To avoid confusion, you should make a separate topic for each suggestion you have.

Thanks, and Scratch on!

Full Support

bigpuppy wrote:

To avoid confusion, you should make a separate topic for each suggestion you have.

Thanks, and Scratch on!

Why comment this when:

1. No confusion has been induced
2. It's fairly clear that these suggestions are small and fit fine in 1

jji10 wrote:

Semi support, I support 4 but not 1-3. The current emoticons are fine and the emoticon you suggested is too… immature and cartoony. Colouring is meh, I wouldn't mind either way. The not being able to just say support makes no sense because sometimes all the reasons are mentioned in the post. On the other hand, just say “No support” wouldn't be good, so if you replace the not being able to say just “Support” with not being able to say just “No support” then I support 3 as well.

Alright, understood for the emoticons and coloring statement, but I'm confused by the last part.

Prof_Red wrote:

Semi-Support for 1-3, but no support for 4, We can be free to post what we want on any post, and besides, its really only necroposting if you dont contribute to the discussion or if you aren't bumping it.

Alright.

Thanks for reading,
Austinato

MathlyCat wrote:

bigpuppy wrote:

To avoid confusion, you should make a separate topic for each suggestion you have.

Thanks, and Scratch on!

Why comment this when:

1. No confusion has been induced
2. It's fairly clear that these suggestions are small and fit fine in 1

Other people might get confused.

bigpuppy wrote:

MathlyCat wrote:

bigpuppy wrote:

To avoid confusion, you should make a separate topic for each suggestion you have.

Thanks, and Scratch on!

Why comment this when:

1. No confusion has been induced
2. It's fairly clear that these suggestions are small and fit fine in 1

Other people might get confused.

I think we will let it slide this time, since it's already confusing enough trying to accommodate suggestions for a future code base with suggestions for this code base.

Austinato wrote:

jji10 wrote:

Semi support, I support 4 but not 1-3. The current emoticons are fine and the emoticon you suggested is too… immature and cartoony. Colouring is meh, I wouldn't mind either way. The not being able to just say support makes no sense because sometimes all the reasons are mentioned in the post. On the other hand, just say “No support” wouldn't be good, so if you replace the not being able to say just “Support” with not being able to say just “No support” then I support 3 as well.

Alright, understood for the emoticons and coloring statement, but I'm confused by the last part.

The not being able to say just support is not supported by me because the reasons could well have been in the original post. On the other hand, disagreeing (saying “no support”) for no apparent reason, should be added.

bigpuppy wrote:

MathlyCat wrote:

bigpuppy wrote:

To avoid confusion, you should make a separate topic for each suggestion you have.

Thanks, and Scratch on!

Why comment this when:

1. No confusion has been induced
2. It's fairly clear that these suggestions are small and fit fine in 1

Other people might get confused.

If you're confused you should post so.
No one has really posted so, and like Paddle said it makes sense to keep 3.0 suggestions with their own since people this suggest for the 2.0 forums.

For “Automatic Necroposting Prevention”, the block method should not be used. That would just be annoying. Just imagine:

user wrote:

Why can't I view this really cool post? Just because it was posted a while ago doesn't I should be locked out of it! I really hate this message! It's so annoying!

Instead, the prevention method should be used. (though it shouldn't not let you post, sometimes people don't mind necroposting or necroposting doesn't count on their topic.)

Support for number 3, if the message says

message wrote:

Welcome to the <insert forum here> forum! You must be new here, so check out the stickys. The stickys are the rules of this forum.

<insert forum here> would be replaced with the forum you were on. The “stickys” link would link to a page listing the stickys. (I've just linked it to rejected suggestions.)
EDIT: Sorry for double post. :P

Austinato wrote:

Assuming in Scratch 3.0, forums will be slightly/heavily modified, so here's a few suggestions I have:

1. Further coloring of each page.
You may or might not understand what I mean by this, but the forum pages (like this one) should be more colorful. Not a full rainbow design nor a solid color, but perhaps a small touch of white, blue, and/or orange? This doesn't mean the website would look 100% childish, but it would provide a more cheerful mood.

2. Simplified Emojis
Drawing inspiration from how the modern smiley has evolved, perhaps cleaner or more simpler emojis could be implemented. I was actually thinking some similar to this, too.
Obviously, there's some opposition to this suggestion. I, myself, enjoy emojis as long as they don't go overboard. However, I think the current smileys ( ) are becoming slightly less appealing to some audiences.

3. Top Section to each Sub-Forum
At the top of each sub-forum's main page, there could be a larger module at the top of the screen that summarizes the current stickies and is more noticeable to newer Scratchers. Obviously, some may actually read this, but others may not, but this is somewhat better than the current stickies. Once the new scratcher clicks “Close”, or sees the dialog for a number of times, the module would be gone and it's back to the current look. The module would look like something similar to this for Suggestions:

Welcome to the Suggestions forum! Please follow these tips to get the best responses possible!

> Keep posts relevant. Your posts should have something to do with the topic. Please don't just place random ScratchBlocks or offtopic posts in the Suggestions forums.

> Keep topics relevant. Make sure what you're talking about is in the correct location, so in here you should propose your suggestions only. Also make sure that what you're suggesting doesn't already exist.

> Read the stickies. A crucial guide to the Suggestions forums that help keep this area rolling and on-topic. Definitely worth reading and is found at the top of the list below.

> Don't necropost. Don't post on topics that have not been replied to for a long time.

