Scratchifier wrote:

theonlygusti is right.

If the Scratch Team was trying to improve the aesthetics of the site, or even keep them at the same level, they utterly failed.

You can't have inconsistency in graphic design. It just doesn't work, and it confuses the user. It ultimately gives a sense of displeasure when you expect something that should be there but it isn't.

Putting this into an example: Imagine the sky when it is night. There are millions of beautiful stars, but in one section, it's just plain… a black splotch where nothing is.

That doesn't look very good.

NoxSpooth wrote:

I'll have to admit, I don't really agree with the removal of the Comments number on profiles. Not only because you can't see it anywhere else, but also due to the fact I could use it to see if there are new comments/replies on my alternate accounts.

Paddle2See wrote:

NoxSpooth wrote:

I'll have to admit, I don't really agree with the removal of the Comments number on profiles. Not only because you can't see it anywhere else, but also due to the fact I could use it to see if there are new comments/replies on my alternate accounts.

That's a good point!

But it would only tell you if there was activity on the profile, right? Not on any projects, studios, forum topics, etc. And you would have to remember what the comment count was from the last time you checked, in order to notice anything new. So I'm afraid I don't find this a compelling case for restoring the comment count.

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Unlocked wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

Shiverberry wrote:

Unlocked wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

I think Scratchifier was trying to convey the message that more popular Scratchers of our community are annoyed, not just *everyone else*…

Unlocked wrote:

Shiverberry wrote:

Unlocked wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

I think Scratchifier was trying to convey the message that more popular Scratchers of our community are annoyed, not just *everyone else*…

But it doesn't matter if a scratcher is popular or not. That's what this whole update was about

Unlocked wrote:

Shiverberry wrote:

Unlocked wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

I think Scratchifier was trying to convey the message that more popular Scratchers of our community are annoyed, not just *everyone else*…

But it doesn't matter if a scratcher is popular or not. That's what this whole update was about

Unlocked wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

Zro716 wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

*cough* black-or-white *cough*

Zro716 wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

*cough* black-or-white *cough*

NoxSpooth wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

I've been on Scratch for a long time and I still support this change. But that simply doesn't make my opinion superior.

Superdoggy wrote:

Side note: the example for Appealing to Authority is gibberish anyway, obviously written by a biased person who can't win any arguments so they just say that other arguments are “not good enough”. The example should be: "Not able to defend his position that evolution ISN'T TRUE, Bob says that he knows a scientist who can obviously prove evolution false, but it doesn't matter anyway because nobody listens to Creationist scientists anyway, even though they're right."

Superdoggy wrote:

Zro716 wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

*cough* black-or-white *cough*

As soon as you post that link, you are “appealing to authority”. But that site is nonsense anyway, because sometimes the clouds are gray, and sometimes they're a puffy white. Just because the site exists doesn't mean that it's true. In fact, you can easily destroy any argument by linking to that site (if it were actually accurate).

…

Hopefully this post doesn't start a religious debate. If it does, bring it to my profile. xD

NoxSpooth wrote:

Superdoggy wrote:

Side note: the example for Appealing to Authority is gibberish anyway, obviously written by a biased person who can't win any arguments so they just say that other arguments are “not good enough”. The example should be: "Not able to defend his position that evolution ISN'T TRUE, Bob says that he knows a scientist who can obviously prove evolution false, but it doesn't matter anyway because nobody listens to Creationist scientists anyway, even though they're right."

That's quite a bias you got there too.