# "GENERIC"



## MerakSpielman (Dec 3, 2003)

If you don't mind, that tag is a little... annoying....


----------



## Morrus (Dec 3, 2003)

Man, it's only been there a couple of seconds.  I'm playing around.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 3, 2003)

I wouldn't mind it if the background was the grey of the messages, but as it is, it stands out a wee bit too much.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

Ok, what about this...  Less garish.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 3, 2003)

I too find it... distracting. 

Not like a hot chick standing behind you tickling your ear with a feather distracting; more like... a sweaty fat uncle who's really loud and bellicose trying to set you up with his mom's friend over Thanksgiving dinner when you're hung over distracting. 

It isn't even really accurate, since very few threads are actually 'generic' (imho).

(No offense, Moruss! )


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 3, 2003)

Much better!


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

the Jester said:
			
		

> I too find it... distracting.
> 
> Not like a hot chick standing behind you tickling your ear with a feather distracting; more like... a sweaty fat uncle who's really loud and bellicose trying to set you up with his mom's friend over Thanksgiving dinner when you're hung over distracting.
> 
> ...




The idea is that it's a default icon.  But for it to be operable we'll need more community icons and I notice they're slowly appearing - it's takes awhile.

They'll be a period where these post labels will need to cycle through -but they work quite well once used in force - see Nutkinalnd for an example.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 3, 2003)

the Jester said:
			
		

> It isn't even really accurate, since very few threads are actually 'generic' (imho).



That's the idea.  Hopefully, people will prefer to use an accurate icon rather than use the default one.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

d20 Modern


----------



## Len (Dec 3, 2003)

Is it necessary to put the icon on top of every comment? I find that distracting, and how often are the comments on a different topic than the original post? Well, OK, but they're not _supposed_ to be.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

Len said:
			
		

> Is it necessary to put the icon on top of every comment? I find that distracting, and how often are the comments on a different topic than the original post? Well, OK, but they're not _supposed_ to be.




My experience has been that having a "generic" icon encourages people to find more appropriate icons.  After a couple of weeks the generic icons should become sorta rare.

BTW, it's possible to sort by icon.  If you like a certain topic it makes it easier to find posts on it when all the posts have a certain icon.


----------



## Argent Silvermage (Dec 3, 2003)

Len said:
			
		

> Is it necessary to put the icon on top of every comment? I find that distracting, and how often are the comments on a different topic than the original post? Well, OK, but they're not _supposed_ to be.



I have to agree. as soon as I saw that on top of my posts It made it seem that my posts were being looked upon as somehow inferior.


----------



## Len (Dec 3, 2003)

So you're saying that only the "Generic" icon gets repeated in every follow-up comment? Sort of as a punishment?

No, that's not it. In this thread it starts out with a "3.0" icon but the follow-up comments have "Generic". Can't we just assume that all the follow-ups are talking about 3.0 without cluttering up the page?


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

Len said:
			
		

> So you're saying that only the "Generic" icon gets repeated in every follow-up comment? Sort of as a punishment?
> 
> No, that's not it. In this thread it starts out with a "3.0" icon but the follow-up comments have "Generic". Can't we just assume that all the follow-ups are talking about 3.0 without cluttering up the page?




No, there's a way to turn it off.  I don't know it though.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 3, 2003)

Is there ANY chance we can go back to a blank?

Please.

I've never commented on anything of a style nature before becauase it really makes no difference to me.

But that hideous scar piled up on the page is so distracting that it is difficult to skim the topics.

Please, it was not remotely broken.


----------



## Len (Dec 3, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> No, there's a way to turn it off.  I don't know it though.



Well, you figured out how to turn it on today...


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

Len said:
			
		

> Well, you figured out how to turn it on today...




No, Russ did.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 3, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Is there ANY chance we can go back to a blank?
> 
> Please.
> 
> ...



I agree with this. I can no longer just scan the page and see where the new threads end. I actually have to look, which I don't really want to do. Plus it's just unnecessary. Not every thread needs a tag, that's why we have forums and thread titles.

Really annoying from a user standpoint, and useless.


