Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion
Options

Have DS finished tinkering?

degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
Forum Member
✭
in General Discussion #1
I've noticed a couple of tweaks and the style selector now says Digital Spy and not WIP.
But for me in W7 IE8 the header and footer are still 'broken'.

Here is how it was until a couple of days ago
Header - https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/xeLqnR6cTSjUp6YO3zi7MtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

Here is the header today
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/GojDawzzCsHsn--QxEcuQNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
and here is the footer
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Z8UxBqJ2eYkmjnhZpX0Y_dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
«1

Comments

  • Options
    anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #2
    Mine hasn't done that.:confused:
  • Options
    degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #3
    What OS and Browser are you using?
  • Options
    BunionsBunions Posts: 15,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #4
    I didn't know folk still used IE :kitty:
  • Options
    degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    I like IE. It's setup how I like it. Not really a fan of Chrome but do have to use it occasionally.
  • Options
    Miss XYZMiss XYZ Posts: 14,023
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #6
    Off topic but I'm wondering if they've been tinkering with the banned members list. I'm almost certain I've seen a couple of DS members who were banned in recent months, posting again in the last couple of days. It's confused the hell out of me. :confused:
  • Options
    AvidianAvidian Posts: 6,049
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    Miss XYZ wrote: »
    Off topic but I'm wondering if they've been tinkering with the banned members list. I'm almost certain I've seen a couple of DS members who were banned in recent months, posting again in the last couple of days. It's confused the hell out of me. :confused:
    It appears to me that things have been a lot quieter a round these parts recently.

    There was a User not so long ago who claimed that their account had just been activated, years after registering.

    Perhaps some people who have previously banned have been reprieved....to make up the numbers :blush:
  • Options
    Bex_123Bex_123 Posts: 10,783
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #8
    Miss XYZ wrote: »
    Off topic but I'm wondering if they've been tinkering with the banned members list. I'm almost certain I've seen a couple of DS members who were banned in recent months, posting again in the last couple of days. It's confused the hell out of me. :confused:

    They seem to be going for short bans lately. I've noticed a lot of people become inactive and then soon be posting again.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,182
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #9
    Bex_123 wrote: »
    They seem to be going for short bans lately. I've noticed a lot of people become inactive and then soon be posting again.

    I wonder if the 'short sharp shock' is effective in most cases? I've not been on the receiving end personally. Yet :D
  • Options
    BunionsBunions Posts: 15,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #10
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    I like IE. It's setup how I like it. Not really a fan of Chrome but do have to use it occasionally.
    Me neither but I have it installed because I like how you can print in b/w from it - translate's brilliant too.

    I love Cyberfox which I discovered recently - fastest I've ever used.
    Bex_123 wrote: »
    They seem to be going for short bans lately. I've noticed a lot of people become inactive and then soon be posting again.
    I've seen that too.

    Makes you wonder if perhaps an email warning might be just as effective for 'minor crimes?'
  • Options
    anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #11
    SpangledKes wrote: »
    I wonder if the 'short sharp shock' is effective in most cases? I've not been on the receiving end personally. Yet :D

    I have and "inactive member" can mean a suspension too and not necessarily a permanent ban. . Mine was 48 hours.
  • Options
    Bex_123Bex_123 Posts: 10,783
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    Bunions wrote: »
    I've seen that too.

    Makes you wonder if perhaps an email warning might be just as effective for 'minor crimes?'

    They probably realised that while banning people permenantly is all well and good, you then start running out of people. Or they just come back under a different name!
  • Options
    BunionsBunions Posts: 15,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #13
    Bex_123 wrote: »
    They probably realised that while banning people permenantly is all well and good, you then start running out of people. Or they just come back under a different name!
    Indeed.

    Renders the process ineffective as you really can't keep extremely determined people out anyway.
  • Options
    OMTTOMTT Posts: 5,459
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #14
    I wish they'd fix it so I can view it on my iPhone without getting redirected to the App Store each time a new page loads!! :mad:
  • Options
    AvidianAvidian Posts: 6,049
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #15
    Bex_123 wrote: »
    They probably realised that while banning people permenantly is all well and good, you then start running out of people. Or they just come back under a different name!
    Or sometimes the same name :confused:
  • Options
    CrazyLoopCrazyLoop Posts: 31,148
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    OMTT wrote: »
    I wish they'd fix it so I can view it on my iPhone without getting redirected to the App Store each time a new page loads!! :mad:
    How weird...that doesn't happen to me?
  • Options
    anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #17
    Bex_123 wrote: »
    They probably realised that while banning people permenantly is all well and good, you then start running out of people. Or they just come back under a different name!

