What's odd now is that now the number of previews isn't times of previews in line and there is always hanging row. E.g. in Chrome on a FHD display setting is 70 priviews per page, it shows.. 9 rows with 8 images per row, 64 +3 = 67! and leaves 5 empty spaces.
Looks unprofessional. And weird is that it shows 67, not 70? Something fishy in math then. If I recall original right,it was selecting row length to adjust count so usually there was no hanging lines? If 8 per line now constant, shouldn't setting be changed o times of 8? (e.g. 24, 32, 48, 56, 64, 72).

It may be layout doesn't use portable layout anymore so it depends on browser? (tbh, my knowledge of HTML and CSS stuck somewhere in 2010 except few updates that creeped with Qt and QSS I use).If that's a new designer,they should keep in mind that some stuff supported by browser may
be working differently in another, there are standard behaviours and implementation-specific behaviours, somestuff it platform-specific, like problems with font sizes and margins units and relative vaues (expressed in %). Not to mention of some browsers quirks.

Huge thumbnails, microscopic text in comparison. Looks very weird. I assume it's beginner attempt at refactoring old design, but if that stays...

swiftkill said:
What's odd now is that now the number of previews isn't times of previews in line and there is always hanging row. E.g. in Chrome on a FHD display setting is 70 priviews per page, it shows.. 9 rows with 8 images per row, 64 +3 = 67! and leaves 5 empty spaces.
Looks unprofessional. And weird is that it shows 67, not 70? Something fishy in math then. If I recall original right,it was selecting row length to adjust count so usually there was no hanging lines? If 8 per line now constant, shouldn't setting be changed o times of 8? (e.g. 24, 32, 48, 56, 64, 72).

It may be layout doesn't use portable layout anymore so it depends on browser? (tbh, my knowledge of HTML and CSS stuck somewhere in 2010 except few updates that creeped with Qt and QSS I use).If that's a new designer,they should keep in mind that some stuff supported by browser may
be working differently in another, there are standard behaviours and implementation-specific behaviours, somestuff it platform-specific, like problems with font sizes and margins units and relative vaues (expressed in %). Not to mention of some browsers quirks.

Huge thumbnails, microscopic text in comparison. Looks very weird. I assume it's beginner attempt at refactoring old design, but if that stays...

Almost every image is cropped, sometimes very large amounts of the image's contents are cropped to the point you can't even tell what the image is. The thumbnails are only superficially larger, the amount of information in them is actually less. It's horrendous.

atomicargonian said:
first youtube making GIANT thumbnails now E6
what is with this dumb trend, it's always universally panned

ADHD-powered trend. They usually are very vocal that they get lost and that images are too small. althoughin these case that could be amented by existing settings.
More disturbing is lots of collapsible floaters filling screen everywhere (e621 catches that disease now too) and few menu options but bazillion nesting levels , e.g. how about a game where menu got 9 (nine!) consequent menu and UIscreens to reach certain feature?
I saw that. It's also a MMO game. AI-assisted design, no UX involved. Whn Ai receives feedback it usualy fixes what was asked literally and breaks something else in process.

Answer - designer folows their own vision of exist trends instead of common sense and canonical knwledge of usability, in hopes to be "original" and therefore "successful".

godgasi said:
Almost every image is cropped, sometimes very large amounts of the image's contents are cropped to the point you can't even tell what the image is. The thumbnails are only superficially larger, the amount of information in them is actually less. It's horrendous.

I don't see cropped. They just huge to fit whole image. Different browser? That may also suggst non-portable layout.

dba_afish said:
what do you see then? there's only like three things in the menu.

Account: Username, Email, API Key, Time Zone
Notifications: Email Notifications, Forum Activity Dot
Profile: Avatar Post ID, About Me, Commission Info
Posts: Default image width, Posts per page, Comment threshold, Hide comments, Show own hidden comments, Safe mode

Damn, after writing this, I see now that there are 2 different gear icons on the screen... this is a case of bad UI design. There shouldn't be 2 buttons with the same icon.

gearhound said:
On PC I found you can set card size to "Small" by clicking the gear icon near the search bar, but I can't seem to find this in mobile mode? Still don't like it, not sure what the purpose of this change was.

