Jump to content


* * * * * 4 votes

CAG 2.0 vs 3.0


Poll: CAG 2.0 vs 3.0

Which do you prefer? CAG 2.0 or 3.0?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 Jruth   No trite shit crew gamer bro CAGiversary!   277 Posts   Joined 10.7 Years Ago  

Posted 25 June 2013 - 07:01 PM

I run a heavily customized Mybb forum script on my site. IPB allows for things VB can't provide. CAG 3.0 is great. For one dude, John pulled off some crazy shit. I found the screenshots.



#32 Shadow Enz   Shadow of a ghost CAGiversary!   121 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

Shadow Enz

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:45 PM

Doesn't work for me. I miss 2.0. I wanted to reply to Cheapy's "Ain't mad about the XBox One" entry, but I couldn't add my comment as there was no comment box to type in.

 

When I try to quote a post, a green "loading" type of box appears above for an instant, and disappears, with no visual results.

 

I'm running IE9 with N360 controlling my security settings, so it's probably not liking CAG's code, but I previously had no problems with the site in 2.0.

 

I find myself not frequenting CAG daily anymore, and in fact I'll be lucky to visit the site once or twice a month now since the change. Shame really.



#33 DirkBelig   The Belligerent One CAGiversary!   1512 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:16 AM

Fact: the majority of the web is limited-width.

There's not a single opinion there.

Provide examples. I listed SEVEN (7) forums that were liquid. You just reiterate your opinion and declare it fact. Just as you don't seem to know what the word "majority" means, you seem to have your own unique version of what "fact" is. Try www.m-w.com and get back to us.



#34 Traaginen   CAG Veteran CAGiversary!   23 Posts   Joined 8.6 Years Ago  

Traaginen

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:11 AM

Provide examples. I listed SEVEN (7) forums that were liquid. You just reiterate your opinion and declare it fact. Just as you don't seem to know what the word "majority" means, you seem to have your own unique version of what "fact" is. Try www.m-w.com and get back to us.

 

Kid, I'm a web designer. It's a hilariously obvious fact. Going by your own definitions:

 

Facebook, Twitter, Gamespot, IGN, Youtube, Google's entire content area...CAG (according to you).

 

I could go on for millions of lines. Oh, but I bet you'd rather I link forums as opposed to top 10 sites.

 

 http://eldersouls.com/ | http://tesof.com/ | http://skyrimforums.orghttp://www.gamespot.com/forums/

 

That's weird, the last four forums I went to are all limited/fixed/static widths.

 

But hey, you listed 7 cherry-picked websites. The funny thing is that half of your examples are limited-width for the main page / content with vanilla Vbulletin/etc forums that have no styling... That's why the forums are "fluid," and it's not even most of the site. Even going beyond that, most of those forums have something like a width: 80% to make them fluid. Technically, even those are in line with what I said, e.g. "limited-width" is anything that's not always 100%.

 

Do you want to know the funniest thing about this whole conversation? CAG has a fluid layout. In fact, it's more fluid than most of the sites you listed. If you don't believe me, make your browser as small as possible and then drag it to maximum width. The difference -- and what you don't like -- is that the maximum width is 1000px, which is slightly less than your examples. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, but we've already established that.

 

By all means feel free to continue, but at this point the thread is just getting derailed and I've justified my thoughts several times over, so I'll just return to my usual troubleshooting.



#35 Xevious   Most Damned CAG Evar CAGiversary!   8919 Posts   Joined 14.5 Years Ago  

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:34 PM

I like the new CAG but the front page is overly complicated.



#36 chnandler_bong   Unofficial CAG Headless Mad Comber of Comb Mountain CAGiversary!   9867 Posts   Joined 8.2 Years Ago  

chnandler_bong

Posted 28 June 2013 - 05:03 AM

I barely recall what 2.0 looked like...

 

Once the ability to search forums/threads is reinstated I will be very happy! :)



#37 Peffse   CAG Veteran CAGiversary!   39 Posts   Joined 8.6 Years Ago  

Posted 28 June 2013 - 06:50 PM

While I'm slowly getting to know 3.0, I don't like it compared to 2.0.

I didn't use many features and still don't, but just browsing 3.0 is harder than 2.0

I can't put my finger on it either... if its the text size or style, but it gets jumbled into a big mess when EVERYTHING IS BOLD.

It also seems like there are less topics per page, and I lost the ability to click the forums button to quickly go to the deals section.

 

 

 

On a side note, it would have been nice to see some notice of the change so I could backup my collection before it got taken down.