    They used to ban everyone permanently?
  • Options
    CrazyLoopCrazyLoop Posts: 31,148
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #18
    anne_666 wrote: »
    They used to ban everyone permanently?

    Not everyone, but plenty of them but most deserved it ;)
  • Options
    BunionsBunions Posts: 15,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #19
    anne_666 wrote: »
    They used to ban everyone permanently?
    If the rules here are like in other places then the length and type of ban will depend on the 'crime' committed.

    A permaban would normally only be given to someone who did something totally out of order like calling someone else the c-bomb :D
  • Options
    AndyAndy Posts: 1,618
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #20
    Avidian wrote: »
    It appears to me that things have been a lot quieter a round these parts recently.

    Perhaps some people who have previously banned have been reprieved....to make up the numbers :blush:

    No. The forums (as they have always done) are running at a steady pace on par with this time last year - we're currently in a lull where there's very little in terms of reality TV which is a big draw for us (as some will know; at one stage we couldn't go a Big Brother or X Factor elimination without crashing). Once they start up again, the forums will get busier again. It happens every year.
    Bex_123 wrote: »
    They seem to be going for short bans lately. I've noticed a lot of people become inactive and then soon be posting again.
    Bunions wrote: »
    Makes you wonder if perhaps an email warning might be just as effective for 'minor crimes?'

    Warnings and temporary bans have always existed. We don't just ban people permanently on their first offence (unless of course it is extremely serious or they're a PBU). The standard pattern we take is warning > 48 hours > 7 days > 2 weeks > permanent. We do of course repeat or skip steps where necessary.

    We're also not (always) unreasonable. If someone allows some time to pass after a permanent ban and then contacts us having seen the error of their ways, we will sometimes let them return on a probationary period.
    OMTT wrote: »
    I wish they'd fix it so I can view it on my iPhone without getting redirected to the App Store each time a new page loads!! :mad:

    Very sorry about this. We're aware of it and our ad team is working with our ad provider to remedy this as a matter of urgency.
  • Options
    Bex_123Bex_123 Posts: 10,783
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #21
    anne_666 wrote: »
    They used to ban everyone permanently?

    Nope, it just seemed to me that there were more temporary bans recently. Maybe people have just been doing more temp ban worthy things lately?
    Andy Joannou wrote: »
    Warnings and temporary bans have always existed. We don't just ban people permanently on their first offence (unless of course it is extremely serious or they're a PBU). The standard pattern we take is warning > 48 hours > 7 days > 2 weeks > permanent. We do of course repeat or skip steps where necessary.

    Of course I could just be imagining this entirely :D
  • Options
    BunionsBunions Posts: 15,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #22
    Andy Joannou wrote: »
    No. The forums (as they have always done) are running at a steady pace on par with this time last year - we're currently in a lull where there's very little in terms of reality TV which is a big draw for us (as some will know; at one stage we couldn't go a Big Brother or X Factor elimination without crashing). Once they start up again, the forums will get busier again. It happens every year.

    Warnings and temporary bans have always existed. We don't just ban people permanently on their first offence (unless of course it is extremely serious or they're a PBU). The standard pattern we take is warning > 48 hours > 7 days > 2 weeks > permanent. We do of course repeat or skip steps where necessary.

    We're also not (always) unreasonable. If someone allows some time to pass after a permanent ban and then contacts us having seen the error of their ways, we will sometimes let them return on a probationary period.
    Thanks for clearing that up, Your Modship :D
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,607
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #23
    OMTT wrote: »
    I wish they'd fix it so I can view it on my iPhone without getting redirected to the App Store each time a new page loads!! :mad:


    ^^ this >:(

    Bloody William hill app for me!

    I might start gambling :D
  • Options
    BunionsBunions Posts: 15,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #24
    Bibidybobidyboo wrote: »
    ^^ this >:(

    Bloody William hill app for me!
    Have you tried the Mobile Forums view?

    No ads on that or there weren't the last time I used it.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,607
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #25
    Bunions wrote: »
    Have you tried the Mobile Forums view?

    No ads on that or there weren't the last time I used it.

    I haven't, I shall try it :) thanks for the suggestion!
  • Options
    AvidianAvidian Posts: 6,049
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #26
    Andy Joannou wrote: »
    No. The forums (as they have always done) are running at a steady pace on par with this time last year - we're currently in a lull where there's very little in terms of reality TV which is a big draw for us (as some will know; at one stage we couldn't go a Big Brother or X Factor elimination without crashing). Once they start up again, the forums will get busier again. It happens every year.
    This time last year:

    http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=64765299&highlight=I%20wish%20I%20had%20this%20much%20free%20time.%20#post64765299

    :D
Sign In or Register to comment.