Yep, that much I understand.

Thanks for the info.

Hi, PrestonW,

At this point I'm only asking questions to improve my understanding of how all this works, so I don't ask silly questions in the future.

Could you explain what it means for vendors to "use" coupon codes, and how that relates to my attempt to apply it to a purchase?

Many thanks!

Hi, PrestonW,

No problem, I rather expected nothing could be done after the fact, but I had to ask.

I am a bit confused by one thing you said, though: how could a single-use coupon have been used several times? Also, I can look at my purchase history and see that I did not use this one. I assume you guys can do the same.

While I'm not particularly concerned about this specific purchase, I am concerned that something is wrong with the system.

FWIW, I one of the site admins did respond directly to me in another thread. It wasn't anything substantive regarding the changes, per se, but it was a direct acknowledgement of something I said.

I'm neither a vendor nor a Prime subscriber. I do spend plenty of money here, but I have no way of know if that had any influence. (In context, it seems unlikely to me my spending habits were checked.)

The only thing I can think is that there was a feeling Markdown was better for mobile (which we now know for sure was the motive behind the site redesign), and there's no WSYWIG editor component that produces Markdown. I'm not sure that's true, though, so my supposition there is probably suspect.

Other forums I frequent tend to use BBCode posting with a WYSIWIG editor on desktop platforms, but you have to use BBCode if you post from mobile. Typing BBCode with a software keyboard is kind of sucky, which is why I think Markdown isn't going to be much improvement, because it uses some of the same characters, which aren't super easy to type on a software keyboard.

Markdown might be easier than raw BBCode (on mobile) for some of the common, simple stuff, like italicizing or bolding a word. I don't think it would be better for something like entering a URL or a bullet list, which takes a lot of special characters.

Putting together a site mail. Mine's going to focus on the Marketplace.

NP. :D

@4221728

Indeed. (Red outline in the image below.)

@4221633

I have viewed your updated site on my mobile devices, and while the pages look about the same on a tablet in landscape mode, almost all of the problems people are describing carry over to the mobile view. Product pages are still visually cluttered. Possibly the worst the pages have been was when viewed on a phone in portrait mode (which is pretty much how everyone I know looks at their phone by default).

So you guys may have made your site better optimized for mobile, but in my view, you haven't made it friendly on any platform.

I, too, can appreciate that the site needed to work on mobile to remain high in Google's search rankings. I visit a great many sites that have mobile support, and they manage achieve it in ways that don't cripple the usability (or visual style) of their site when viewed with a "full fat" desktop browser. I can visit something like CNN.com or BBC.co.uk, and they look different on desktop and mobile browser. Some do this via redirect to a dedicated mobile address (often m.whatever.com). Some just simply use browser/OS detection javascript to set what displays and what doesn't, and to control element reflow.

For example, having to use "Markdown" even on a PC, when forum software in use just about everywhere (including two free ones) supports WSIWYG editing on all the mainstream browsers just shouldn't need to happen to support mobile platforms.

The thing that kills me most is that your site did work on mobile before this update. Sure, it wasn't optimized for it. Some stuff was hard to click/tap on, things like that, and it makes sense to change those sorts of things to support mobile. (Though, again, having big fat buttons on desktop too is not necessary even if you have them on mobile.) I believe firmly that you guys could have addressed all of that without ripping out the functional underpinnings of your site the way you appear to have here.

PS: Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm finding it a bit hard to imagine that "Markdown" is that mobile friendly. Special formatting with it requires input of characters that most soft keyboards 1-2 extra keystrokes to get to (symbol, shift, etc.). I'm willing to believe I might just not be that awesome with a soft keyboard, though, and It's probably no especially worse than having to type BBCode out on a mobile device.

E-mails for thread updates are very inconsistent. I did not receive any at all yesterday.

All the links in the mails except for the link to the new post are broken. They link to "https://www.renderosity.commod/forumpro?..." Note the missing slash after ".com".

@nwagner111

Maybe they can't roll it back. That certainly occurred to me. Of course, where I come from, making a change to a primary money-making app without a back-out plan would be grounds for dismissal. (Of course, it wouldn't be approved by management, either, so...)

From what I've read in other threads, there were testers who raised many of the same concerns we're seeing in the forums now, but apparently those concerns fell on deaf ears.

I, too, fail to see the need for a new consensus. You had one: the old gallery size. Upon what "consensus" was that changed? If it was reduced without the consensus of the community, why is one needed in order to restore it?

Why isn't this just a matter of changing a site configuration setting somewhere? Is there a technical limitation on the image dimensions (not file size)? As a web developer, I don't understand why there would be. The image dimensions matter not one whit for what it takes to store the images on the back-end (except indirectly), but you had a file size limit before. Why can't you use the old file size limit with the old image size limit?