This is the site feedback/questions section

[simkas]

I don't know if this should be posted here, why is an admin allowed to shove his religion down someone else's throat?

http://www.newvegasn...le.php?id=42541

Why did fightingdownfall's get edited because he was "taking His name in vein"? Does the nexus disallow being any other religion than the admins are?

 

No no religious discussion is allowed, spamming around the forums is also not allowed. Got a problem there is a report button on every post and file page on the site.

 

You are just a troll looking for a fight, take it elsewhere.

 

You are most welcome to your opinion, expressing it is an option.

 

Buddah

[Dart3145]

I was looking at mods today and I consider endorsements heavily when I download a mod, but I have noticed that "The file did not fit in to the user's personal tastes or beliefs, etc." negative endorsement doesn't really seem fair, it doesn't provide the author any sort of feedback other then someone doesn't like there mod, in which case that person shouldn't of downloaded it, for people who actually use endorsements as a means of judging a files worth having people post negative endorsements just because it didn't match there personal taste seems like trolling just like starting arguments over religion.

 

so here's my suggestion, you remove the "The file did not fit in to the user's personal tastes or beliefs, etc." option for negative endorsements because it doesn't provide any sort of constructive feedback to the author and its the same as going to the mods comment section and saying "this mod sucks because I don't like it"

 

its just something that I see as an issue with the forums and I'm not sure why it was ever added in the first place.

 

-Dart3145

[jmalkavian]

I think the endorsement's the way they are is probably the most efficient method IE: didn't suit beliefs etc.......= ignore{for deciding on whether to DL or not}....to me it says file works OK and maybe it's got something that I would like...skimpy skirts lesbianism etc....hehehe :whistling: ...=not really a negative.

 

Although am thinking that a "blue" neutral rating would be nice ...it could say "am still trying it out " or "nothing wrong with it">add comment<...{can hear Dark0ne bashing head in wall :wallbash: }....yeah yeah I know it costs more resources etc...But I'm willing to watch two adds {if they could be run simultaneously} (as a suitably matched pair of course) --would need refinement--== potential ~XX%~ increase revenue......just a thought to satisfy the "unsatisfied".

 

In any case I'm happy the way it is and only endorse if I really like it, the ones that I don't like I delete IE: have never gave a negative......but a "BLUE" would allow me to leave a comment without it appearing "negative".and keep the mod up loaders happy. :biggrin: . TC.

Edited July 4, 2011 by jmalkavian

[ub3rman123]

WOuldn't a neutral just be the same as simply downloading it and leaving a comment without a rating?

[jmalkavian]

WOuldn't a neutral just be the same as simply downloading it and leaving a comment without a rating?

 

It probably would be, but sometimes it's a lot easier to scroll down the endorsements and see what comments are left and see the "didn't suit the persons taste or beliefs" or "was incompatible etc" ---the auto thingy-- IE: don't need to click on it. Rather than wading through sometimes 500 comments as opposed to say 50-150.

 

i guess the point I and the up loaders were trying to make is that a "negative" endorsement makes the mod "look bad" at first appearance....and I was suggesting a place IE: "neutral" where at first glance one can see that it's NOT a bad file and where commenter could say "it didn't suit my blah blah blah".

 

Because if ya think about it RE: didn't suit beliefs etc.......= ignore{for deciding on whether to DL or not}....to me it says file works OK and maybe it's got something that I would like.. ...=not really a negative. But it looks "negative" at first appearances...it's like a "false negative" and a "Blue neutral" allocation would give commenter a place for such comments and leave the comments section for questions and problem solving. TC.

[ub3rman123]

WOuldn't a neutral just be the same as simply downloading it and leaving a comment without a rating?

 

It probably would be, but sometimes it's a lot easier to scroll down the endorsements and see what comments are left and see the "didn't suit the persons taste or beliefs" or "was incompatible etc" ---the auto thingy-- IE: don't need to click on it. Rather than wading through sometimes 500 comments as opposed to say 50-150.

