On Monday, July 3rd 2006 1:37 pm, SebDE wrote:

On Monday, July 3rd 2006 1:28 pm, Murdock wrote: TV Tome goofs section was called "Goof and Nitpicks". I suppose that's what SebDE meant. Indeed. On Monday, July 3rd 2006 12:56 pm, MacDeacon wrote: Not really a goof: Arnold said that he didn't think there were any demons in the house. Why didn't he just scan with the spectrometer that he was carrying to make sure? Well yeah looks like one, but just remix the parts of the sentence and you have fine note, tough On Monday, July 3rd 2006 1:34 pm, MacDeacon wrote: I just hate it when people start arguing over whether something is "really" a Goof vs. "only" a Nitpick. So making them stand out as one or the other within the same section would make sense. Ok now you got a point there... But with all the different sections we have it's pretty much destinct enough for my taste

My point was to call it "Goofs and Nitpicks" (or whatever) and then have a choice of marking each entry as one or the other. I'm not calling for yet another separate section.

Nitpicks are mostly "Why didn't he..." or "How on earth did she..." ponderances. Those type of questions really don't belong in Notes at all.

On Monday, July 3rd 2006 2:01 pm, MacDeacon wrote:

My point was to call it "Goofs and Nitpicks" (or whatever) and then have a choice of marking each entry as one or the other. I'm not calling for yet another separate section.

Yes and I didn't misunderstood it as new section, I'm just saying that I think the already existing sections are enough to deal with that. Just the aspect that it's not always consensus where it belongs really is note worthy here for me imo

On Monday, July 3rd 2006 2:01 pm, MacDeacon wrote:

Nitpicks are mostly "Why didn't he..." or "How on earth did she..." ponderances. Those type of questions really don't belong in Notes at all.

Yes not as question, but as I wrote it can be easily rewritten as a note and would just work with the current system

"Arnold mentioned that he didn't think there were any demons in the house, but he hasn't ensured this with the spectrometer he is carrying with him all the time." That would count as propper note for me o.0

Also before blame is passed on the user for problems check the site and run tests on each feature to make sure it functions proporly because if one person has a problem someplace so will the rest of us and I ran into just that yesterday trying to update my picture. So had a few others. Just a suggestion guys.

On Wednesday, July 5th 2006 3:22 am, wentwood wrote:

Also before blame is passed on the user for problems check the site and run tests on each feature to make sure it functions proporly because if one person has a problem someplace so will the rest of us and I ran into just that yesterday trying to update my picture. So had a few others. Just a suggestion guys.

What's your problem man? The Picture uploading works just fine. Your descriptions point to exactly one thing that repetingly happens with ppl who don't bother reading the FAQ period.

Well because of those guys like you I have a real suggestion, a technical one tough, so this won't happen in the fist place. Instead of replacing the image-data in the database it should be handled like a new picture (the old should be marked for deletion of course). Thus a new ID would be generated... the image-url would change and no browser could reload the image from the cache.

Well sometimes things go wrong with some parts of the system and when that happens everybody gets screwed up when they're trying to use that feature. That's it. When I work with Episode Guides UK we had to run a system check and when we did and tested everything before our site relaunch it was all working smoothly. It's more or less of maintaining the site rather than my having a problem. Our site staff spent a few weeks checking our features out to make sure nothing went wrong and serving as content manager for them I knew how important it was to help get things running smoothly. When I heard from my co admins on episode Guides they were testinbg stuff out. So nobody is to blame but we're at present making sure things do work. So I know what yopu guys are giong through here. I've held my post for several months now. I just want to point out what we had to and are still going through so never mind the blame thing. Technical bugs are being taken care of.

Ah, so you're suggesting that we test things at the new version of the site before launching? Got it!

That's what our site did so yes I am.

But will it make getting around slower? I don't want that. That's one of the reasons I hardly use TV.com. It's so slow and it's hard when you have dial-up.

Some sites watch the graphics lay out because they want to get as many people on as possible. Higher res sites can slow some connections down whie other more current computers no prob so it also depends on your operating system how well it can handle. So a lot of factors can play into the speed of connection to the sites. Sometimes graphics can slow the connection down causinbg it to take longer. Site managers have to take all this into account. There are a few complaints online where the site has caused the connection to slow or even stall out cauing people to have to restart their computer.

On Thursday, July 6th 2006 8:29 pm, SPD11 wrote:

Some sites watch the graphics lay out because they want to get as many people on as possible. Higher res sites can slow some connections down whie other more current computers no prob so it also depends on your operating system how well it can handle. So a lot of factors can play into the speed of connection to the sites. Sometimes graphics can slow the connection down causinbg it to take longer. Site managers have to take all this into account. There are a few complaints online where the site has caused the connection to slow or even stall out cauing people to have to restart their computer.

Sorry, we don't take ban dodger's ideas into consideration. Don't bother coming back now.

What if ban dodgers have good ideas?

Ban dodgers are usually trolls and spammers -- they hardly have the brains to think of something useful.

Apologies if this has been mentioned - this thread is now 35 pages long...

Often an actor plays multiple characters in the same show, in different episodes. Right now the 'Recurring Epiosdes' section of the General Info page appears to assume he or she plays whatever character was played in the chronologically first episode. It would be nice if all the characters could be displayed, or if that first character could be followed by something like "...and others".

I did not see anything in the upcoming features list that seemed to be this...

That's a good idea, like on the Doctor Who (2005) guide there is one guy who plays most of the creatures yet he is only credited as playing the last creature he played.

On Saturday, July 15th 2006 12:52 pm, CommanderBalok wrote:

Apologies if this has been mentioned - this thread is now 35 pages long... Often an actor plays multiple characters in the same show, in different episodes. Right now the 'Recurring Epiosdes' section of the General Info page appears to assume he or she plays whatever character was played in the chronologically first episode. It would be nice if all the characters could be displayed, or if that first character could be followed by something like "...and others". I did not see anything in the upcoming features list that seemed to be this...

that has been brought up and discussed. seb talked about finding away around that. whether or not he did anything with it,... well i guess we'll just have to wait and see.