Thank you! This was a terrible default change.

swiftkill said:
I don't see cropped. They just huge to fit whole image. Different browser? That may also suggst non-portable layout.

on windows firefox all thumbnails are the same square shape and images gets cropped to fit them

Alright, one day later and I have to amend my comment on the UI change (since it seems to have changed since then).
I have my 4 thumbnails per row back in landscape mode on mobile which is nice (not sure if this was due to an update of the site or more higher res or full size thumbnails or whatever being generated) though it is still only 2 thumbnails per row in portrait mode (which I admittedly don't use very often, at least not for this site). However, with the old UI I had about 2.5 rows of thumbnails per screen while it is now only one, which is due to the much bigger thumbnails. Which also means that for the same amount of posts per page I have to scroll more.
And this is where I have to come with the criticism:
You aren't giving people proper options. No, neither "switch to desktop, change settings there and change back to mobile" nor "use custom CSS" is an actual option. The former is a workaround for missing or non-functional options (which needs to be fixed), while the latter is for personal customisation and shouldn't be used as the replacement of options that aren't offered in one mode. Options like e.g. Size of thumbnail (Small, medium, large) would be a good idea here. Because as it is currently I'd like to have the thumbnails smaller because I'd like to see more per screen and also because they are too close together IMO. But as it is right now, it looks like a "Eat or die" situation. Don't be surprised when people complain in that case.
And finally the communication. That's just an F. You communicate AV1 support in MP4 files (something that those who just browse this site won't notice for the most part) but something like this, that affects basically everyone is not even getting mentioned. Sure, I would have understood it if it was some small change, but we are talking about a significant part of the user experience. That isn't something you "just changed and it will all be fine". Imagine if Windows would just instantly change to a MacOS UI. No announcement or preview. People would be confused and would rightfully complain. Because they just got hit by a truck and are then being told to just accept and not complain about it. Which won't make the situation better, only worse.
Give people proper options instead of janky workarounds and properly communicate in advance about big changes to the user experience. Give them a beta preview, ask for feedback. And iterate on that feedback so it is ready instead of releasing something and being surprised that people don't like the first iteration.

TL;DR: It has gotten better since yesterday on mobile, but you guys have to give people actual options and need to seriously think about your communication.

I do like larger thumbnails, makes bulk tagging easier.

The main two issues I see are:
1. The change didn't actually change the 16 pixel gap between thumbnails. Reduce this to 2 pixels (or zero, but some gap could be beneficial for visuals) and thumbnails could be made bigger without changing the number of posts per row. (256 pixel wide thumbnails become 270 pixels, only 5.47% larger, but without any meaningful downsides to the user experience. But the new larger thumbnails being 50% bigger is interesting, a bit huge so far but not something I can't get used to. And one can change it back by clicking the gear under the search field.)

2. The thumbnails are cropped! Due to being forced into squares.
DEFEATING the whole benefit for bulk tagging since a lot of CRITICAL information about a given image is potentially NOT in the thumbnail.... Same can be said about exploring images, the thumbnail doesn't actually show ALL the content in an image.
Images with more extreme aspect ratios are particularly affected by this update. (comic strips or extremely wide screen images)

I don't like this, put it back!

swiftkill said:
ADHD-powered trend. They usually are very vocal that they get lost and that images are too small.

I've been diagnosed with ADHD and ASD and not only have I had no problems with navigating the smaller images, I find the current size to be a bit of a sensory overload

You know, I actually like the idea of bigger thumbnails. Some artists have some really noisy style that look great in its native resolution, but it makes really hard to discern what's happening in a thumbnail. Being able to quickly switch between sizes right under the searchbar with no additional loading is also really great. But I have to agree with the overall sentiment that the change feels... Kinda rushed. The pillar-boxing with the "Full" thumbnails look really ugly. I've no idea why this change wasn't broadcasted under the news header since I think most people won't even realize that these new options are there without reading these forums (and finding the relevant information among them). There's two different gear icons too, which can just add to the confusion of which one people are referring too since CSS changes are in one and the size changes are in the other. This really feels like a work-in-progress build that was accidentally published.

Anyways, overall I do appreciate the direction of giving more options, but I think that these changes are fostering a bit of an antagonistic relationship between the site staff and the users. Is it possible to have a beta branch where people interested in the possible improvements can provide feedback while not poisoning the well of discourse entirely?

swiftkill said:
ADHD-powered trend. They usually are very vocal that they get lost and that images are too small.

