java (yeah, I'm familiar with the language from which JS derives - enough so that I've coded using JS myself). The staff there seem like children trying to defend their poor code when their instructor wants to teach them how it could be better. They fight against improvement for the sake of pride and, in doing so, earn a failing grade. That is the feedback they've gotten, repeatedly, and they still choose to fail.
0
Javascript truly is a pervasive presence on the Internet. You should have it disabled by default, not disable it here simply for the improved performance you'd see. It's not screwing yourself over to set it so you have to give various sites permission to run potentially-intrusive programs when you visit their websites, and you're always able to give specific sites - or even specific resources sites are pulling from elsewhere online - permission to run their scripts.
For example, you should probably not allow twitter, facebook, and google to run scripts on nearly every site you visit. They pretty much do, unless you're using something to keep them out.
We must frequent different forums. I find this site to be the exception in my expectation of choice in the colors displayed on my screen provided by the site itself so that they don't conflict with the site's standards.
... And it is stupid to have. Such an indicator only encourages chat-board behavior on a site intended to have a slower, better-formatted and more-considered, post-rate. Hurry up and get a response to this posted while I'm online - though I'll probably not notice the response and log off without seeing it anyways...
0
0
It's worth noting that while the Elders disappear should you switch to peaceful, they don't when you switch between creative and survival. Thus, you can gear yourself and have periods of invulnerability to aid in the experiment.
3
That's a grand theory and all, except it's blatantly not doing any good to point out things like:
1) Childish eyesore icons are bad. I don't care whose ego this crushes, everybody hates them. We told you so when you first invited people to view the 'improved' forum. They should have been reverted by now, and maybe somebody with some competence at art could have made you new ones if you absolutely needed to change something which was in no way deficient.
2) Forum themes are a default expected of modern forums. Where the age of this forum excuses that's missing options which are considered standard, this lack on the new forum - and the response that you should get third-party software to fix it - is unacceptable. I helped mod a small forum using free software on a free host years ago, and even that had themes. After weeks on end of telling people that bright, 'cheerful' colors are an eyesore, we've barely managed to step away from all-white for the only theme that team has any intention of putting together.
3) Features pointed out as missing, such as previewing a thread, are still missing. Again, it seems there's very little effort to make this new site better based on the feedback that was requested, so it's likely that the request for feedback was largely a PR stunt that failed. People who gave feedback largely saw themselves dismissed and their interest in making the forum you expect us to use actually viable ignored.
4) This new, 'improved' site is so unprofessional that I have to lower my Internet security to use it. It's coded in such a way that the text-box to respond to a topic registers as suspect javascript and is blocked by default. I don't have that problem here, nor on any forum that I consider worth visiting.
Honestly, this new and 'improved' forum isn't even up to the sub-par standard set by the one we're currently on, and it seems pretty clear that the team setting it up isn't actually interested in feedback other than hollow ego-stroking. And you reverted to an even cruder setup for... it to work better on smartphones? I've not seen a single element of the new forum function faster or better on my PC.
0
"Lapis Size" is one word for the preset string, as is "Lapis Spread"...
You have to add size/color code or add a space to break the 'bad' word, and most people don't realize this or can't be bothered to do so. It's the same old sad, lazy censorship that gives you something like, "I can't find my glasses" being white-spaced out for its inclusion of another word for one's rear end.
GLASS HAS A NAUGHTY WORD IN IT - KILL IT WITH FIRE!
0
I've grown grass into a mushroom-island biome and made a rather nice base there without concern for getting all the lighting 'just so' and the only unwanted visitors in that world were... zombie pigmen when I built a nether portal in that base. Seems that they can 'port over since they're not spawning (maybe also because they're non-hostile initially, but I haven't tested that out with blazes or anything like that...), so that's something to watch out for.
As an added perk of building in a mushroom-island biome, it has a very healthy, vibrant color for anything green growing there. Once you get your grass and trees established, they look good and that appearance contributes to making the base look nice.
Do note, however, that you can (and will) have hostile mobs spawning just outside that biome if there's any land available for them to appear on. Get too close to the edge, and you'll have plenty of baddies come right in to mess with you.
0
0
You mark the wall to the right, and you're going to be confusing yourself - that's a method for square hallways, really.
If every time you have a choice you can look at something and say "That points this way as the way out" then you win. Whatever you do to mark your exit-path, only do it at a room/intersection, and make it stand out. If you end up exploring a chasm or similarly-large cave-area, you can make more pointers along the chasm-floor so each one points to the barely-visible next along the way out. A chasm is essentially a string of rooms/intersections bunched together If you want to mark routes to spawners or other things, use different markings (maybe a different color block, or signs instead of blocks - whatever works).
Going through your sample loop-around-cave, I only ever placed one marker. There were a handful of torches (always on the floor, because that provides maximum spawn-proofing area per torch), but only one sand block just in from the bottom of the Y-shape that was the only intersection. I could see daylight from my only marker. Zero confusion was had.
1
Having a mooshroom penned near a workplace is almost as effective as having a full-auto farm that you get food from. Sure, you can't stack bowls of stew, but you can get as many as you want/need every time you walk up to that pen with a bowl (or maybe keep the bowl in a chest next to it and only take out that dish to eat...).
