ATS 2010 Updates Thread - #(UPDATE Nov. 10)#

reply to post by ArMaP


And the zoom feature works just fine for you with the new ATS?

reply to post by Mary Rose


I just tried it (Opera) and the feature works fine. It's not quite the same as Firefox+nosquint, but it is very close. Much better than the zoom function on Chromium. Plus, I do think Opera seems to work faster on ATS than Firefox (I've thought that about Chromium too) but don't have anything to back that up, just my perception. You should just give it a shot, I think it's all user preference for the most part, anyway.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yes, it works without a problem.

This is how I see this thread when zoomed-in with NoSquint in Firefox at 200% (to exaggerate any problem).


And this is how I see it in Opera.


I only noticed now that in Firefox the text in my signature is grey instead of blue.

I've installed and uninstalled NoSquint twice now and installed and uninstalled Opera. I've decided I'm better off just keeping plain Firefox, which I'm used to, and just have "RECENT" instead of "RECENT POSTS," and live with the goofy looking Google Custom Search box.

LOL!

Originally posted by ArMaP
I only noticed now that in Firefox the text in my signature is grey instead of blue.

I've noticed this a few times when people try to change font color and it doesn't work in Firefox. I think it can be fixed by using the number sign / hash before the hex code for the color:

color=#abcdef instead of color=abcdef

Checking to see:

[color=0000aa]Check... check... check...
[color=#0000aa]Check... check... check...

If I'm right, in some browsers the two lines above will be the same color, but in Firefox the first will be the default text color.

reply to post by americandingbat


You're right.

Apologies if this has come up before, but why do all the thread titles and in a comma ,

reply to post by zazzafrazz


Looks like a grammar thing. To separate the title from the page number and make it look all formal and stuff:

"Purple Monkey Dishwasher, Page 1"


-TheAssoc.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . and live with the goofy looking Google Custom Search box.

I was able to get rid of this by relying on the Tools menu of Firefox to change the Minimum font size instead of messing with Zoom. I also changed my Default font which seemed to help.

It is not a question just a remark:

If you use the button to hide the avatars and backgrounds of members, the colour of the text such as name and mood and stuff does not change. Some members did change their text into black, I assume they did that to comply with the guidelines for using a background image. Your text need to be readable. That is logic. But without the image it is not readable, The dark colors of text just need to be inverted.

TY

What is the "Karma" indicator below our mini-profiles? Is that based off of the stars and flags we dole out?


--airspoon

I noticed a Karma category under the avatars...


Mine is '0'...





How is this calculated and what's up with it in general..?


And no, other than the last page of this thread, I did not look for the info...

I'm quite curious about this karma thing too. At least I have karma. Of course, I'm assuming it's good karma instead of bad karma.

Ohhhhh, and my "W" rating is slowly climbing. I'm registering a 0.07.

It seems that Skeptic Overlord mentioned "Karma" in this thread a long, long time ago, don't remember what was said and not about to go looking for it. It was probably somewhere in the beginning.

I guess I missed the information about Karma also.

Mahree

reply to post by Three_moons


Also curious about the karma issue, but at least on the last 4 pages of this thread I didn't see it explained.

btw Three_moons you appear to be the next James Bond...
0.07--ATS with a license to deny...

Now it says Karma: (calculating)

Um....what?

As many have noticed, a new "KARMA" parameter has been added to the mini-profiles... and perhaps because of some of the comments in this thread, I moved-up the integration plan a bit.

First... the "WATS" score. I know many believe there to be some controversy or at the least, unfairness, in the method of calculation for the "Way Above Top Secret" ranking. The concerns/comments/ideas have not been ignored, but since the intent is to apply a heavy statistical weight to those who start threads, I believe the oft-discussed formula serves that purpose well, but may be refined as a result of the KARMA rank in order to place a much higher value on flags.

However, there are lots of members who contribute well, but may not start many threads; the KARMA score is for them. The karma calculation places a high weight on stars, a secondary weight on staff applause, and a tertiary lesser-weight on Flags; then compares all that against the number of posts. So that it is indeed possible for a new member with few threads, but great ideas in lots of replies, to achieve a higher "KARMA" than long-time high-WATS members.



Okay... I know what you're thinking, "This can be abused."

Any system can be gamed in one way or another. However, since the new calculation is based on a combination of factors that includes the input of staff applause, it won't be easy.

So enjoy your Karma while it lasts. Tomorrow, a new person may join whose awesomeness whips yer but.

reply to post by facelift


LOL dude you have a solid 100!
Way to go.

ETA
Just noticed your score plummeted down to 99

Thanks SO for clearing that up.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Cool SO i like it.

Being more of a poster than a thread writer it's nice to have a value placed on good posts.



Can i have an applause? er no ok then, just asking.

(ignore)