• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

New Forum! Feedback thread

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
It's possible to navigate to previous thread-page from the top if you're on a computer/laptop. However, if you're on your phone the previous button will bring you to the previous thread. What's even the point of that?
Yes, the issue is on mobile, and yes, navigating to previous or next thread at the top of the thread page seems useless.
 
And why 'How To'?
And I fully agree on the mobile navigation issue, would be really nice to be able to jump to the last post from the starting page. Instead of jumping to the next thread.
 

jsimenhoff

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 16, 2019
25
18
110
Errr… not an issue, but why are random threads suddenly getting the How To tag?



The cool emoji is in the top-group, though.
That is an issue. It appears to be a bug. I'm not sure why those thread prefix's are auto attaching to those threads. I will investigate! Thanks all.

I've been trying to correct these mistakes myself so please be patient while I go through the forums.

EDIT: Aha, it was due to some moderators featuring these threads. I'm glad you like the new system for highlighting important threads in the forums. I would recommend against featuring discussion threads, since the featured threads are mainly meant for showcasing articles, reviews, and tutorial style content created by you all.
 
Last edited:
Sep 6, 2012
91
0
8,680
I'd recommend cleaning up the sticky threads. They take up prime space at the top of forums and I think some can be un-stickied by now. For example, the years-old thread about creating a poll on this sub-forum that is no longer relevant with the new forum software.
 
The order of stories at the new posts tab seems to be all over the place.

The times of the most recent post on the top 26 items on that list, in order, are:
(It is now 10.45 pm, I will put those less than an hour ago as the time, not "n minutes ago"; all pm unless otherwise stated)

9.03
8.45
9.35
10.00
9.10
8.15
8.04
7.30
7.24
9.43
5.54
4.30
4.21
9.49
10.34
1.05
12.03
9.31
10.51 am
9.38 am
10.08
9.50
3.44 am
10.52 pm yesterday
10.35 pm yesterday
10.28

Look at those last two: the thread last posted on 24hrs and 10 minutes ago is listed above the one from 17 minutes ago. The second newest post on the New Posts list is 26th on that list, the newest is 15th.

Not what I would call user friendly.
Having been frustrated by that odd chronology on the 'New posts' tab, I started using the 'What's New' tab instead. I now discover that that omits loads of new posts.

So is there anywhere that gives a list of new posts that is both sensibly ordered and comprehensive?
 
Didn't know where to post this, but I have a bit of a question about the Rules:

Necroposting (resurrecting very old threads or article comments) is disallowed.
What if it's relevant? Sometimes a Rider Thread might be dormant for an extended period - if the rider in question isn't showing much - but when there is a good result; expect the discussion to take off again!
Though I will admit that I'm a bit confused about the recent talk about Klöden's chances for a GT top 10...
 
I copied from an Excel file to make a large-ish table, but the content of many cells moved to occupy empty cells to the left.

2nd issue: in trying to fix that, discovered that only two or three edits to cell contents were possible before it refused to move any further text, so I had to do numerous saves and edits, when only one should really have been necessary.
 
Errr… why was everything suddenly changed around?
Probably because it makes better sense as it is organised now.

For example, technically (not practically) you were not allowed to discuss doping in other sports than cycling because the clinic used to be a subsection of professional cycling, and therefore those discussions would be off topic there and illegal anywhere else on the forum. That always bugged the logician that I am. I'm glad they realised what a big problem that was.
 
can't say I found that a problem, especially when you consider the background of the Clinic's creation...

Not sure what "Enthusiast Racing...." covers when much of the topics in that thread aren't about racing - yep, i'm nitpicking now...
Just like the 'Cafe's' 'General' forum is some how 'off topic', despite the threads all being topics in themselves ;)
 
Probably because it makes better sense as it is organised now.

For example, technically (not practically) you were not allowed to discuss doping in other sports than cycling because the clinic used to be a subsection of professional cycling, and therefore those discussions would be off topic there and illegal anywhere else on the forum. That always bugged the logician that I am. I'm glad they realised what a big problem that was.
I guess I just always took it for granted that even though the Clinic was technically in the Road Cycling section, it was obviously for any kind of doping. Even personal doping, but I think the advice here would be don't!

And it certainly makes more sense now that it did the way it was initially organised; with the "less popular" cycling categories higher than road cycling. Though… I still find it a bit weird that Track is in the Off Road section. I know it's technically off the road, but... track isn't exactly what I'm thinking when I head "off road"...
 

shaines

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 23, 2019
46
17
110
Didn't know where to post this, but I have a bit of a question about the Rules:



What if it's relevant? Sometimes a Rider Thread might be dormant for an extended period - if the rider in question isn't showing much - but when there is a good result; expect the discussion to take off again!
Though I will admit that I'm a bit confused about the recent talk about Klöden's chances for a GT top 10...
Great question! We never want to paint with too broad a brush with the rules, because it's super easy to get sucked down the rabbit hole. However, a generally safe strategy if a thread is many months (or years) old, is to create a new topic when it's back in the news and link to the old thread for context.

This helps generate a fresh discussion with the latest news, while giving readers a chance to see the full backstory as well.

Errr… why was everything suddenly changed around?
Hey there!

We kept things pretty closely organized like the old forums at launch, just so returning users would have a familiar experience. Once we got up and running we wanted to work with your trusty Moderators to find ways of cleaning things up. With feedback we were able to make some really helpful changes that feel much better to us.

However, as Eshnar said, we're hoping to keep the discussion going so all feedback is welcome. We may not agree with every requested change, but we'll do our best to make the forums as helpful and user friendly as possible.
 
Last edited:
However, a generally safe strategy if a thread is many months (or years) old, is to create a new topic when it's back in the news and link to the old thread for context.
Well that's not how it actually works in practice, is it? Look, for instance, at The Clinic and its many, many, "many months (or years) old" threads that come back to life when new content comes along. Please don't suggest that such threads have to be killed and reborn with linkbacks, cause that's just *** up and defeats the intended purpose of many of these threads.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
jsimenhoff Forum Feedback 13
Pantani Attacks Forum Feedback 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS