add a dick, a heart, and a brain to that list.

Apparently they thought as long as they match with some of the banner and some of the buttons, they were improving... which is comparable to discovering some poo on your white bathroom floor, and instead of getting rid of it, you just fill the entire floor with feces so it's more consistent.

A little extreme, but you get the idea.

Yup yup. Looks clean. Blue is fly.

make it more like myspace and start advertising a **** ton. get that money son

Teal is back...easier to read. Not so distracting.

i liked the purpley blue. it was nice. i never found it distracting in the slightest :(. not to complain though!

so... why is it that this:

Read more: http://www.musicbanter.com/name-tune/45003-name-halloween-song.html#ixzz0VSxPKkE2[/url]

gets attached to anything we copy and paste from the site?

it kind of makes googling lyrics to help ID songs a hassle to the point of not giving a crap.

I posted way back on page 22 of this, asking the same thing, but its seriously a total pain in the hole to link to certain webpages when the wordfilter cuts off part of the URL despite it not being an offensive word.

Case in point:

http://www.tony****inson.net/

I KNOW VB has the capability to only censor words when they appear in a specific format, which would get around this limitation, any chance we can get this implemented? I know it leaves things slightly more open to abuse, but lets be honest, its not a difficult job to get around the censor in the first place...

Unless of course, you're linking to a website, in which case the tricks to get the word to show up, also render the link non-working.

Would it be possible to impliment a restriction where you have to have x amount of posts before making a new thread? This would kind of mess with the whole introduction thread thing....but seriously all these new members making multiple threads of their poetry in the songwriting section is a pain the butt. The can't be bothered to read the "Read this before posting" sticky....
Granted, the songwriting section was what got me into MB, but JEEZ people, can you not read??!

I use the 'New Posts' option mainly on this site, but get fed up of threads popping up that I have no interest in looking at. I wish there were a way to block these from showing up, like you would unsubscribe from a thread you didn't want notifications from.

Honestly, we'd probably just be fighting a losing battle. The songwriting forum is kind of like the name that tune forum, in that most just turn a blind eye to it, but I'm sure it can be frustrating when you actually contribute to that part of the forum.

Yeah, why is it almost every single n00b who comes here posts in the name that tune forum once and then just leaves? It never even occurred to me to post there... seemed kind of stupid.

They come here specifically to get their questions answered, and most want nothing to do with this site besides that. I'm sure google has something to do with it.

Yes, sigh, this is true. I usually post in their thread encouraging them to ask a mod to merge their separate songwriting threads, following the rule, which actually benefits them because it consolidates all their views, increasing the chance that people will visit their thread and give feedback.

And then I send them a private message.

Aaaaaaaaaaargh...the bandwidth!

Hmm lame. I guess it's not harming the site though

Sometimes, for a trifecta of bandwidth-guzzling reminders about the "one thread per songwriter" rule, I post one reminder in the songwriter's thread itself, a second one in a private message, AND a third one in a visitors message to the songwriter. :) And sometimes the recipients *still* don't merge their songwriting threads...but sometimes they thank me because they didn't know the rules.

This issue of bandwidth reminds me of a question I've had: when, if ever, does MusicBanter delete old posts? For example, do dead, closed threads eventually get deleted to make more cyber space for new and scintillating posts such as mine? Much as I like to read through The Unfan's old posts, why don't deleted members' posts disappear automatically, too, although doing so would disrupt the flow of conversations if anyone looks back through time via MB like I do? After 20 more years, there will be quite a mountain of posts if few get deleted.

There are two options a mod has when they choose to delete a thread. There a soft delete, which removes the thread for everyone except the mods, who can still control the thread, e.i. read, undelete.. etc. And then there's the hard delete, which removes the thread completely from the forums. (as far as I know) There's been a few attempts made at cleaning up the forums, so don't worry, we have plenty of space. Deciding between the two just depends on the mod and the thread/content in question. Same goes for deleting posts made by a user that's been banned. We won't delete a post unless we have to.

Edit: Oh yeah, there's also the Graveyard.

It would be possible but we won't.

If you put post restrictions you just get more people spamming to reach those restrictions.

I've said it before and i'll say it again.

Restricting access by post count DOES NOT WORK.

Plus that way people couldn't create introduction threads.

Lol, shame. I'd miss pressing New Posts to reveal a list of threads entitled:

Hi
Hello
Hi
I'm New
Hi
Hi
Hey
Ummm, Hi

Hmmm good point.... but sometimes the conversations that come up in there can actually be pretty interesting.

Only if you're foolish enough to tell them that's what you've done. If they don't know why they're unable to make a thread and came here solely for that one thing they'll give up and go away.

no. they'll spam the crap out of the rest of the site until they hit the magic number in the post count so they can do what they originally intended.

if it's a time based limitation they'll create dummy accounts and let them sit inactive until they find out that enough days have gone by to post the spam.

I wonder if it'd be effective/reasonable to implement some sort of application process for joining the boards. I know it sounds ridiculous, but if new accounts were redirected to a form that was to be filled out, sent to, and looked over by moderators who would decide whether the member isn't here to spam, then that could be an effective first line of defense.
Members who's applications are approved would then be on a 'watch status' for a period of a week, and if they haven't screwed up by the end of it, they'd be full in.

The application wouldn't require personal information and all that... but just simply a form in which they explain why they want to join the site. It'd be sort of like when you post in the Member's Journal section and a mod has to approve it.

I know this sounds contradictory to the nature of a public web site, but really it's just preventative measures of control that are well within the discretion of moderators anyway, but are usually exercised after the fact.

I probably sound like big brother or something, but the idea just popped into my mind and I wanted to run it by someone who may be able to refine it if anyone feels there's any merit in it.

I think the whole form is a good idea in theory but I feel like if it was executed there would be a big collapse in the new members category, then again I guess it would show who is loyal and who is not.

Also, I've been to other forums where when you join you are restricted to post in a certain forum until you have x amount of posts or x amount of time, is that not possible on here? This is VBulletin right?

Reading is hard isn't it?

If they don't know why they can't make threads, and it's not posted anywhere to tell them it's just done they can't work around the system because for all they know they can't make threads. If they aren't aware that spamming the crap would help them they won't do it. Even if people are made aware the number that would then think "oh I'm going to spam to get my posts up" tends to be very, very minimal and it nicely highlights who the idiots are that are going to get themselves banned in short order.

I get what you're saying... but I wonder how this would impact new members who're actually interested in joining the community and contributing?

That would be quite effective, in my opinion.
And instead of dealing with spammers, the mods would be dealing with apps.
But I feel like it's far too selective for an open forum.

A new member here just told me someone thought he was a virus, and he's actually really genuine and wants to know about music.
I think it's hard to judge sometimes, and it might cause a lot of problems in the long run.

I wouldn't especially advocate that course, just pointing out the obsolescence of Mr. Dave's assertion.

Remove the censorship of certain words.

people say this all the time. its not going to happen and it doesnt matter either way because it is easily surpassable.

That doesn't mean it should be ignored.

It's not that it's being ignored. It's that there is nothing that can be done about it, and since we posters can easily get around it, it's not high on the priority list.

I brings more google searched I'm sure.

Well I read that somewhere.

.

actually, it does.

For the reasons your provided? No.

Because the swear filter gets musicbanter a bigger Google ranking, fine, I guess.

The reasons he provided were based on the Google ranking fact, and also past experience with this issue.

The reason he gave me was that it's easy to get by and that people "say it all the time."