----------



## Tewligan (Dec 3, 2003)

I'm with BryonD. Boo to the 'Generic' tag!


----------



## johnsemlak (Dec 3, 2003)

I understand it's experimental, but I'll throw in my vote against this default generic tag.

I think most people do use the appropriate tags when necessary, more often than not at least.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 3, 2003)

Not seeing any tags at all in "Stealth Mode" for whatever reason.  And the colors are easy on the eyes.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I understand it's experimental, but I'll throw in my vote against this default generic tag.
> 
> I think most people do use the appropriate tags when necessary, more often than not at least.




While I like the idea of a default generic tag, now is not the time.  It should be implemented only when the majority of posts already have a tag.  That isn't the case now, and it may never be, so while we're offering opinions, I'd say turn it off.  Course that's only an opinion.


----------



## Davelozzi (Dec 3, 2003)

I agree with the consensus here, the generic tag is both annoying and unnecessary.  It wasn't broken before.


----------



## Len (Dec 3, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Len said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry MM, let's change "you" to "one of you". 

And I just clued in that the generic icons on the showthread pages are an automatic side-effect of adding them to the forumdisplay pages.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

DM Magic said:
			
		

> If people hate the GENERIC tag so much, it'll just be even more incentive to choose the correct tag!




That's fine and well if folks have been using post icons for a month or so, but their mandatory use here is a relatively new idea.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

DM Magic said:
			
		

> Good point.
> 
> As an aside, you do realize that several old icons are still mixed in with the new ones? I mentioned it in another thread, but you might have missed it.




Refresh your cache - your browser is clinging.

BTW, we will need more post icons if we are to make them mandatory.  I started to switch the labels to something more appropriate in General (Yes, I know I'm not a mod but I'm going generically insane here), but quickly realized there aren't enough to cover the bases.


----------



## der_kluge (Dec 3, 2003)

Bah, change is bad!  

BTW, if we're getting tags for everything, can we get a tag for Story Hour?


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 3, 2003)

LOL.

"Change is bad, but while you're at it, here's a suggestion..."


I don't mind tags, as long as they're not eyesores. Don't be expecting me to use 'em that often, though.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 3, 2003)

What I'm saying is expect a lot of generic tags from people like me who can't be bothered to select a different one. Might as well make them look decent.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Dec 3, 2003)

DM Magic said:
			
		

> I believe the end result is that they are a requirement now. If you don't choose one, the GENERIC tag gets used as a default.




I think that GENERIC is MM's subtle way to get people using the 'Stealth' style again.  

Very sneaky, MM.

-F

edit:  



			
				Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Implementing the Generic tag is Russ' idea




I take it back.  

Very sneaky, Morrus.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 3, 2003)

Sadly, I liked the boards better just without the tags at all.

Would it be possible to get a variation of stealth mode that is the usual black/grey/gold color scheme, but without tags?


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Sadly, I liked the boards better just without the tags at all.
> 
> Would it be possible to get a variation of stealth mode that is the usual black/grey/gold color scheme, but without tags?




Yes.

But I don't want to do it just yet.  Implementing the Generic tag is Russ' idea, and if I designed a theme to dodge the icons he would be rightly miffed.  BTW, in Stealth you can't select icons (they aren't there to be selected).


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 3, 2003)

Bah.

I can read all the thread titles on the front page in a few seconds. What do I need a lousy tag for? If you want to use them, go ahead and use them. I'm not arguing for them to go away, I just don't care for them enough to bother with another mental process. Maybe I'm just lazy.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> Bah.
> 
> I can read all the thread titles on the front page in a few seconds. What do I need a lousy tag for? If you want to use them, go ahead and use them. I'm not arguing for them to go away, I just don't care for them enough to bother with another mental process. Maybe I'm just lazy.




It's possible to sort posts by icon, which is faster than running a search and often more effective than other means of sorting.  But for that sorting to work the posts have to have icons.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 3, 2003)

Please kill the GENERIC tag.   I can't think of anything I've seen lately that is visually more obnoxious (except, perhaps, if you made it flashing).  Especially since, like a virus, it seems to clone itself to every reply.

