Luke

Currently you have the ability to ignore someone's posts and ignore someone's personal conversations. I believe if you ignore someone in personal conversations, they can't send you one.

What I would like to see is a couple options to expand the ignore posting part.

1) An option to forbid a user from posting in your topics.

2) An option to either completely hide a post from view (as in no "This user has posted. Do you want to see it anyway?"), or make it much more condensed. The purpose of ignoring a particular user is that you get annoyed by their posts. But that annoyance still remains even if you can't see what they posted but know they posted in line with the rest of the posts. I know there has been some comments about this like "What if someone else was replying to this person and it caused confusion". Well in this case how about something near the top of the topic out of the line of posts that says "X posts hidden". I can see it, skip past it, and half-way forget about it when I start reading. Essentially don't give me a reason to click on "read it anyway" because if it's in line with the posts, I'm more likely to do so, thus making the ignore feature useless.The whole point of this is -- please make this not inline. It defeats the purpose of ignoring posts.

Currently you have the ability to ignore someone's posts and ignore someone's personal conversations. I believe if you ignore someone in personal conversations, they can't send you one.

What I would like to see is a couple options to expand the ignore posting part.

1) An option to forbid a user from posting in your topics.

2) An option to either completely hide a post from view (as in no "This user has posted. Do you want to see it anyway?"), or make it much more condensed. The purpose of ignoring a particular user is that you get annoyed by their posts. But that annoyance still remains even if you can't see what they posted but know they posted in line with the rest of the posts. I know there has been some comments about this like "What if someone else was replying to this person and it caused confusion". Well in this case how about something near the top of the topic out of the line of posts that says "X posts hidden". I can see it, skip past it, and half-way forget about it when I start reading. Essentially don't give me a reason to click on "read it anyway" because if it's in line with the posts, I'm more likely to do so, thus making the ignore feature useless.The whole point of this is -- please make this not inline. It defeats the purpose of ignoring posts.

Currently you have the ability to ignore someone's posts and ignore someone's personal conversations. I believe if you ignore someone in personal conversations, they can't send you one.

What I would like to see is a couple options to expand the ignore posting part.

1) An option to forbid a user from posting in your topics.

2) An option to either completely hide a post from view (as in no "This user has posted. Do you want to see it anyway?"), or make it much more condensed. The purpose of ignoring a particular user is that you get annoyed by their posts. But that annoyance still remains even if you can't see what they posted but know they posted in line with the rest of the posts. I know there has been some comments about this like "What if someone else was replying to this person and it caused confusion". Well in this case how about something near the top of the topic out of the line of posts that says "X posts hidden". I can see it, skip past it, and half-way forget about it when I start reading. Essentially don't give me a reason to click on "read it anyway" because if it's in line with the posts, I'm more likely to do so, thus making the ignore feature useless.The whole point of this is -- please make this not inline. It defeats the purpose of ignoring posts.

I'm all for stronger passwords... just as long as the feature is suggestive, like a color coded meter showing how strong the password is. I HATE sites that force you to have at least 8 characters, contain 1 number and letter, and/or change your password every X amount of time.

Currently you have the ability to ignore someone's posts and ignore someone's personal conversations. I believe if you ignore someone in personal conversations, they can't send you one.

What I would like to see is a couple options to expand the ignore posting part.

1) An option to forbid a user from posting in your topics.

2) An option to either completely hide a post from view (as in no "This user has posted. Do you want to see it anyway?"), or make it much more condensed. The purpose of ignoring a particular user is that you get annoyed by their posts. But that annoyance still remains even if you can't see what they posted but know they posted in line with the rest of the posts. I know there has been some comments about this like "What if someone else was replying to this person and it caused confusion". Well in this case how about something near the top of the topic out of the line of posts that says "X posts hidden". I can see it, skip past it, and half-way forget about it when I start reading. Essentially don't give me a reason to click on "read it anyway" because if it's in line with the posts, I'm more likely to do so, thus making the ignore feature useless.The whole point of this is -- please make this not inline. It defeats the purpose of ignoring posts.

Currently you have the ability to ignore someone's posts and ignore someone's personal conversations. I believe if you ignore someone in personal conversations, they can't send you one.

What I would like to see is a couple options to expand the ignore posting part.

1) An option to forbid a user from posting in your topics.

2) An option to either completely hide a post from view (as in no "This user has posted. Do you want to see it anyway?"), or make it much more condensed. The purpose of ignoring a particular user is that you get annoyed by their posts. But that annoyance still remains even if you can't see what they posted but know they posted in line with the rest of the posts. I know there has been some comments about this like "What if someone else was replying to this person and it caused confusion". Well in this case how about something near the top of the topic out of the line of posts that says "X posts hidden". I can see it, skip past it, and half-way forget about it when I start reading. Essentially don't give me a reason to click on "read it anyway" because if it's in line with the posts, I'm more likely to do so, thus making the ignore feature useless.The whole point of this is -- please make this not inline. It defeats the purpose of ignoring posts.

Currently you have the ability to ignore someone's posts and ignore someone's personal conversations. I believe if you ignore someone in personal conversations, they can't send you one.

What I would like to see is a couple options to expand the ignore posting part.

1) An option to forbid a user from posting in your topics.

2) An option to either completely hide a post from view (as in no "This user has posted. Do you want to see it anyway?"), or make it much more condensed. The purpose of ignoring a particular user is that you get annoyed by their posts. But that annoyance still remains even if you can't see what they posted but know they posted in line with the rest of the posts. I know there has been some comments about this like "What if someone else was replying to this person and it caused confusion". Well in this case how about something near the top of the topic out of the line of posts that says "X posts hidden". I can see it, skip past it, and half-way forget about it when I start reading. Essentially don't give me a reason to click on "read it anyway" because if it's in line with the posts, I'm more likely to do so, thus making the ignore feature useless.The whole point of this is -- please make this not inline. It defeats the purpose of ignoring posts.

Currently you have the ability to ignore someone's posts and ignore someone's personal conversations. I believe if you ignore someone in personal conversations, they can't send you one.

What I would like to see is a couple options to expand the ignore posting part.

1) An option to forbid a user from posting in your topics.

2) An option to either completely hide a post from view (as in no "This user has posted. Do you want to see it anyway?"), or make it much more condensed. The purpose of ignoring a particular user is that you get annoyed by their posts. But that annoyance still remains even if you can't see what they posted but know they posted in line with the rest of the posts. I know there has been some comments about this like "What if someone else was replying to this person and it caused confusion". Well in this case how about something near the top of the topic out of the line of posts that says "X posts hidden". I can see it, skip past it, and half-way forget about it when I start reading. Essentially don't give me a reason to click on "read it anyway" because if it's in line with the posts, I'm more likely to do so, thus making the ignore feature useless.The whole point of this is -- please make this not inline. It defeats the purpose of ignoring posts.

So what you're saying is a feature that allows you to size the original image to a max size? I would agree, and the default should be 800 x 600. Almost every image I click on this forum goes over my monitor size, and I'm at the highest my monitor can reach. That may be, however, the limitation of the lightbox and it not auto-sizing to the dimensions of my screen like some of the other lightboxes I've seen does.

I'm all for stronger passwords... just as long as the feature is suggestive, like a color coded meter showing how strong the password is. I HATE sites that force you to have at least 8 characters, contain 1 number and letter, and/or change your password every X amount of time.

Not only is it against the Google TOS, but even if you were to generate the code automatically and just have the user put in the account id, that code could quickly become out of date.

You could just add the code in the wrapper of the skin, but wouldn't you have to do that for every skin? A hook could insert a "block of code" where it needs to be on every skin, regardless of it's edited or not.

A textarea hook is a good idea.

I can stop paying for the service and still have lifetime support, upgrades, and access to the resource site (a "service" btw).

I can stop paying for the service and still have lifetime support, upgrades, and access to the resource site (a "service" btw).

The $25 ever 6 months for standard, $30 per year for perpetual, and nothing for lifetime isn't just support. It includes access to the resource site which is considered a service. I never said that I wouldn't be willing to pay something as a lifetime license holder. But their current reasoning is not justified. Either give it to all license holders, or don't. It's is simple as that. I hope you can understand now.



Thanks Matt. I await your answer :).

The $25 ever 6 months for standard, $30 per year for perpetual, and nothing for lifetime isn't just support. It includes access to the resource site which is considered a service. I never said that I wouldn't be willing to pay something as a lifetime license holder. But their current reasoning is not justified. Either give it to all license holders, or don't. It's is simple as that. I hope you can understand now.



Thanks Matt. I await your answer :).

I think it was around $150 when yearly licenses were about $60. I know I paid $200 or more for my lifetime license when it was available. I don't recall the exact amount.

But as I said before, it's not about what you paid for the license, or how much you pay to renew it. A license is a license, and should be considered equal. They should be giving it to all license holders, or make it separate service. I'm not against paying something to help with the costs of running this service (as it seems to be their concern), I just don't appreciate their initial tactic.

