...

On a side note, why are the quotes limited to 4 levels? Seems too few to me.

Because there is no point rehashing what is posted a number of times already. With 4 nested quotes, that means the original post is posted 5 times.

Also, if you allowed too many nested quotes you would have one post going over a number of pages. (BTW: I think 'mijan24' meant a thread going over 2-3 pages.)

Whilst searching through the members list I noticed that whilst page numbers appear top and bottom of the page, you can only 'click' on the top numbers not the ones at the bottom.

Emoticons - I suggest a 'simple' smiley be included in the rather small selection from the initial options. This will save having to click on 'show all smileys' everytime.

Is it normal not to receive anymore daily digests of previous threads where I have posted ?

...

On a side note, why are the quotes limited to 4 levels? Seems too few to me.

Because there is no point rehashing what is posted a number of times already. With 4 nested quotes, that means the original post is posted 5 times.

It's a question of how you use it. I prefer to quote sentences and reply right under them and then quote the next sentence I am replying to. Like I am doing in this post. This makes reading easier than quoting the whole post and then writing the replies for all the points under it.

Also, if you allowed too many nested quotes you would have one post going over a number of pages. (BTW: I think 'mijan24' meant a thread going over 2-3 pages.)

No, that is not necessarily true. Inline quoting (that's the term) does not equal over-quoting. I see many people quoting the full post to which they are replying. That has nothing to do with whether inline-quoting, top-quoting, or bottom-quoting should be encouraged.

Too many people far too lazy to tidy up their quotes before posting. It got to the stage there would be pages of quotes then a one line answer.

Too many people far too lazy to tidy up their quotes before posting. It got to the stage there would be pages of quotes then a one line answer.

Correct. Inline-quoting forces you to think about which part you want to quote, so you supporting my point.

And then there are the under-quoters, who quote nothing and we don't know what they are referring to.

UPDATE:

Mobile version of forum now works again on Android:

And then there are the under-quoters, who quote nothing and we don't know what they are referring to.

I hear what you're saying. Mind you replying to previously multiquoted posts can be a real pain.

Can we have a 'view new content' tab at the bottom of the page please?

Any chance?

Can we have a 'view new content' tab at the bottom of the page please?

Any chance?

Just added it, special for you

Where do I download the spell check on this not so good new forum!!

Emoticons - I suggest a 'simple' smiley be included in the rather small selection from the initial options. This will save having to click on 'show all smileys' everytime.

Any chance of this Admin - or are the presents only for Wallaby!

(I - like you - had to go to 'show all' to get the 'tongue')

Where do I download the spell check on this not so good new forum!!

There is no spell check on the forum itself, but you could enable a spell checker in your browser.

What browser are you using?

I think the new layout is OK, it has a more modern touch than the previous one, even if I don't like this minimalist trend where many features are hidden and you have to hover over this or that to make them appear.

The thing I'm definitely not getting used to, however, is the standard avatar for people who don't have one. It makes it very confusing to differentiate between the different posters. Avatars are useful because you just glance at it and you immediately distinguish between people. If they don't have an avatar, your eyes are immediately on their name. Now with this standard avatar I can't help looking at it, then I have to check the name. Very annoying, and I don't think it brings anything good to the forum.

I've been looking for the "subscribe to this topic" link for quite some time, only to find out that the button is hidden behind the "View content" at the top of the page. I think there is also a print button hidden behind the "open quick navigation" icon. Sorry if this has been reported already, I didn't go through all the pages of this topic. I see the problem with Chrome and IE9.

I think the new layout is OK, it has a more modern touch than the previous one, even if I don't like this minimalist trend where many features are hidden and you have to hover over this or that to make them appear.

The thing I'm definitely not getting used to, however, is the standard avatar for people who don't have one. It makes it very confusing to differentiate between the different posters. Avatars are useful because you just glance at it and you immediately distinguish between people. If they don't have an avatar, your eyes are immediately on their name. Now with this standard avatar I can't help looking at it, then I have to check the name. Very annoying, and I don't think it brings anything good to the forum.

We have never assigned avatars to members, they need to upload their own.

Where do I download the spell check on this not so good new forum!!

The speel chequer works automagically over here (Firefox 8.0.1).

And then there are the under-quoters, who quote nothing and we don't know what they are referring to.

I hear what you're saying. Mind you replying to previously multiquoted posts can be a real pain.

True, but with more than 4 quotes allowed, you still have the choice whether you just want to bottom-post or go through the "pain" of inline quoting. What I am suggesting does not force you to use inline-quoting, it merely allows the possibility for those who prefer it.

What I am saying is, don't limit the quote levels. If you want to limit them, use a much higher number, I think at this time I would settle for 10. Those who just want to top-post or top-quote, can still do that, there will be no change for them. Those who prefer inline-quoting (like myself) can do that.

Both methods require responsible trimming of quoted text, so the length is not an issue.

We have never assigned avatars to members, they need to upload their own.

Yes, well whatever you call this :

Whow! I never realized how many "faceless" people posted on TV until now!

<snip>

Both methods require responsible trimming of quoted text, so the length is not an issue.

Therein lies the problem.

We have never assigned avatars to members, they need to upload their own.

Yes, well whatever you call this :

Its the default no avatar picture done by board software.

<snip>

Both methods require responsible trimming of quoted text, so the length is not an issue.

Therein lies the problem.

Yep there are those of us who would do this in a reasonable way in order to keep some continuity for others reading the thread and sadly those who would not.

Ten posts on the news forum could be an entire page of unnecessary quotes before you read what someone has to say. Even then its difficult to see who they are replying to.

Worth a shot maybe but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Its the default no avatar picture done by board software.

So it's a picture, OK, but it doesn't change the fact that I find it very annoying to see this "picture" used for all people who don't have a personalized avatar.

@Chaam local: What would you prefer as the default avatar?

(What was it before this forum upgrade?)

Before the upgrade I think there was nothing, just the poster's name, and it was fine to me. If it has to be a picture, then I would prefer something very small, the less eye-catching possible. I think the current image looks too much like an avatar, so it's like many people sharing the same avatar.

Before the upgrade I think there was nothing, just the poster's name, and it was fine to me. If it has to be a picture, then I would prefer something very small, the less eye-catching possible. I think the current image looks too much like an avatar, so it's like many people sharing the same avatar.

I agree, we will change it to blank or to a better avatar, webmaster will be looking into this.

Never change a winning side. New layout sucks.

I don't know if the forum software includes the ability to collapse quotes-within-quotes-within-quotes, but that would be a nice way of getting back some of the wasted space.

Readers could manually expand the q-w-q-w-q if they want extra background information.