[Theforum] +1/-1 Author Info Blocks

[.jeff]

madhu,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Madhu Menon
>
> I feel, however, that there are just too many numbers
> aka stats out there and some of them don't even mean
> much to me.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

potentially they mean things to other people though.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> For example, "Last login" is surely a waste of prime
> space. Oh yeah, I expect to hear an argument right
> now about how it indicates "community involvement",
> but it doesn't. Logging in doesn't mean I did anything.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

sure it means you did something.  it indicates you visited the site.  and
sure, users visiting the site but not logging in doesn't show either, but if
i'm reading an article from an author that hasn't logged in in over a year,
i'm questioning him immediately.  for example, why hasn't he logged in since
a few days after his only article was published?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I feel the only stats that should remain are:
>
> User since
> Articles written
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

without seeing last login i can't know the relevance of the articles written
stat.  if i can see it, it allows me to make an assumption about how new
some of those articles written might be.  again, using the example of the
author that hasn't logged in in over a year, if he's got 20 articles,
they're all going to be over a year old and therefore probably out of date
(for the most part).  but, if (s)he's logged in within the past week or so,
there's a good chance that some of the articles (s)he's written might be
recent and therefore more relevant.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> But I don't like the design implementation. I would
> prefer getting rid of the dark background and the
> borders. (Frankly, it's a little too brooding for my
> taste.) Why can't we just set it to the same type size
> that it is right now, and leave it at that? Or add line
> borders only for top and bottom. Doesn't box up the
> content, and doesn't distract either.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

you're opinion of the style and the colors is based on your viewing it with
the current stylesheet.  what happens when we fully implement the ability to
select your own?  now the colors and combinations will throw your
observation completely out of wack.

fwiw, we tried it with the same background color as the content, but with
smaller text (like it has now) and it just got lost at the bottom of the
article.

thanks,

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/