Yes, it's that time again. I'm slowly starting to think about it. The site will run much smoother with a nice recode, and it'll load faster and better too. Quist and I know a lot more PHP then when we initially started J2O (well, when he started J2O , I was fooling around with DJ).

Anyways, post any and all suggestions you would like/love to see in J2Ov2. Some examples might be...more integration with the JCF, new layout, new site area (like a...new section...like...[fill in the blank]), ACTUALLY FINISHING THE CONTENT AREA, etc...

Post your ideas here. Who knows, maybe we'll use it when we recode it

EDIT: Also, if you'd like to see a hack installed at the JCF, let me know here. No super gigantic hacks that slow the whole site down, just ones that make life a little better (Admins, if you don't like this part, remove it )

EDIT #2: This is a complete site recode, NOT A WHOLE NEW SITE.

Have every page use the same style.. Thick borders/Thin borders, as long as they all look good.

some of my ideas for the site (recording them here so I won't forget, LOL):

• Removal of the J2O PM system, or linking it to the JCF PM system
• New Layout
• Finish Start the content area
• Cleaner code

As you can see, I mentioned my ideas in the first post, but you might have thought them an example

argh, you beat me to the 2nd post :-P

Yes, good idea. ::wonders why he didn't think of that::

Quist and I were talking, and we came up with a third option of table borders (yes, a third). Thick on the outside, thin on the inside Look at the new GIP script (which I must say is marvelous), and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Actually, I started working on the content area yesterday. Jcs.Ref actually, not our jcs content area. The JCS button is meant to link to jcs.ref.

Well, everyone is asking for a new layout, but it's not like we have a spare designer. :P

FYI, the JCF integration is nearly impossible. There are lots of users registered at j2o that aren't at the jcf. How do you want to combine that?

One option is to start allllll over again with our user db. Ouch

What exactly do you want to combine, Nebula? The PM system is about the only one I can think of.

---

FYI, people, J2OV2 has existed for a long time already, in secret; I guess Nebula wanted it to be known.
We never really got a lot of work done. We have the basic framework almost done but I am too busy with other things to work on it most of the time, luckily it's vacation now. We also always get new ideas, which means we have to remake everything.

oh, LOL, never thought of that. argh, oh well, scratch that idea.

Well, we could *improve* the system so you could delete PMs

Well, yeah, a system to delete PMs is a good idea, heh heh heh.

Let's ppl delete their own pictures, in the pictures section.

eh... ya... i have to agree with ya Nebula... get rid of the J2O PMing system... it's useless... personally... i think it would be better to run all the users on J2O's database... but due to J2O's stability problems... maybe u could make it so whenever someone registers in the J2O, it automatically updates a "copy" database for J2O, just as a backup and so that if the JCF goes down, J2O isn't completely dead. That way, it's integrated, but not dependant... How can you do that, u ask? er... i dunno it was just an idea, but i believe PHP, being as auto-updating via imput from something is it's "strength", it can be done. Also, if you ever lose the JCF database and it's unrecoverable (even u guys make backup copies every "X" ammount of weeks [hopefully ]), you can just work off that...

On top of that, if you figure out how to do the first option, u can make it even Visa-Versa where if someone registers via J2O, it will automatically create an account for them.........

That's my 2 cents for this post, heh...
(even my suggestions prolly burden you with the thought of coding )

I suggest making the review more complicated, i.e:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-Rating accourding to different factors like eye candy, layout, mobility, etc...
-The option to claim the level for yourself, if someone posts a "nice tileset he\she found that he\she thought everyone should have, even though he\she doesn't know who made it", or if someone steals your tileset\level and takes all the credit for themselves.
-Multiple authur ratings: Averige rating goes to all the authors who made the level, and not just to the one who uploads it.

Originally posted by Gargoyle
I suggest making the review more complicated, i.e:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-Rating accourding to different factors like eye candy, layout, mobility, etc...
-The option to claim the level for yourself, if someone posts a "nice tileset he\she found that he\she thought everyone should have, even though he\she doesn't know who made it", or if someone steals your tileset\level and takes all the credit for themselves.
-Multiple authur ratings: Averige rating goes to all the authors who made the level, and not just to the one who uploads it.

I don't quite agree on making the reviews "more complicated". If you ask me, that just puts constraints on reviewing. Plus, it will force people to review levels as the system tells them, meaning that the reviewers opinion on what makes a good level will be weakened by the opinion of the creator of the system.

I think that all of the current J2O systems are fine as they are. They could use a recode, but no current features need to be gotten rid of.

As for my suggestions, I think that the layout could use a bit of a change. J2O wastes almost half of the screen space with those huge empty black spaces on each side. Having those things is just as bad as having a frame there. I have no other complaints with anything else regarding the layout.

The ability to review articles posted on the site would be a great feature. There are some good articles on the site and some bad ones.

Other than that, the site is great as it is. Just fix the bugs ;P

Split the rating system into J2o Staff members'rating and visitors'rating.

No. What's the point of it?

You could change the system a bit, so that ratings from reviewers with a better rating strictness are more inportant than other ones. Just an idea.

Wow, that rating strictness idea may actually work.

Weekly polls Weekly polls Weekly polls Weekly polls Weekly polls
Weekly polls Weekly polls Weekly polls Weekly polls Weekly polls
Weekly polls Weekly polls Weekly polls Weekly polls Weekly polls

;P

Yes, rating strictness might work...anyone want to tell me how we'd go about determining how strict something is??

When thinking on jazz2online, does that also include forum?
I'd like if it was posible to make head icons under name, that's posible (saw it on other forums)
Like:

Nadine
JCF Member
[picture]

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: BC, CANADA

Polls to be updated more often.
I would like a new layout and would like to help on that one.
****Don't make a new site, updaate this one though!!!!****

Originally posted by >>Møønßlãzé<<
When thinking on jazz2online, does that also include forum?
I'd like if it was posible to make head icons under name, that's posible (saw it on other forums)
Like:

Nadine
JCF Member
[picture]

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: BC, CANADA

This has been discussed often. And it has always been rejected because these pictures (avatars) do not add anything to the board. I think most people (including me) agree on that.

We were not talking about that. And avatars won't be allowed. Let's keep that out of this thread

Nebula: j2o already determines that. See http://www.jazz2online.com/downloads...Fquist&id=1282

It is determined by checking how high the ratings of the reviewer are compared to the average rating of the level they reviewed.

As i recall, they didn't accept avatars cause they created LAG they still build for the 56kers

anyhow, is there any reason for that "Lori Central" banner at the bottom?

If the strictness thing will be added I would also add the following, which is that people's rating will not be determined by their number of reviews/postings but by their own avarage rating.

I don't think we should consider people with a rating from 1 to 4 able to express their opinion fully. Anything above 4 for 2 out of three and anyone with a 7 fully.

Flash! Use Macromedia Flash! :P

Newspaz: But that way, if someone only reviews bad or good levels the system won't get that. I don't get what you mean 100%

Overlord: Flash could be an option if it's interactive and managable enough for php, which it probably isn't. You can combine flash with php but it's a lot of work and not as flexible.

MEHHEHHEHEHE!

Use Flash...... Use Flash......

PHP Code:

<? phpinfo ?>

^^
This won't work

Heh, USE FLASHHHH, Overlord and me can do it! Us eflash..............

BTW, I forgot to say..... USE FLASH!!!! It's easy to use, and makes the page look good!

HallO!

Not in combination with php.

It doesn't have to be complicated. If you just made, for example, the title bar with links on it in Flash, that shouldn't need to integrate with PHP.

I'd say we should not integrate into any flash... it's not necessary for the site.

By the way, the idea of having a user strictness is impossible or at least impractical in the system you are talking about (if I have it right). To caculate a rating strictness, you would need to know how strict other users are in relation to other users, which would be based on yet other users....

User strictnesses would have to constantly change and disrupt previously rated levels if I'm thinking about the system you are... its circular...

Unless you have some sort of "head person" who determines the base of all reviews for a level this is not possible...

Ok, I finally have some good ideas that you absolutely must use in the new site.

1. Make a system that informs the authour of a level when a new review to his or her level is posted. The message informing the authour should be visible on the main page as soon as the user is logged in. Same should probably go with photos and articles.

Article reviewing system.

2. Instead of using a drop down menu to select the tileset you used for a level, make it a text box. That way, custom tilesets can be typed there.


3. Make the drop down menus for gametype and version (1.23/1.24) be defaulted to something like "Please Select One". That way a level submitter cannot ignore those categories; they must select something. This will help cut back TSF levels being sumbitted as 1.23 ones.


4. Give us admins the ability to prevent users from making actual reviews, besides N/A. This is so we can punish bad reviewers without giving them the dreaded "low access". Some review abusers don't really deserve to have low access, but don't deserve to be allowed to review either.


5. Integrate part of JDC into the site, such as the top 5 competitors and the next event. It can be an optional feature, just like the poll and mini-listserver. This feature would mainly be for promotional reasons.

More ideas comming soon.

Originally posted by Bobby aka Dizzy
I'd say we should not integrate into any flash... it's not necessary for the site.

By the way, the idea of having a user strictness is impossible or at least impractical in the system you are talking about (if I have it right). To caculate a rating strictness, you would need to know how strict other users are in relation to other users, which would be based on yet other users....

User strictnesses would have to constantly change and disrupt previously rated levels if I'm thinking about the system you are... its circular...

Unless you have some sort of "head person" who determines the base of all reviews for a level this is not possible...

Bobby, isn't it comparing it already? It compares the reviewer's rating to the average level rating. That way you can see how far the user is off from the average thing. What's wrong with it?

Very good ideas, Evilmike.

w00t

The review to your level message idea is great, I always wanted that. I would also suggest to make an option for the level-uploader to don't allow his upload to be rated. Like when someone uploads Bash and someone artes it the admins wont have to turn rating ability off or change the review. And (maybe, probably bad idea) make a minimal-characters thing for reviews, so short reviews like "GOOD LEVEL DOWNLOAD NOW!!!11!!" which don't really tell the creator of the upload a thing will be rejected. I know my english grammar is awful, but I hope you get it :P

Just posting this, cos I think u ppl are kinda not looking at the best solution: SPLASH' idea.

Splitting the rating into a reviewers rating and staff rating. People can compare the different ratings and get a more detailed, neutral point of view. There are major review sites on the net which use such a rating system. If u go to http://www.gamespot.com u'll see such a review system is used there.
For the lazy bums: http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters...197669,00.html

Looking at this topic, all the top reviewers here are asking for a system which lets them have more effect on the final score of a download. This would be totally inconvenient, since people who would just sign up as new reviewers could posses incredible review abilities. This way their voice counts less than so called 'higher' ranked persons.

Not only that but the coding of a splitted review would be much easier. U'll need some respected and good reviewing persons as staff, around 5 or so, and yer done. When a lvl is rated 7 by the staff, but has a 9.1 from the users; people will start thinking and see what's the cause of the difference. For example the lvl has only been rated by his pals or someone was pretty new to the system.

Yes, I was thinking of download/review moderation, and also a staff rating. Good ideas everyone

I don't know about the staff rating. It bears some form of elitism with it. Like the staff is better then the members. Also, I don't think the staff will ever review levels, hehe. We have always reviewed some, but defenitely not much levels.

Fquist, if the average rating is changed by stricness, there is no base to calculate it by... I don't know how to explain it well.

Basing the ratings off of the average rating can cause user ratings to go haywire. They can be too far off if a slew of poor reviewers rates it far from a good reviewer's ratings. Instead, the good reviewer would get a lower score while the poor reviewers will get a higher score. You would need a base with a true and perfect rating, but there is no such thing as a perfect review. The way it is has been working fine, granted that there are a few goofballs that might pop up here and there.

Here are some of my ideas about the downloads:

1. Have the ability for users to mark a bad review and download. They will appear in the admin control panel.

2. Make it possible for downloads not to be rated, but only if the staff decides so. Otherwise a user can upload bad crap to j2o without it receiving bad ratings.

3. We need *some* way of review/rating weighing, because at the moment good reviews aren't exactly encouraged. This weighing could be based on rating strictness, karma, or other methods. Maybe the staff should be able to give people a point which means their rating weighs more.

4. There will come a content system based on the noding idea. It's a system with nodes, and authorized people will be able to add content easily. We can appoint specialized people taking care of content sections.

Yeah, I agree with the elemination of the PM system on J2O. Not JCF. Also, I was wondering, why do you people have those Party Mode thingie and JCS and Character options on the top of the page. Those really have to go, cuz for as long as I've been here, (about 2 years) those have always said, "Stay tuned!"
So how bout also like the toolbar or the thing where you can select downloads and stuff put along the side of the page, and make the page go to the full extent of the internet browser window. I mean, you could have the options"Downloads" on the side, and then when you click it you get choices that drop down like Submit Level, or View 1.23 levels, or TSF levels. From there it would show the levels in most recent loaded, but then you could obviously go click filters to find the levels which you want. That's about all for now...

(So many spelling errors... I just had to edit it! )