They're talking about it, so we'll wait. But I expect nothing less than equal treatment for every license holder. What ever is/was paid for a license should not be put into the equation.

I think it was around $150 when yearly licenses were about $60. I know I paid $200 or more for my lifetime license when it was available. I don't recall the exact amount.

But as I said before, it's not about what you paid for the license, or how much you pay to renew it. A license is a license, and should be considered equal. They should be giving it to all license holders, or make it separate service. I'm not against paying something to help with the costs of running this service (as it seems to be their concern), I just don't appreciate their initial tactic.

They're talking about it, so we'll wait. But I expect nothing less than equal treatment for every license holder. What ever is/was paid for a license should not be put into the equation.

bfarber: The way I see it is the standard license $25 fee is for support and upgrades, nothing else. If you bend it to "future services" then by that token you should do it to the perpetual license since they pay $30 per year for support. And if you give it to them, lifetime license holders should get it free. The closest thing I have to compare to this service is the resource site: Without an active support contract, you cannot access it. Standard license holders pay $25 every six months, perpetual license holders pay $30 per year, and lifetime license holders pay nothing. But they get access to the same "service". And technically I would consider the resource site a "service" the same as the spam monitor.

I ask for every license holder to get it, or for none of them to get it and have a yearly fee. That would be fair to everyone. And it's much simpler to charge no one, or charge everyone. And as far as who is paying what for their license, in order to be fair you can't look at that. Regardless of what the initial agreement was, a license is a license. I have an active support contract, I get access to the resource site "service". The spam monitor should be treated the same for all, or different for all. It's as simple as that.

This is the way I see it:

You should have known full well you were going to piss a lot of people off by telling them that lifetime/perp license holders could not use this service, and that they could one-way convert their licenses to a standard license to use this service. Especially given the nature of the service: A way to stop spam, something that should be a stock feature available to everyone. I'm sure you talked about it for a while, but I can't believe it didn't cross someone's mind before posting the announcement. If you have retracted the statement and are working on it further, an ajustment to the annoucement needs to be made.

As I've said before, a license holder is a license holder. You can't discriminate one from the other, regardless of what the arrangement was. If you are extending the support fee for this, you should do it for the other licenses as well, regardless of who pays what. I also know that by giving it to the standard license holders, you are not increasing your revenue by any margin to cover the costs of the server required for this service. This leads me to believe that it is not about cost, but a way to get people to convert their licenses. If you still wish to honor them, honor them.

If this is about cost, charge for it. And if you do, charge everyone, not just perp and lifetime license holders. How ever you want to do it, I'm sure no one would complain. $10 per year provides an access key for every form license, $5 per year per access key, etc... what ever it is, I'm sure no one would mind. But if you want to have everyone use it, it has to be dirt cheap. You want everyone to use it, but excluding lifetime/perp license holders does not do that. It just pisses them off, and they refuse to use the service.

Be fair accross the board. That's all I ask.

bfarber: The way I see it is the standard license $25 fee is for support and upgrades, nothing else. If you bend it to "future services" then by that token you should do it to the perpetual license since they pay $30 per year for support. And if you give it to them, lifetime license holders should get it free. The closest thing I have to compare to this service is the resource site: Without an active support contract, you cannot access it. Standard license holders pay $25 every six months, perpetual license holders pay $30 per year, and lifetime license holders pay nothing. But they get access to the same "service". And technically I would consider the resource site a "service" the same as the spam monitor.

I ask for every license holder to get it, or for none of them to get it and have a yearly fee. That would be fair to everyone. And it's much simpler to charge no one, or charge everyone. And as far as who is paying what for their license, in order to be fair you can't look at that. Regardless of what the initial agreement was, a license is a license. I have an active support contract, I get access to the resource site "service". The spam monitor should be treated the same for all, or different for all. It's as simple as that.

I fully agreee...

This is the way I see it:

You should have known full well you were going to piss a lot of people off by telling them that lifetime/perp license holders could not use this service, and that they could one-way convert their licenses to a standard license to use this service. Especially given the nature of the service: A way to stop spam, something that should be a stock feature available to everyone. I'm sure you talked about it for a while, but I can't believe it didn't cross someone's mind before posting the announcement. If you have retracted the statement and are working on it further, an ajustment to the annoucement needs to be made.

As I've said before, a license holder is a license holder. You can't discriminate one from the other, regardless of what the arrangement was. If you are extending the support fee for this, you should do it for the other licenses as well, regardless of who pays what. I also know that by giving it to the standard license holders, you are not increasing your revenue by any margin to cover the costs of the server required for this service. This leads me to believe that it is not about cost, but a way to get people to convert their licenses. If you still wish to honor them, honor them.

