MarioWiki Feedback

By Site Notice, I assume you mean the topbar.

We had to drop it, as it was messing with ads and page format.
 
Ghost Jam said:
By Site Notice, I assume you mean the topbar.

We had to drop it, as it was messing with ads and page format.
Click to expand...
Aw. So, do all of the ads affect it, or just the top one?
 
The tops one, duh. I think we already had the one at the bottom when the Sitebar was still in effect.
 
Blitzwing-2 said:
The tops one, duh. I think we already had the one at the bottom when the Sitebar was still in effect.
Click to expand...
Do we really need the top ad? Steve says he wants the ad more than the sitebar...
 
So, yeah, I deleted a side conversation that was going on here. Please stay on topic, people. If you wish to discuss something else, please do so in another topic or through personal channels.

Garlic Man said:
Blitzwing-2 said:
The tops one, duh. I think we already had the one at the bottom when the Sitebar was still in effect.
Click to expand...
Do we really need the top ad? Steve says he wants the ad more than the sitebar...
Click to expand...

The ads are needed to generate funds to run the server the wiki is on, so, yes, we really need the ads.
 
Ghost Jam said:
So, yeah, I deleted a side conversation that was going on here. Please stay on topic, people. If you wish to discuss something else, please do so in another topic or through personal channels.

Garlic Man said:
Blitzwing-2 said:
The tops one, duh. I think we already had the one at the bottom when the Sitebar was still in effect.
Click to expand...
Do we really need the top ad? Steve says he wants the ad more than the sitebar...
Click to expand...

The ads are needed to generate funds to run the server the wiki is on, so, yes, we really need the ads.
Click to expand...
I know that. But... could we move the top ad to the bottom so there's two at the bottom? ...never mind.
 
I varied them to how specific I wanted them to be (the more specific, the more I cared). :P
 
Wayoshi said:
I varied them to how specific I wanted them to be (the more specific, the more I cared). :P
Click to expand...
You should have made them from a scale of 1 to 1337, then. :eek:
 
1 to 10 is always the best. Accurate, but not hard to choose from (unless you're someone like me, who can't rate anything on an absolute basis, only on a relative one [absolute: number from 1-5/1-7/1-10 etc.; relative: something like SM64 > SMB3 > SMB2 > SMB]).
 
Right, PS. It's all relative. on a 1-5, 3 is neutral. On a 1-7, 4 is neutral. On a 1-10, 5-6 is neutral.
 
Wayoshi said:
Right, PS. It's all relative. on a 1-5, 3 is neutral. On a 1-7, 4 is neutral. On a 1-10, 5-6 is neutral.
Click to expand...
5 and 6 can't both be neutral.

Which is why I don't like even-numbered voting scales...
 
Garlic Man said:
Wayoshi said:
Right, PS. It's all relative. on a 1-5, 3 is neutral. On a 1-7, 4 is neutral. On a 1-10, 5-6 is neutral.
Click to expand...
5 and 6 can't both be neutral.

Which is why I don't like even-numbered voting scales...
Click to expand...
That's why you're adding a 0-option, so that 5 is neutral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back