> Be constructive. When posting in the Suggestions forums, please don't say “Support.” Please elaborate on why you support.

{Alright, got it!}

4. Automatic Necroposting Prevention
To prevent necroposting, topics that have not received a new response for at least 30 days would receive a message preventing or blocking the user from posting (excluding OPs or for forums that don't enforce necroposting

Prevention Method

Whoa, this topic is old. Try not to necropost, or post after a long period of time.

Block Method

Oops! This topic is old. Let's go back and surf the Scratch Forums!

No support for suggestion #1 because the forums look just fine and adding more color might make them look bad. I don't like how Scratches new homepage looks and I would hate to have the fourms look like that too IMO. Support for #2 as long as they don't look like what you linked and you can still use the current emoji. No support for #3 because putting a list of the stickys above the stickys feels kinda pointless. No support for #4 because as long as it adds something to the conversation it doesn't matter when the last post was.
Put me down as undefined, just like sigton

jji10 wrote:

Austinato wrote:

jji10 wrote:

Semi support, I support 4 but not 1-3. The current emoticons are fine and the emoticon you suggested is too… immature and cartoony. Colouring is meh, I wouldn't mind either way. The not being able to just say support makes no sense because sometimes all the reasons are mentioned in the post. On the other hand, just say “No support” wouldn't be good, so if you replace the not being able to say just “Support” with not being able to say just “No support” then I support 3 as well.

Alright, understood for the emoticons and coloring statement, but I'm confused by the last part.

The not being able to say just support is not supported by me because the reasons could well have been in the original post. On the other hand, disagreeing (saying “no support”) for no apparent reason, should be added.

Alright…?

dude341 wrote:

For “Automatic Necroposting Prevention”, the block method should not be used. That would just be annoying. Just imagine:

user wrote:

Why can't I view this really cool post? Just because it was posted a while ago doesn't I should be locked out of it! I really hate this message! It's so annoying!

Instead, the prevention method should be used. (though it shouldn't not let you post, sometimes people don't mind necroposting or necroposting doesn't count on their topic.)

Agreed. I'll modify the original post, because I really no longer support a full block on necroposting anymore.

dude341 wrote:

Support for number 3, if the message says

message wrote:

Welcome to the <insert forum here> forum! You must be new here, so check out the stickys. The stickys are the rules of this forum.

<insert forum here> would be replaced with the forum you were on. The “stickys” link would link to a page listing the stickys. (I've just linked it to rejected suggestions.)
EDIT: Sorry for double post. :P

Yes, an introduction message at the top of each forum when someone first opens that subforum is the goal.
No problem.

Digital_Gaming wrote:

No support for #3 because putting a list of the stickys above the stickys feels kinda pointless.

Firstly, it's a bit hard to read when you quote the entire original post. I understand that you're speaking about the original post when you contribute to this topic.

Anyways, understood for each point that you said, except for your opposition to #3. It's just a one-time introduction that really just gathers more attention to stickies for newcomers. It won't specifically be worded like the example, however it's goal is to outline the stickies and kind of enforce them.

(Edit: Fixed {/small} tag.)

I think I support this :)

(This might be cool: -> )

I don't think they will change the forums, just update them to the new style.

Sigton

Sigton wrote:

I don't think they will change the forums, just update them to the new style.

Sigton

Yeah, they're slowly updating the style of the rest of the site, so I don't expect them to add a ton of things to the forums






Unrelated, but I should make a suggestion for a search bar next to the search button

I support all. The forums aren't the most appealing and I think a change of colour would do them good. I also agree that they should smoothen the emojis, they're getting old.

hedgehog_blue wrote:

I think I support this :)

(This might be cool: -> )

Thanks for the support and that style of emoji would be the type I propose.

Sigton wrote:

I don't think they will change the forums, just update them to the new style.

Sigton

Yes.

hedgehog_blue wrote:

Yeah, they're slowly updating the style of the rest of the site, so I don't expect them to add a ton of things to the forums

Unrelated, but I should make a suggestion for a search bar next to the search button

Agreed.

1. Semi-Support. I believe the forums could be a bit brighter. ^-^ just don't overload it.

2. Support. The faces start to get quite tiresome after a little bit.

3. Support. This would be very helpful to reduce the amount of vague guides, necroposting and other forms of spam you can think of.

4. Somewhat of a duplicate. There is a more detailed version of this suggestion. Can't find the link atm though.

EDIT: I didn't barge into a possible flame war did I? >_>

EDIT2: Found 4rth suggestion twin: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/55156/ (it's two years old however)

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

1. Semi-Support. I believe the forums could be a bit brighter. ^-^ just don't overload it.

Overloading it is not the intention of the suggestion, but I'm sure you know that.

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

4. Somewhat of a duplicate. There is a more detailed version of this suggestion. Can't find the link atm though.

EDIT: I didn't barge into a possible flame war did I? >_>

EDIT2: Found 4rth suggestion twin: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/55156/ (it's two years old however)

1. Thanks for the link, I'll remove most of the content but keep some original ideas in the OP.
2. I don't think there's a flame war going on?

As a result of the fourth suggestion being redirected/removed, people who only disagreed with 4 have been promoted to Full Supporters.

Austinato wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

EDIT: I didn't barge into a possible flame war did I? >_>

2. I don't think there's a flame war going on?

It just seemed that things were getting a little heated.

But to me it always seems like that in most suggestions tbh. ._.