I'd much prefer that generic posts simply have no icon.  I'd really prefer no icons (or at least, to have a way to turn them off like sigs and avatars) -- but I realize that's probably too retro for some folks.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 3, 2003)

I've switched to Stealth mode, which solves my problem, but I miss the friendly EN World gold-on-black.  Ah, well, can't have everything, I suppose.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 3, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I'd much prefer that generic posts simply have no icon.




Heh.  I popped into Meta when it started to get too much... I guess I shouldn't be surprised two pages of posts beat me to it 

I'm strongly in the "Generic icon should be blank, or all-but-unnoticeable" camp.

-Hyp.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 3, 2003)

Ok, I'm in stealth mode.

Why is it called "stealth"?



> As has been said several times before, the GENERIC tag will go away once people start USING the correct tags.




Effective identical statement:  70% of threads will say GENERIC until the admins give in.

As has been said several times before, the GENERIC tag will go away once pigs start flying.

As has been said several times before, the GENERIC tag will go away once it gets cold in hell.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm in stealth mode.
> 
> Why is it called "stealth"?
> 
> ...




I dunno.  That was the name it shipped with.  Stealth is one of the two themes that VBulletin has when you first install it.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 3, 2003)

DM Magic said:
			
		

> To further the argument of every post having an icon:
> 
> If 70% of the threads don't have icons, it defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.




Actually, they pretty strongly furthers the argument that they are not needed.  We've done quite nicely for four years now.

And, as I said in my first post, I don't care a lick about change.  But I am annoyed by pointless damage to a perfectly functional system.

Heck, "stealth" mode is a pretty heavy change.  And honestly, it is ugly.  But I don't really care.
I got my functionality back.

Stealth = Change = no big
GENERIC = eye pain and hard to read thread titles = Bad

Thanks for the answer Michael


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 3, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Actually, they pretty strongly furthers the argument that they are not needed.  We've done quite nicely for four years now.
> 
> And, as I said in my first post, I don't care a lick about change.  But I am annoyed by pointless damage to a perfectly functional system.
> 
> ...




Don't thank me - Josh Dyal was the one who noted that part of the theme.  Stealth ships the way it is, I've not modified it (much)


----------



## BryonD (Dec 3, 2003)

DM Magic said:
			
		

> you can instantly gloss over the entire page and see what does not interest you.




This also does not work for me.  There are topics within each TAG that interest me and topics that do not.  

I am suprised to hear that some people's interests break out so distinctly, if they in fact do....


----------



## BryonD (Dec 3, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Don't thank me - Josh Dyal was the one who noted that part of the theme.  Stealth ships the way it is, I've not modified it (much)




Actually, I was just thanking you for answering my question about the name.

So thanks to Michael for an answer and thanks to Joshua for a solution.


----------



## pogre (Dec 4, 2003)

I've read the arguments - I'm still against the Generic tag.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 4, 2003)

pogre said:
			
		

> I've read the arguments - I'm still against the Generic tag.



Yes, the tags are still useless, because I like some topics in most categories, so I *still* have to read the thread subject. What exact benefit have I been given?

Oh, and Stealth mode SUCKS ROCKS.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 4, 2003)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Oh, and Stealth mode SUCKS ROCKS.




Huh huh.. Calm down Beavis...

Seriously, Stealth & VBulletin are the two styles I didn't do other than to change their headings to match the rest of the site.  So don't yell at me over them.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 4, 2003)

Not to yell at anyone, but to add my voice -- I'm not crazy about the "mandatory" tags, either. It's nice to give people the option to mark their messages, but I don't see any advantage in requiring such a mark for every thread.

There aren't enough threads on a given page to require anything more than scanning the thread titles -- and I'm interested in everything, so divvying stuff up by topic does me very little good.

I don't much care one way or the other, but it's a small increase in annoyance for zero increase in value.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 4, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Not to yell at anyone...




Of course, as it stands right now, your message reads "*GENERIC*!  Not to yell at anyone..."

-Hyp.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 4, 2003)

If there is a vore, consider my vote cast for the removal of tags all together, completely. I havn't liked them since day one, but the old ones were, while sometimes a bit garish, at least much smaller and easier to read if you wanted to use them. 

Baring that, make a version that is selectable that shows no tags, but otherwise looks like normal.

I'm running in stealth mode just to get rid of the tags now. I don't like the look, but it's better than regular w/ tags.

And I'll echo someone elses statement... you will get people to stop using the default tag when pigs fly and satan invests in thermal underwear.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Dec 4, 2003)

I must add my vote for the removal of, at the very least, the "generic" tag.

Especially in the IC forums, this tag is *very* annoying already.  I dislike having all the posts in a game having a big "GENERIC" on them.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 4, 2003)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Especially in the IC forums, this tag is *very* annoying already.  I dislike having all the posts in a game having a big "GENERIC" on them.




No, that's just Morrus expressing his disdain for all of your attempts at enthralling storylines 

-Hyp.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Dec 4, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, that's just Morrus expressing his disdain for all of your attempts at enthralling storylines
> 
> -Hyp.




Hey!

That's not very nice.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 4, 2003)

Count me in against the mandatory tags, and as one who thinks the Generic tag is garishly annoying.

My advice on the tag itself is to tone down the contrast - in design you want the eye to be drawn to the most important element on the page.  I don't know what that would be, but it sure as heck _shouldn't_ be the generic, default tag.

The boards look cluttered and ugly with all the tags flying around.  

As for making people use them - just look at how many people here are expressing intense dislike of them.  And then consider the fact that _likely no one_ ever requested them to be put in place in the first place.

I'm sure it will become clear what the right choice is, but if you want to keep the generic tag a default, you should tone it done massively so that it isn't so darned obnoxious.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 4, 2003)

Ok, at the risk of raising Russ' ire, I'm a gonna kill Generic.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 4, 2003)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Hey!
> 
> That's not very nice.




Yeah.  You should complain 

More "Exciting!", "Hot Stuff!", and "Zowee!" tags for the IC forums!

-Hyp.


----------



## Oni (Dec 4, 2003)

I may be retreading something that has already been said, but I'm going to go ahead and post it.  

1.  Seeing the big bold generic over and over again is a bit distracting.  

2.  the other tags get lost in the wash, reducing their utility.  

My suggestion, instead of the generic tag get rid of it, it will make the other tags stand out a lot more, and be more useful.  If it doesn't have a tag, then the fact that it's "generic" should be obvious by default.  If it's a matter of having to use a tag, perioud then I'd say put in one thats the same colour as the background to somethingto it's not showing up like crazy.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 4, 2003)

To kill the generic, refresh your browser.


----------



## Tsyr (Dec 4, 2003)

I think the name "Stealth" is supposed to refer to the fact it's kinda monotone and professional... Probably wouldn't be glanced at twice by someone walking by a cubical.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 4, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> I think the name "Stealth" is supposed to refer to the fact it's kinda monotone and professional... Probably wouldn't be glanced at twice by someone walking by a cubical.




Maybe.

BTW Tsyr, sig's don't accept HTML.  To get the effect you're trying for use the following UUB code.


```
{URL=http://www.wayson.net/games/GAG/index.html}GAG{/URL} ({b}Gaga About Gnomes{/b})
```

Use [] instead of {} when you actually put it in your 'sig.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 4, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Use [] instead of {} when you actually put it in your 'sig.




Thus?

[URL=http://www.wayson.net/games/GAG/index.html]GAG[/URL] ([b]Gaga About Gnomes[/b])

-Hyp.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 4, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Thus?
> 
> [URL=http://www.wayson.net/games/GAG/index.html]GAG[/URL] ([b]Gaga About Gnomes[/b])
> 
> -Hyp.




Ya.  Neat trick.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 4, 2003)

Wow. My thread actually resulted in some sort of actual change. For the record, I didn't want to start a revolution, I just didn't like those garish white squares with bold black GENERIC in them. They hurt my eyes. 

I'd just like to mention that the recent changes haven't all been bitched about - I personally love the Quick Reply box. I use it almost every time I post. It makes browsing the boards honestly easier. 

Er..., bravo for the Quick Reply box!

Ok, whatever. It's late and I'm rambling tired need to go to bed. Night night.


----------