I have severe ADHD and the large images make the viewing experience significantly worse

bxsinclair said:
I've been diagnosed with ADHD and ASD and not only have I had no problems with navigating the smaller images, I find the current size to be a bit of a sensory overload

As this person mentions it causes something akin to sensory overload and is not helpful in any way

Coming back to it all, I think it would have been nicer to users if it was introduced with "hey, we changed some stuff and added extra settings, look over here if you want to adjust!" rather than forcing your entire userbase to be on a new default, especially when it is such a big change in terms of the appearance of the site. I've already mentioned I'm not a fan of the design change, but I don't think it's *bad*, just that it messes with me who is already used to it. If the site appeared like this and always had, I'm sure that would just be it: that's just how the site looks.

tl;dr: people don't like change when they're forced into it by being pushed off the deep end.

...I like the change. The images before were too small for me so I like that I can make them bigger now.

Though I do agree there should have been an announcement first.

joegarden said:
...I like the change. The images before were too small for me so I like that I can make them bigger now.

Though I do agree there should have been an announcement first.

it would of also been nice if they made it possible to easily revert back to the old style without needing css code

It is obvious that some will prefer bigger thumbnails and not mind 2 rows on mobile, but me and a lot of people have a hard time using the website now, which is why there needs to be options... It's like forcing a blacklisted tag on all users because "some people like this so it's good therefore you have no choice but to get it served". Also I'm not an advanced user yet I'm blindly copypasting code from a messy thread to fix it, that's not how it should be

atomicargonian said:
first youtube making GIANT thumbnails now E6
what is with this dumb trend, it's always universally panned

People are going blind?

That bad joke aside, I had to tinker with my customization's of the style with the following:

article.thumbnail {
height: fit-content !important;
overflow: visible !important;
display: block !important;
margin-bottom: 5px;
}

The !important might not be needed if you're using the site's CSS injector, I'm using Stylus extension in Firefox to affect the change.

The new thumbnails aren't being generated correctly for images wider than 2:1 aspect ratio: https://i.imgur.com/RbqqqSm.png

Even with "Image Crop" set to "Full", the right of the image is being cropped. Compare the 2nd image here with the 3rd image (for some reason, their thumbnails were generated with different versions).

This isn't a CSS problem, Inspect Element reveals the thumbnail images themselves are 512x256 resolution.

Oh my god, the mobile version is unusable now, the desktop version looks ugly and disgusting. Who do you have to be to think that this is good?

I feel bad for UI designers because they can never trust feedback. No matter what they do people will rave about it. But this is pretty bad

honestly i don't even mind the change, some will like it and others won't. my issue is there was no word from the admins/mods about the change, no heads-up at all, and no way to change back to the old UI. i think the bigger thumbnails could come in handy occasionally but i much prefer the old layout and cropping and i really hope they either revert it and rework it, or add the option to change back. all due respect to the site designer(s) and admins but this could've been handled better, and had no reason to be so rushed.

I'd like to say: before, there was no crop mode option, and now there is. Say what you will about the quality of the update but hopefully there's nobody here trying to claim they aren't trying!

harrybenson said:
I'd like to say: before, there was no crop mode option, and now there is. Say what you will about the quality of the update but hopefully there's nobody here trying to claim they aren't trying!

even with both crop = full and icon = small its not the same as it was before so you have to use custom css to actually get it usable

At least make the thumbnails higher-quality.

It'd be really nice if changes like this got previewed or had a beta phase we could opt-into instead of being throw into sudden UI changes and search changes like this, especially when the change seems to panned across the board.

purelyforablacklist said:
It'd be really nice if changes like this got previewed or had a beta phase we could opt-into instead of being throw into sudden UI changes and search changes like this, especially when the change seems to panned across the board.

UI changes generally go live a week early on e926. I'm not sure if these had since they're kind of tied to the change in thumbnail samples.

are thumbnails of old images going to update or will they forever just be blurry and badly cropped

Another feedback, hopefully it can be fixed. There's no view change option (the little cogwheel) in favourites and pools. Would be nice to include the functionality on those pages too.

For everything that’s good change it back this is unusable

The suffering is endless, this entire forum post is basically just a drawn-out wail without any comfort or hearing

alright, read some of the comments on this thread, here's what i have to say as a UI/UX design enthusiast, the cropping, idk. Good experimental thing. The addition of resizing images up for people who wish to be able to more clearly see images, either because they're on a lower res display, or like me, don't have great eyesight is good.

