Author Topic: The CT banner lags up the BBS (Read 1647 times)

SOB · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2004, 04:09:58 PM »

So, what's the problem with him posting about your bandwidth eating super banner? It's big, it was causing problems for some (I have seen it posted about in the o'club before this), and he posted trying to get the problem fixed. My question is, why would you even think to make a 400k banner in the first place? I'm amazed Skuzzy would even allow that complete waste of bandwidth.

Arlo · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2004, 04:47:49 PM »

There's nothing wrong with his bringing it to my attention. The way he went about it sure was bizarre. He saw it before it was even submitted. He didn't seem agitated about it until it:

1: Was put in place with the Ruhr banner (a project Batz is participating in).

and

2: The working week had ended at HTC thereby making any chance of it being quickly fixed pretty slim.

As far as it's original size is concerned ... I'm damned sorry. Making banners really isn't my job nor has it become a hobby until recently. I had no problem on my machine and no negative feedback from others until Batz started this "ban the banner" campaign thread. In spite of the obvious, I reworked the banner literally within minutes after seeing this thread and submitted it to HTC support to replace the other one.

As far as the banner being "a complete waste of bandwidth" is concerned, I'm sorry you feel that way although you have every right to your opinion. It's a rather simple attempt/method to promote the CT that somehow was overlooked all this time. I take full responsibility for it's being there. I designed the banner ... I leased the site it links to. I thought it seemed a worthwhile venture or I wouldn't have volunteered to do it. Apparently HTC support and the CT staff as well as the CT Development Group (that Batz is apparently resentful over in spite of there being no restriction on membership) agreed.

If you think Batz is justified not only in starting this thread when he could have actually been a part of a timely solution and given his feedback before it became a problem and if you think all of his posts here aren't at least in part motivated by something other than concern for the community on his part ... you're free to that opinion as well. Rest assured, however, that all future CT banner wastes of bandwidth designed by me will be as small as possible from now on ... if, indeed, this is allowed to continue after this backlash from the community.

Thanks.

Batz · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2004, 04:51:25 PM »

Quote

Other than that, I responded quicky, addressed the specific issues you claim you had with the banner

What did you respond to? It’s still there and still huge so your efficient way of addressing it did nothing. How would have contacting you directly or in the CT been any different?

As I said it isn’t about "you". Your inferiority complex is getting the best of you but that's an issue better left to your shrink.

As you can see there are others who posted in this thread and have had the same problem. Others have mentioned it in other threads. I don’t really care if it bugs you that the banner is too big.

Arlo · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2004, 05:10:49 PM »

It doesn't bug me in the least. It bugged you (and a few others). It apparently isn't the only thing that bugs you. Yet I've responded as directly and as timely as possible (as far as the banner is concerned. Any other problems you have you'll just have to learn to deal with).

Still ... thanks for the heads-up. All future CT banners designed by me will not be as large. I just wish you had had the foresight to say something when you first saw the banner posted in the CT forum. In all probability, had you done so, you wouldn't be suffering the effects of the large banner at this time. But ... nobody's perfect. Self included.

Thanks again.

SOB · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2004, 06:14:53 PM »

I think Batz is a pain in the bellybutton 99% of the time, I just don't see how he was doing anything suspect in this thread. Also, I think ANY banner that's 400k is a waste of bandwidth - nothing wrong with promoting the CT. Also also, I think you are a big poo poo head. So there.

Arlo · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2004, 06:52:12 PM »

That's fine, SOB.

That doesn't change the fact that Batz' first instict was to fervently call for it's removal entirely (and later he claims that a banner advertising what is currently running in the CT that links to a website that gives additional details has nothing to do with the CT). It's not until Flossy gives him a practical option to continue to read the forums without having the banner cause a bandwidth issue that he's concerned about missing anything being advertised. Then he decides the option of having it "fixed" is also acceptable (though impractical at the time of his post).

It also doesn't change the fact that Batz could have addressed this timely and directly to the source (even directly to Ronni ... he surely remembers how to do that) thereby avoiding this problem entirely. I suppose this was preferable.

I, otoh, had no options but to react as quickly to this thread as possible. Had I not decided to scan the general forum I may not have even had that option available. I read Batz posts and immediately redesigned and resubmitted the banner (knowing there'd probably be nobody there to receive it). I've since looked for other threads that deal with the banner problem in their titles in this forum and have found none. No matter, I found this one. I also called Batz a drama queen. So sure .... "poo-poo haed." Whatever.

Sorry for the big-arsed banner. Eh .. live and learn. Guess all feedback serves a purpose ... timely or not ... well-intentioned or otherwise.

~~How bloody long is this soap opera gonna last?~~

DrDea · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2004, 09:47:33 PM »

Get Cable and theres no problem.Dialup sux.