 

i guess the point I and the up loaders were trying to make is that a "negative" endorsement makes the mod "look bad" at first appearance....and I was suggesting a place IE: "neutral" where at first glance one can see that it's NOT a bad file and where commenter could say "it didn't suit my blah blah blah".

 

Because if ya think about it RE: didn't suit beliefs etc.......= ignore{for deciding on whether to DL or not}....to me it says file works OK and maybe it's got something that I would like.. ...=not really a negative. But it looks "negative" at first appearances...it's like a "false negative" and a "Blue neutral" allocation would give commenter a place for such comments and leave the comments section for questions and problem solving. TC.

 

The next update to the sites will do away with the endorsement system and instead use something like a 1-10 system (If I read it right). That way you'll be able to rate a mod a 5 for Average, 1 would be very poor, and 10 would be metaphysical perfection.

[jmalkavian]

WOuldn't a neutral just be the same as simply downloading it and leaving a comment without a rating?

 

It probably would be, but sometimes it's a lot easier to scroll down the endorsements and see what comments are left and see the "didn't suit the persons taste or beliefs" or "was incompatible etc" ---the auto thingy-- IE: don't need to click on it. Rather than wading through sometimes 500 comments as opposed to say 50-150.

 

i guess the point I and the up loaders were trying to make is that a "negative" endorsement makes the mod "look bad" at first appearance....and I was suggesting a place IE: "neutral" where at first glance one can see that it's NOT a bad file and where commenter could say "it didn't suit my blah blah blah".

 

Because if ya think about it RE: didn't suit beliefs etc.......= ignore{for deciding on whether to DL or not}....to me it says file works OK and maybe it's got something that I would like.. ...=not really a negative. But it looks "negative" at first appearances...it's like a "false negative" and a "Blue neutral" allocation would give commenter a place for such comments and leave the comments section for questions and problem solving. TC.

 

The next update to the sites will do away with the endorsement system and instead use something like a 1-10 system (If I read it right). That way you'll be able to rate a mod a 5 for Average, 1 would be very poor, and 10 would be metaphysical perfection.

 

 

I never saw an 1-10 system being intended...from what I gather that was "the old system"....I could be wrong.

 

what is funny is I read a couple of comments, 1.wants a good/bad endorsement style.(two way) 2. another wants a , good/ non counting/ bad style.(three way)

 

But one thing is almost certain....the comments will be tidied and sorted, which in itself will make a huge difference.

 

Personally I think it needs to be at least a three way style...as some mods are not "bad" and not "good" but rather "ok" if you like that sort of thing.

 

So like I said, a "neutral" would be nice....as it let's people know that at least it's not gonna mess the game up....'cause that would be "bad" and we wouldn't want any of that !!!!. TC.

[chambersja01]

I left a comment on the underground hideout mod a long time ago and forgot too see if anyone replied and now it's buried is there an easier way for me to find it rather then clicking each page trying to remember what date I posted it.. and I don't see anywhere to find all the comments I posted.

[bben46]

Use the 'File Search' function to find the mod, then, click on 'comments' and look to the right to find "Go to forum thread"

That will take you directly to the forum for that particular mod.

[kermit9696]

I'd like to mention that in practice, usernames that have more than three numbers appending their name are in many cases spammers or users creating those profiles for 'other than appropriate' activity.

 

I'd like to see anyone's name having excessive numbers (like jackrod445500 or some such similar name) be first messaged and asked to decided an appropriate alternate name with three or less digits and then have it changed.

 

Those who do not reply should have their accounts removed, and in turn the forum should prohibit any name creation with excessive digits appending a name. I know this may sound a bit like 'forum Nazism' but I do feel it will have a net positive return on reducing spammers and malevolent users.

 

 

 

Kermit9696 I am not now, or have I ever been a Spamer, either/and/or a Malevolent user. I have the 9696 because there are about 100,000 other guys out there who call themselves Kermit on many sites I am known as Kermit454 but that one had already been taken at TheNexus. I was lucky to get in under 10,000. My point is If you are going to paint general statements, could you at least use a thinner brush? Please, and Thank You