If this is about cost, charge for it. And if you do, charge everyone, not just perp and lifetime license holders. How ever you want to do it, I'm sure no one would complain. $10 per year provides an access key for every form license, $5 per year per access key, etc... what ever it is, I'm sure no one would mind. But if you want to have everyone use it, it has to be dirt cheap. You want everyone to use it, but excluding lifetime/perp license holders does not do that. It just pisses them off, and they refuse to use the service.

Be fair accross the board. That's all I ask.

This is the way I see it:

You should have known full well you were going to piss a lot of people off by telling them that lifetime/perp license holders could not use this service, and that they could one-way convert their licenses to a standard license to use this service. Especially given the nature of the service: A way to stop spam, something that should be a stock feature available to everyone. I'm sure you talked about it for a while, but I can't believe it didn't cross someone's mind before posting the announcement. If you have retracted the statement and are working on it further, an ajustment to the annoucement needs to be made.

As I've said before, a license holder is a license holder. You can't discriminate one from the other, regardless of what the arrangement was. If you are extending the support fee for this, you should do it for the other licenses as well, regardless of who pays what. I also know that by giving it to the standard license holders, you are not increasing your revenue by any margin to cover the costs of the server required for this service. This leads me to believe that it is not about cost, but a way to get people to convert their licenses. If you still wish to honor them, honor them.

If this is about cost, charge for it. And if you do, charge everyone, not just perp and lifetime license holders. How ever you want to do it, I'm sure no one would complain. $10 per year provides an access key for every form license, $5 per year per access key, etc... what ever it is, I'm sure no one would mind. But if you want to have everyone use it, it has to be dirt cheap. You want everyone to use it, but excluding lifetime/perp license holders does not do that. It just pisses them off, and they refuse to use the service.

Be fair accross the board. That's all I ask.

This is the way I see it:

You should have known full well you were going to piss a lot of people off by telling them that lifetime/perp license holders could not use this service, and that they could one-way convert their licenses to a standard license to use this service. Especially given the nature of the service: A way to stop spam, something that should be a stock feature available to everyone. I'm sure you talked about it for a while, but I can't believe it didn't cross someone's mind before posting the announcement. If you have retracted the statement and are working on it further, an ajustment to the annoucement needs to be made.

As I've said before, a license holder is a license holder. You can't discriminate one from the other, regardless of what the arrangement was. If you are extending the support fee for this, you should do it for the other licenses as well, regardless of who pays what. I also know that by giving it to the standard license holders, you are not increasing your revenue by any margin to cover the costs of the server required for this service. This leads me to believe that it is not about cost, but a way to get people to convert their licenses. If you still wish to honor them, honor them.

If this is about cost, charge for it. And if you do, charge everyone, not just perp and lifetime license holders. How ever you want to do it, I'm sure no one would complain. $10 per year provides an access key for every form license, $5 per year per access key, etc... what ever it is, I'm sure no one would mind. But if you want to have everyone use it, it has to be dirt cheap. You want everyone to use it, but excluding lifetime/perp license holders does not do that. It just pisses them off, and they refuse to use the service.

Be fair accross the board. That's all I ask.

This is the way I see it:

You should have known full well you were going to piss a lot of people off by telling them that lifetime/perp license holders could not use this service, and that they could one-way convert their licenses to a standard license to use this service. Especially given the nature of the service: A way to stop spam, something that should be a stock feature available to everyone. I'm sure you talked about it for a while, but I can't believe it didn't cross someone's mind before posting the announcement. If you have retracted the statement and are working on it further, an ajustment to the annoucement needs to be made.

As I've said before, a license holder is a license holder. You can't discriminate one from the other, regardless of what the arrangement was. If you are extending the support fee for this, you should do it for the other licenses as well, regardless of who pays what. I also know that by giving it to the standard license holders, you are not increasing your revenue by any margin to cover the costs of the server required for this service. This leads me to believe that it is not about cost, but a way to get people to convert their licenses. If you still wish to honor them, honor them.

If this is about cost, charge for it. And if you do, charge everyone, not just perp and lifetime license holders. How ever you want to do it, I'm sure no one would complain. $10 per year provides an access key for every form license, $5 per year per access key, etc... what ever it is, I'm sure no one would mind. But if you want to have everyone use it, it has to be dirt cheap. You want everyone to use it, but excluding lifetime/perp license holders does not do that. It just pisses them off, and they refuse to use the service.

Be fair accross the board. That's all I ask.