I'm confused as to why the "default" configuration is the most annoying and broken version of the options, but once you log in it's fine, ig. I will also note that the new borders to "square" the images is.. an interesting choice. I like that the images are aligned vertically now, that's nice, visually pleasing. Weirdly busy to look at, especially with the neon bordering around the darker blue. It's just a bad UI/UX decision on that front. Rolling out this update when there aren't any resized thumbnails to go along with it, was certainly one of the choices of all time. (again changing the default here would solve this one)

TL;DR revert default back to small images, no crop. Ideally remove the weird bordering thing? Idk, not really sure on it. And play around with cleaning up the visual appearance a little bit. (oh and probably build in some form of "experimental" UI theme, so this doesnt happen again lol) oh and probably make announcements whenever you do bigger updates like this, it'll make people far less angry when they find out it's just a new temporary problem, or short term experiment.

The e6 UI as is, is good, i have very little complaints historically speaking. Making drastic changes is only more likely to cause problems. That's one of the biggest rules in UI design, if it works, don't change it because you WILL break it.

teresmixxg said:
The suffering is endless, this entire forum post is basically just a drawn-out wail without any comfort or hearing

Why are we here? just to suffer?

omg i thought this was a bug. using the options helps but everything is still so large and blurry... i do not like this at all..
edit: if thumbnails are regenerated that should fix the blurry at least. still not rlly happy with it..

potes said:

margin-top: auto;

This line makes the posts align at the bottom.

For anyone looking this far into the thread for how to get the layout to look like it did originally, what you want is this:

article.thumbnail a {
  background: unset;
  height: fit-content;
  width: fit-content;
  margin-left: auto;
  margin-right: auto;
}

article.thumbnail > a::before {
  top: auto;
  left: auto;
  margin-top: 0.5rem;
  margin-left: 0.5rem;
  border: 1px solid var(--color-text-muted);
  border-radius: 3px;
}

As a reminder: Go to Settings, select the "Advanced" tab, scroll down to the Custom CSS field and copy-paste the above script into it. Should work.

Copy the following half of the code to the ccs to make the appearance look the same as before?

gearhound said:
I don't want to see larger previews, I want to see more so I can browse quicker and easier. More results displayed at once >>>>>>>> bigger previews.

It's nice to see someone else verbalizing & encapsulating how I feel. I get that they wanted to improve thumbnail readability but damn I can't figure out how to get it back to normal on desktop mode and apparently there are TONS of mobile users feeling like might have to take the 'L' on this one

I wasn't even fully aware this site had a forum until I saw the layout today and had to rant about it. Terrible layout change. Hard on the eyes, hard to parse, infinitely less efficient, cannot fathom what the intended benefit is.

Okay, rant over. It would frankly be bad enough to drive me elsewhere altogether but for this from back on page 2; combined with setting image crop full and card size small under the searchbar, it's a near-perfect revert to the old appearance (for desktop, at least) and should frankly be the default:

hornblende said:
Put together some CSS that makes Full+Small look almost pixel for pixel exactly like the old layout, doesn’t mess up Crop+Small or Crop+Large, and should in theory Just Work with Full+Large if/when they roll out larger thumbnails

Edit: added a bit to make blacklisted avatars not overflow

/* restore old layout */

@media (min-width: 800px) {
    body[data-st-contain="true"] article.thumbnail {
        min-height: unset;
        max-width: var(--thumb-image-size);
    }
}

body[data-st-contain="true"] article.thumbnail a { 
    background: unset;
    height: unset;
}

body[data-st-contain="true"] article.thumbnail img { 
    width: unset;
    max-width: 100%;
}

article.thumbnail .desc { 
    max-width: var(--thumb-image-size);
    height: unset;
}

/* make blacklisted avatars less scuffed */

.comment-post-grid .author-info .avatar .post-thumbnail.blacklisted img {
    padding: 150px 150px 0 0;
    background-size: 150px;
}

THANK YOU for this, it's still just an unfortunate hassle on mobile since, you know, private tabs and all that jazz.

I'm just going to wait and see if the site actually returns to normal or not and will just withhold any conversations or content from being posted here until it is.

potes said:

margin-top: auto;

This line makes the posts align at the bottom.

For anyone looking this far into the thread for how to get the layout to look like it did originally, what you want is this:

article.thumbnail a {
  background: unset;
  height: fit-content;
  width: fit-content;
  margin-left: auto;
  margin-right: auto;
}

article.thumbnail > a::before {
  top: auto;
  left: auto;
  margin-top: 0.5rem;
  margin-left: 0.5rem;
  border: 1px solid var(--color-text-muted);
  border-radius: 3px;
}

As a reminder: Go to Settings, select the "Advanced" tab, scroll down to the Custom CSS field and copy-paste the above script into it. Should work.