At this point, breeding and shearing mooshrooms may be one of the best/easiest ways to farm mushrooms. Not sure on the math of that one, but it seems a solid contender - especially since you're likely to breed a replacement, shear a grown one, and then kill it (giving leather and beef as well).
Mooshrooms are high-visibility in most biomes. It's nice to be able to pick them out quickly, at a distance, and know what they are before you've even focused on them enough to register their shape. A small white shape in the distance might be a chicken or sheep, or could be a skeleton's head while it's standing a block lower than the horizon. A brown shape blends too well with most trees until it starts moving (and, again at a glance, you have brown that could be trees and white that could be enemy). A pink shape is probably a pig, but they're not really that great for farming. Soooo... Mooshrooms. They're nice and distinct.
Because you can, and many people don't. Whatever part of that motivates you.
Ultimately, the only reason you do anything in Minecraft is "because you feel like it."
0
I even pointed them at a forum with a nice, standard, dark theme, so they wouldn't have to strain the creativity that gave us hideous cube-icons - no luck.
This wasn't the only topic where I saw a response that reads a lot like "it's your responsibility to make our 'forum' tolerable by adding third-party mods." Well, thank you for telling me that I should have an ad-blocker running so that you at least don't get paid for me to look at this mess, but I don't feel like installing additional layers of software on my PC because you're too lazy to provide what is considered so basic that it's on freeware forums.
Having seen plenty of attempted discussions on the beta end with "ain't nobody got time for that - LOCKED", I'm done with the new forums before they're truly launched. It makes you wonder if the 'new and improved' is improved for them instead of their users. Faults that might be excused here by the age of the forum are glaring laziness on a new forum. Maybe we should marvel at the foolishness of reinventing the wheel when there's so many versions of forum software out there which already outperform what is being presented. Or perhaps we should wonder why they're putting up a joke instead of simply redirecting to reddit - where members of this community can sometimes be admitting you should go if you actually want somebody working on the game to maybe notice you.
That's probably giving them too much credit, though. It's more likely that the site is just bad, and that they've decided they don't need to make it good because you can download further programs and make it better yourself. The way it comes across, they're working on the assumption that everybody re-skins and selectively blocks elements of their forum anyways, so they should just throw everything out there with a half-baked theme and make you do all the filtering on your end. It's simply convenient that said assumption also means they can put less work into their forum.
0
I'll write it off as my javascript security being set high enough that it dislikes the code involved here. You should still know it happens, but it's not likely a high priority (and I won't be turning off my security just to confirm this one, sorry).
3
It's tempting to post that I've hacked into your new website and highlighted the problem areas in white, or to put up an image with a big red circle surrounding the entire content of the page within the background image. The former would be jokingly correct and the latter passive-aggressively correct. An annotated screenshot would be pointing to every section, and simply look like I was mocking you.
The parts of the screen that are too bright are literally all the white parts. It's most of the screen beyond the background image. and therein lies the problem. If it were done sparingly, some white on the screen would not be unpleasant, but when you put a lot of high-brightness color on the screen you're essentially turning up a dimmer-switch on the light that's in front of everybody's eyes. That's what your monitor and my TV are - lights that are constantly shining in our eyes. I have a big screen, so it's a big light. I also have a single overhead bulb in this room, and prefer that not to be overly bright and harsh - so the contrast between my screen and the rest of my surroundings matters.
Have you ever used a laptop in a dimly-lit room, seen the screen come up for Google, and winced at the visual assault? That's the new website. Maybe you could get a feel for this looking at images on your phone in a moderately-lit room? Perhaps you could simply turn off the lights in the office before or after a shift and try to read your own forum as opposed to something like Warseer (I assume some natural light will give you a dim room) to see how the contrast affects your user-base of casual gamers? I'm not sure how to explain it beyond what I have, but this might help:
Open up MSPaint and click the Edit Colors button. All colors that fall in the top 1/3 of that palette, combined with the top 1/3 of the grayscale progression, should be the minority of color displayed on the screen. It's not that these colors are intrinsically bad, it's that when they're the majority of your display they become unpleasant. If I scroll down to view the entirety of "Minecraft Discussion", the majority of my screen is white - the color which is literally my display shining as brightly as it can into my eyes.
EDIT: Also, I note that the idea of having a dark theme as well as this bright one has been casually dismissed and threads suggesting it locked and archived. When you end such discussion with a statement that there will be only one theme and suggesting that people add a third-party resource to reskin your forum so that they like using it, you're telling people not to bother with your forum because you've no interest in making it user-friendly.
0
I reduced the scale of my screen slightly for a more-complete image. Changing the 'zoom' doesn't appear to have anything to do with this bug.
Firefox v29.0.1 on Windows 7
0
And, honestly, your response to this thread may have been less data than the personal info I just got along with it. Think of all the one-liner posts you've seen and consider that, if 1/2 of the people using the forum turned off personal info, you could cut data routed by roughly 1/4 per such post. Essentially you decreased bandwidth usage for a lot of stuff as though you cut out a quarter of the views.
Even just roughing some numbers, if this option were to result in a 1/4 reduction in information sent and 1/5 of people would turn off personal information, we're talking about removing 5% of the site's bandwidth usage for what would only be considered an improvement.