MarioWiki Feedback

[Wayoshi]

MarioWiki:Feedback

'Nuff said, hopefully. Covers wiki, chat and forum.

 

[Garlic Man]

MarioWiki:Feedback

'Nuff said, hopefully. Covers wiki, chat and forum.

So I noticed. Can't we get back the Site Notice?

 

[Ghost Jam]

By Site Notice, I assume you mean the topbar.

We had to drop it, as it was messing with ads and page format.

 

[Garlic Man]

By Site Notice, I assume you mean the topbar.

We had to drop it, as it was messing with ads and page format.

Aw. So, do all of the ads affect it, or just the top one?

 

[Glowsquid]

The tops one, duh. I think we already had the one at the bottom when the Sitebar was still in effect.

 

[Garlic Man]

The tops one, duh. I think we already had the one at the bottom when the Sitebar was still in effect.

Do we really need the top ad? Steve says he wants the ad more than the sitebar...

 

[Ghost Jam]

So, yeah, I deleted a side conversation that was going on here. Please stay on topic, people. If you wish to discuss something else, please do so in another topic or through personal channels.

The tops one, duh. I think we already had the one at the bottom when the Sitebar was still in effect.

Do we really need the top ad? Steve says he wants the ad more than the sitebar...

The ads are needed to generate funds to run the server the wiki is on, so, yes, we really need the ads.

 

[Garlic Man]

So, yeah, I deleted a side conversation that was going on here. Please stay on topic, people. If you wish to discuss something else, please do so in another topic or through personal channels.

The tops one, duh. I think we already had the one at the bottom when the Sitebar was still in effect.

Do we really need the top ad? Steve says he wants the ad more than the sitebar...

The ads are needed to generate funds to run the server the wiki is on, so, yes, we really need the ads.

I know that. But... could we move the top ad to the bottom so there's two at the bottom? ...never mind.

 

[Smiddle]

Why the heck are the scales from one to seven? Sorry, it just annoys the heck of me.

 

[Wayoshi]

I varied them to how specific I wanted them to be (the more specific, the more I cared). :P

 

[Lario]

I varied them to how specific I wanted them to be (the more specific, the more I cared). :P

'K.

Smiddle: 7 > 5

 

[Garlic Man]

I varied them to how specific I wanted them to be (the more specific, the more I cared). :P

You should have made them from a scale of 1 to 1337, then.

 

[PaperStriker]

1 to 10 is always the best. Accurate, but not hard to choose from (unless you're someone like me, who can't rate anything on an absolute basis, only on a relative one [absolute: number from 1-5/1-7/1-10 etc.; relative: something like SM64 > SMB3 > SMB2 > SMB]).

 

[Wayoshi]

Right, PS. It's all relative. on a 1-5, 3 is neutral. On a 1-7, 4 is neutral. On a 1-10, 5-6 is neutral.

 

[Smiddle]

I varied them to how specific I wanted them to be (the more specific, the more I cared). :P

'K.

Smiddle: 7 > 5

Now I got sad...
Also, (somewhat) per PaperStriker.

 

[Garlic Man]

Right, PS. It's all relative. on a 1-5, 3 is neutral. On a 1-7, 4 is neutral. On a 1-10, 5-6 is neutral.

5 and 6 can't both be neutral.

Which is why I don't like even-numbered voting scales...

 

[PaperStriker]

Right, PS. It's all relative. on a 1-5, 3 is neutral. On a 1-7, 4 is neutral. On a 1-10, 5-6 is neutral.

5 and 6 can't both be neutral.

Which is why I don't like even-numbered voting scales...

That's why you're adding a 0-option, so that 5 is neutral.