This unfortunately breaks with deleted thumbnails in the search results (see gasprart status:any for example), and blacklisted thumbnails in wiki pages (not sure what or if you have anything blacklisted, so can't given an example).

daneasaur said:
I'm just going to wait and see if the site actually returns to normal or not and will just withhold any conversations or content from being posted here until it is.

If it's any consolation, I have received some valuable feedback, and will be making some changes based on it.
This includes:

• Fixing some oversights, like the colored borders being applied to the whole thumbnail card, rather than just the image itself.
• Adding a "medium" thumbnail size, at around 200px, which would be the new default. It's a midpoint between the old 150px and the new 256px image sizes.
• Adding a way for mobile users to change their display preferences, in a way that presents them with 3 columns of posts with the "small" thumbnail size, 2 with "medium" and 1 with "large".
• Integrating the display options into the settings menu, as that's where logged in users expected to find them.

However, there will not be a rollback to a previous version of a site.

cinder said:
If it's any consolation, I have received some valuable feedback, and will be making some changes based on it.
This includes:

• Fixing some oversights, like the colored borders being applied to the whole thumbnail card, rather than just the image itself.
• Adding a "medium" thumbnail size, at around 200px, which would be the new default. It's a midpoint between the old 150px and the new 256px image sizes.
• Adding a way for mobile users to change their display preferences, in a way that presents them with 3 columns of posts with the "small" thumbnail size, 2 with "medium" and 1 with "large".
• Integrating the display options into the settings menu, as that's where logged in users expected to find them.

However, there will not be a rollback to a previous version of a site.

That's good stuff. I think the majority of problems were just negatively affecting the mobile experience which will always be a nightmare for fitting images. I will always like the addition of new options to peruse

cinder said:
If it's any consolation, I have received some valuable feedback, and will be making some changes based on it.

will old images have their thumbnails fixed in the changed version or will they still be blurry

puhba said:
will old images have their thumbnails fixed in the changed version or will they still be blurry

That's unrelated to getting a new update, the server is simply regenerating the thumbnail sizes which just takes time to process

However, there will not be a rollback to a previous version of a site.

Why not? It wasn't broken. It didn't need fixing.

rynir said:
Why not? It wasn't broken. It didn't need fixing.

Because there is merit in the update with new options for people to enjoy

However, there will not be a rollback to a previous version of a site.

Universally hated change "not going to change it back"
sunk cost fallacy I feel like

atleast give the users a option to change it back for themselves jeez that all we are asking, is consideration for the people who don't want to use your "improved" layout

nin10dope said:
That's good stuff. I think the majority of problems were just negatively affecting the mobile experience which will always be a nightmare for fitting images. I will always like the addition of new options to peruse

the majority of the problems were from both mobile and desktop, people just don't like this layout cause frankly it sucks

funkwolfie said:
atleast give the users a option to change it back for themselves

It doesn't work like that

rynir said:
Why not? It wasn't broken. It didn't need fixing.

Because, like every other change they've ever made... they stop and think, could they be so out of touch? No! It's the users who are wrong.

Long standing criticism that's come up many times before. You're going to get further arguing with a brick wall. At best they might add some sort of middle ground but things are still often changed for the worse.

nin10dope said:
It doesn't work like that

it really does,

have two styles "modern" and "old" if we can get a similar effect with custom css it really wouldnt be too hard to implement into a drop down box, we shouldnt need to look for random css code in a thread to get the site back to usable

funkwolfie said:
it really does,

have two styles "modern" and "old" if we can get a similar effect with custom css it really wouldnt be too hard to implement into a drop down box, we shouldnt need to look for random css code in a thread to get the site back to usable

No. It's not a simple thing. It's only simple to say it, which is why people keep repeating it. This is a matter of programming and development far beyond little custom css bits

nin10dope said:
No. It's not a simple thing. It's only simple to say it, which is why people keep repeating it. This is a matter of programming and development far beyond little custom css bits

if you can alllow the users to select thumbnail sizes and crop styles, then it shouldnt be too hard for "all mighty cinder" to implement the old style back for users who want it back

and he should of thought of that before pushing an unwanted change on people by force

yeah, this update is factually a god-awful downgrade on PC, idk how it looks on mobile though.

funkwolfie said:
if you can alllow the users to select thumbnail sizes and crop styles, then it shouldnt be too hard for "all mighty cinder" to implement the old style back for users who want it back

and he should of thought of that before pushing an unwanted change on people by force

EXACTLY.

puhba said:
will old images have their thumbnails fixed in the changed version or will they still be blurry

Is this a serious question?
Yes.

cinder said:

• Adding a "medium" thumbnail size, at around 200px, which would be the new default. It's a midpoint between the old 150px and the new 256px image sizes.