#38 dchrisd   F.U. Rosalina! ~ Daisy <3 CAGiversary!   1652 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

Posted 29 June 2013 - 05:25 AM

Not a big fan of 3.0.  Main problems are the big empty spaces on the sides of the page, the theme color (dark is much better than white, but still needs some tweaking) plus I miss the forum change drop down menu.  As a result, not purposely, but subconsciously maybe, I'm going to CAG a lot less often than I used to.



#39 GBAstar   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   9696 Posts   Joined 8.1 Years Ago  

Posted 29 June 2013 - 05:30 AM

Kid, I'm a web designer. It's a hilariously obvious fact.

 

Even websites with bad layouts get designed by someone.



#40 Traaginen   CAG Veteran CAGiversary!   23 Posts   Joined 8.6 Years Ago  

Traaginen

Posted 29 June 2013 - 06:05 AM

Even websites with bad layouts get designed by someone.

 

Maybe so, but that doesn't change anything I've said.



#41 Confucius   Corporate Shill CAGiversary!   16273 Posts   Joined 10.7 Years Ago  

Posted 02 July 2013 - 02:13 AM

Says the person with 39 posts.

 

Since 3.0, I personally went from spending maybe an hour or two a day on here, to 10 minutes a week.

 

Same here.  As someone who is a prolific poster, i barely spend time on here anymore.  I wonder if traffic is down overall on the site.

 

It's not  about fear of change.    It's just the site is now slow as balls.   Even on mobile.  That horrendous "Loading..." dialogue on the mobile is there way too long.



#42 mitch079   Mumm-Ra shares with no one! CAGiversary!   12727 Posts   Joined 14.6 Years Ago  

Posted 07 July 2013 - 06:25 AM

I like it.  I'm just about done updating my collection and have made a list of games to add to the system once that's up and running. 



#43 Haz408   CAG Veteran CAGiversary!   4 Posts   Joined 7.9 Years Ago  

Posted 07 July 2013 - 08:09 PM

Dont like 3.0 one bit, my main gripe is with the colleciton layout, i cant order it by date/genre/platform, and a LARGE percent of images are missing, it better not be finished, because it sucks right now.



#44 mitch079   Mumm-Ra shares with no one! CAGiversary!   12727 Posts   Joined 14.6 Years Ago  

Posted 07 July 2013 - 08:23 PM

If you read John's posts in the main 3.0 thread, you'd know it's not done.



#45 ChunLiBarbie   Bloogablogglefliddlemliddle CAGiversary!   5539 Posts   Joined 7.6 Years Ago  

ChunLiBarbie

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:53 AM

CAG 2.0 falls under if it ain't broke...territory. Wonder why it was changed.

Seems like they are working their butts off to get this site going, BUT, sometimes, you can't be afraid to throw everything out! I don't know. Just don't want to see CAG dwindle away. I saw a really good, massive (non-gaming)message board dwindle away before.

#46 GBAstar   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   9696 Posts   Joined 8.1 Years Ago  

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:58 AM

If you read John's posts in the main 3.0 thread, you'd know it's not done.

 

excuse my language but if that is the case why the Fuck did we transition to this rough draft?



#47 NuclearPorkchop   Herc Mondo's Cousin CAGiversary!   1230 Posts   Joined 9.4 Years Ago  

NuclearPorkchop

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:33 AM

While I'm slowly getting to know 3.0, I don't like it compared to 2.0.

I didn't use many features and still don't, but just browsing 3.0 is harder than 2.0

I can't put my finger on it either... if its the text size or style, but it gets jumbled into a big mess when EVERYTHING IS BOLD.

It also seems like there are less topics per page, and I lost the ability to click the forums button to quickly go to the deals section.

 

 

 

On a side note, it would have been nice to see some notice of the change so I could backup my collection before it got taken down.

Completely agree.

 

-IMO the main page is just too cluttered with unpleasantly formatted lists.

-Twitter Feed and "top deals" need to have a hide button like in 2.0

-CAGCAST and Review banners bloat up front page sitting on top of everything. I can only see 3 'top deals' threads on it currently w/out scrolling. Change back to vertical format/two columns (like 2.0)

-There's WAY too much unused margin space, thread titles are too jumbled together & take up to FOUR LINES to display. I'd rather read a single sentence than a block of text to figure out what's being posted.

-Add a single or double line option for displaying the forum threads? Gonna go out on a limb and use TPB's listing option as a reference.

-Should add Console/Retailer specific icons left of thread-title column like in 2.0. Made skimming much easier when I wanted to check if there was something to use a gift card on.

 

I'm also not actively browsing as often as I used to, it's just not as nice to navigate around as 2.0 was. That said, fixing at least 3 of the above would go a LONG way to improving the site layout, for certain.



#48 mr.me   CAGiversary! Silenced   590 Posts   Joined 9.7 Years Ago  

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:39 PM

Don't like 3.0 simply because the white theme is default now.