tacitus59

I played both - Falskaar on LE (when it was released) and Wyrmstooth (when the author was on hiatus, about 3 years ago) on SE. I got frustrated with the quest progression in Falskaar and never completed it. I enjoyed Wyrmstooth and had no problems; in fact I am planning and Wyrmstooth is in there.

First, I prefer the old format - I don't like change; that is a bias that I am well aware of - so I have tried to cut the redesign slack and get use to it and not be ridiculously critical of it. 1. All of this rich media format make it stupidly slow - and this content is forced on you. Give us a mechanism to get non-rich format. Frankly if this happens most of the complaints will go away. 2. Using doubleclick to spy on premimum members 3. I do a search I then click on a mod - and then I hit the back button and I see a big gear slowly moving. (see #1) [edit : syntax fix]

I know no matter what we say you will not reverse your autodesign but here are a couple of suggestions/comments: Give us an option for search results (and other list locations) which are simple minimalistic no picture lists. The current searches seem remarkably slower than before Add the update date to search results - and put your date last downloaded on the mod download page - and not just on the description page. And just a quick aside, maybe premimum members should NOT be connecting to doubleclick.net.

Please allow us a bit more choice on the front page - like totally removing the media section (which as far as I can tell consists mainly of NSFW content). And why we are on that if a mod has a NSFW picture which shows up on the front page - we should have an option to hide it ON THE FRONT PAGE. Right now we only have the ability to block an author to control this stuff. I prefer not to do that because I sometimes want these mods but having a thong/butt-crack or an elf wearing pasties on the front page is annoying especially now that its in a giant format.

Thanks, thats not a bad idea; at least I would not blocking a couple of entire catagories. Frankly when I saw a nude female torso followed by a female butt in a thong today - I said to myself "enough." I wish nexus would do something about this - so we have control over the front page.

Is there a way of blocking body the nude or "stripper" pictures on the front page without blocking these files? I don't want to block the files entirely because sometimes amongst the trash there are sometimes good mods ; I just want don't want to see salacious pictures on the front page.

In response to post #10346176. #10352595 is also a reply to the same post. These were pretty much my thoughts too. Its the potential arbitrariness without any recourse for the blocked user thats concerning me. And the potential exists that the mod author has a grudge from the past and misuses it. "If you’ve blocked a user from your file pages then that’s that. We’re not going to deal with the justified and/or petty squabbles between mod authors and blocked users in this regard so if a mod author blocks you from their files do not come running to the moderation team about it because we’re not going to be removing any blocks. " Most mod authors are great and take criticism fine, but some get plain defensive about it. I am also concern these might take to culling their comment sections of useful posts, because it shows their mod in a bad light. On the other hand it might get rid of some total crap comments. [i posted something similar before and it somehow got "lost" - so I am repeating it here; hopefully it wouldn't go into ether again]

Just as a final follow-up - just tried it - skyrim nexus is working fine for me now. Thanks again

Been tried several times including using ccleaner; also verified my ISP was not using a proxy server and checked for hidden ISP caching. No luck. Thanks again.

It is good news - but I guess in may haste I didn't make it clear that skyrim nexus is still broken on both machines, but the other nexus sites seem OK. Maybe it will have sortted it out by tomorrow. I will recheck then. Thanks again for your help - I had totally forgotten about firefox safe mode.

Already disabled on my system Have a new clue - on both my xp machine and (my normally not used for browsing) Vista machine all the other nexus sites are behaving much better. I haven't done a complete check but the main pages are behaving normally - and the mod pages look normal as well. Thanks again.

RE:buysellads.com; no idea at all about premium accounts but I have it blocked a lot of the time with no ill effects Are you being redirected to the newer address see the earlier post try Safe Mode | How to | Firefox Help Another possible trouble woud be using any thing like Redirect Remover :: Add-ons for Firefox Removes Redirects like http://redirectremover.mozdev.org/?www.mozilla.org from Links and Images re buysellads.com - its more of a security concern. A couple of years ago a hacker insertted a script which redirected scripts from a bad site so I am always leery about unknown (to me) sites. re. thanks for firefox safe mode suggestion - did not work. I am not using any redirectors - only noscript should be blocking access. re. its accessing I am accesssing the new sites - at least the address bar says so. Thanks for the suggestions.

Just to give feedback - I am on an xp/sp3 machine. firefox 8 and 9.0.1 do not work. Not getting any of the non-static stuff on the the mod pages, so I am not even seeing the files to download or comments, etc . ... even when I "allow scripts globally" with noscript. Speaking of noscript - it want to access a buysellads.com; is this intended on a premium account? Main page is also not responsive at all. Using Internet explorer 8 I am getting "error on page" on page and none of the graphics is showing up. Might be how I am using IE, because I rarely use it. Pretty much the same as firefox problems where can't download or look at file pages. Site is also very slow.

Its cool that GSC are allowing this. I suspect one reason some companies do not allow reuse of assets is sometimes they buy some assets from others for use in one game. So they don't really own all the assets of that game, so they can get in legal trouble if others use these assets and they do nothing to prevent it. GSC clearly owns outright all of their assets.

In case people don't realize - you can't add your own comment when "negatively endorsing" something - I get the following multiple choices: I couldn't get the file to work the file didn't do what the description implied there were important files missing (animations, textures, etc.) that meant the file didn't work properly the file caused conflicts with the game or other popular files the file did not meet my high quality standards after playing the file it doesn't fit in to my personal tastes or beliefs, etc. I despise giving negative endorsements and have only done so once. The mod seemed broken and had been pointed out by several people as broken and the author had not responded in like a month. And I was sort of frustrated with the situation. If I give a negative endorsement, I would like to be able to add a comment with my negative endorsement as explanation. Also, I would be nice to see if a negative endorsement is given if it was just trollish or a real reason.