What was the exact logic behind this? It seems all of the criticism pointed towards "it was fine as is" rather than "it needs to be larger, but not this large"

funkwolfie said:
if you can alllow the users to select thumbnail sizes and crop styles, then it shouldnt be too hard for "all mighty cinder" to implement the old style back for users who want it back

and he should of thought of that before pushing an unwanted change on people by force

what about the next time there's a UI change, should there also be an option to keep that the same as the previous version? and what about the change after that? and the one after that?

should we have an option to revert to the pre-ng layout from 2018? and then one for every single UI update since?

this isn't like the Minecraft launcher, you can't just allow people to choose whatever version and keep using it forever. this is a live, active website, all of it needs to be maintained and all of it needs to be compatible.

dba_afish said:
what about the next time there's a UI change, should there also be an option to keep that the same as the previous version? and what about the change after that? and the one after that?

should we have an option to revert to the pre-ng layout from 2018? and then one for every single UI update since?

this isn't like the Minecraft launcher, you can't just allow people to choose whatever version and keep using it forever. this is a live, active website, all of it needs to be maintained and all of it needs to be compatible.

heres a crazy idea.

is the ui broken?
yes - fix it
no - don't try to fix it, youll just piss people off - did you do it anyways? - revert

funkwolfie said:
heres a crazy idea.

is the ui broken?
yes - fix it
no - don't try to fix it, youll just piss people off - did you do it anyways? - revert

or even "listen to community feedback if all you see about you ui is mostly hate then prob should revert it, if almost everyone loves it then don't revert it

cinder said:
If it's any consolation, I have received some valuable feedback, and will be making some changes based on it.
This includes:

• Fixing some oversights, like the colored borders being applied to the whole thumbnail card, rather than just the image itself.
• Adding a "medium" thumbnail size, at around 200px, which would be the new default. It's a midpoint between the old 150px and the new 256px image sizes.
• Adding a way for mobile users to change their display preferences, in a way that presents them with 3 columns of posts with the "small" thumbnail size, 2 with "medium" and 1 with "large".
• Integrating the display options into the settings menu, as that's where logged in users expected to find them.

However, there will not be a rollback to a previous version of a site.

This isn't good enough, the main problem is that images are forced to be square now, which seriously messes up the entire layout of the site and makes thumbnails effectively useless. All we're asking for is an OPTION to make thumbnails look like they used to. If this is not implemented, people WILL leave the site. It is genuinely borderline unusable compared to the old version, if you unironically think this version is better, then you never truly appreciated the benefits of the old version.

feckin_ded_m8 said:
This isn't good enough, the main problem is that images are forced to be square now, which seriously messes up the entire layout of the site and makes thumbnails effectively useless. All we're asking for is an OPTION to make thumbnails look like they used to. If this is not implemented, people WILL leave the site. It is genuinely borderline unusable compared to the old version, if you unironically think this version is better, then you never truly appreciated the benefits of the old version.

and go where? cinder knows this is really the only place for furry yiff in large amounts, so he knows he can do whatever and doesn't have to listen to feedback

dba_afish said:
what about the next time there's a UI change, should there also be an option to keep that the same as the previous version? and what about the change after that? and the one after that?

should we have an option to revert to the pre-ng layout from 2018? and then one for every single UI update since?

this isn't like the Minecraft launcher, you can't just allow people to choose whatever version and keep using it forever. this is a live, active website, all of it needs to be maintained and all of it needs to be compatible.

yes, but this version is objectively inferior to the previous one. That's the problem.

funkwolfie said:
and go where? cinder knows this is really the only place for furry yiff in large amounts, so he knows he can do whatever and doesn't have to listen to feedback

I'll make my own website. with blackjack and hookers!

feckin_ded_m8 said:
I'll make my own website. with blackjack and hookers!

id join if the ui is any better than this

funkwolfie said:
or even "listen to community feedback if all you see about you ui is mostly hate then prob should revert it, if almost everyone loves it then don't revert it

THIS. fucking THIS.

funkwolfie said:
cinder knows this is really the only place for furry yiff in large amounts, so he knows he can do whatever and doesn't have to listen to feedback

Have you considered that he has a full time job and does not get paid to develop the site

You should read forum #457825 created by him less than an hour ago, he is taking in feedback and making changes

He also can't push changes to production himself, he has to bother the sysadmin who is a paid employee of bad dragon and thus is only available during certain hours

feckin_ded_m8 said:
I'll make my own website. with blackjack and hookers!

