| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Someone
Net Battler
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 58
|
 Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: Updates |
 |
|
Do you guys plan on bringing back the updates page, or is it history? If it isn't too much trouble, I really would like to see it back. When I want to check updates now, I have to go through multiple topics for each update rather than scrolling down one page, and since the topics aren't in order of creation there, I sometimes end up reading bumped old news before checking the date. It certainly isn't a necessity, but I really do hope that you will bring this back.
Thanks.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ryouko
Kitties Love Bunnies
Age: 42
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 2085
Location: Sharo
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We are currently working on it. The old system is no longer compatible with the newer forum version.
_________________
"Cats are interesting. They're kind of like girls. When they come talk to you, it's great. When you go talk to them, it doesn't go so well." - Miyamoto
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kenshiro1119
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why bother? The Updates page just links to the forums here, so it's not needed.
Unless you like men or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atomknight033197
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kenshiro1119 wrote: | | Why bother? The Updates page just links to the forums here, so it's not needed. |
As stated in the original post, the main reason for suggesting that is that the forum topics are ordered by last post date rather than topic start date, meaning that a bump of an old news topic makes it seem as though it was created recently.
| Ryouko wrote: | | We are currently working on it. The old system is no longer compatible with the newer forum version. |
Really? The database structure shouldn't have changed so much as to render the page unusable unless the original coding was too specific. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