I'll assume you're joking but on a real note running an e621ng instance is a massive pain in the ass
I should know, I've done it myself with a fork for a long time and have no shortage of issues (many self inflicted via code cleanup, but still)

donovan_dmc said:
Have you considered that he has a full time job and does not get paid to develop the site

I never said he did get paid, idk why you brought that up, im just saying thats the only reason I can think of for not listening to the community feedback and instead going nuh uh, im not reverting it (is that he knows that aslong as e6 technically exists, most users arnt going to leave)

and him not being paid is even more of a reason for him not to muck with things that aint broke

donovan_dmc said:
Have you considered that he has a full time job and does not get paid to develop the site

I'll assume you're joking but on a real note running an e621ng instance is a massive pain in the ass
I should know, I've done it myself with a fork for a long time and have no shortage of issues (many self inflicted via code cleanup, but still)

if his job isn't to develop the site, then maybe he shouldn't be developing the site??? just a thought.

He's clearly not doing a fantastic job.

yes, I'm joking. It's a Futurama reference

funkwolfie said:
I never said he did get paid, idk why you brought that up, im just saying thats the only reason I can think of for not listening to the community feedback and instead going nuh uh, im not reverting it (is that he knows that aslong as e6 technically exists, most users arnt going to leave)

and him not being paid is even more of a reason for him not to muck with things that aint broke

No one has brought up him being paid, I'm emphasizing this to say he does it for free in his freetime from his actual job, aka it is not a priority

And as I also said, he can't just revert it

donovan_dmc said:
No one has brought up him being paid, I'm emphasizing this to say he does it for free in his freetime from his actual job, aka it is not a priority

you brought it up, you cant say no one brought it up when you just did. and even more reason not to mess with things that arnt broke

And as I also said, he can't just revert it

why can't he just revert it, you didnt say why (From what i can see) did he not make backups?

donovan_dmc said:
No one has brought up him being paid, I'm emphasizing this to say he does it for free in his freetime from his actual job, aka it is not a priority

And as I also said, he can't just revert it

he CAN'T?!? are there no backup servers or something? are you telling me that he messed up THIS HARD and there are ZERO backups of the older version?!?

funkwolfie said:
why can't he just revert it, you didnt say why (From what i can see) did he not make backups?

I quite literally did:

donovan_dmc said:
He also can't push changes to production himself, he has to bother the sysadmin who is a paid employee of bad dragon and thus is only available during certain hours

He is not the sysadmin. He does not handle deployments or the servers running the site

feckin_ded_m8 said:
he CAN'T?!? are there no backup servers or something? are you telling me that he messed up THIS HARD and there are ZERO backups of the older version?!?

You don't need backups for purely visual changes, but the changes were also coupled with post sample changes so it can't just be rolled back

At this point it's better to just massage it into a workable state rather than going through the hassle to revert things, as much as people complain the site is not actually unusable, its usability is degraded but there is still some usability there

feckin_ded_m8 said:
if his job isn't to develop the site, then maybe he shouldn't be developing the site??? just a thought.

I'm sure just having no developer would be a good idea. can't see any negative externalities that might come from that.

donovan_dmc said:
I quite literally did:
He is not the sysadmin. He does not handle deployments or the servers running the site

i see so you earlier comment about him being the only QA was misleading at best then?

but he could revert it just not until work hours for bad dragon.

funkwolfie said:
i see so you earlier comment about him being the only QA was misleading at best then?

Not really? The sysadmin doesn't review code changes, he deploys changes and does whatever he's been told needs to be done, he's only as aware of the codebase as he needs to be, which is very little except under extreme circumstances

dba_afish said:
I'm sure just having no developer would be a good idea. can't see any negative externalities that might come from that.

never updating it would genuinely have been better than what has just happened to the site.