Also, in 'Manage Members' in a group, if it was possible, it would be nice to have a 'Search for Members' section, as when looking for a member, it often takes ages if there are many pages to look through.
Thanks,
OG
Yes, it is boring and takes a long time....
Thirded
Fourthed!
Quartered!
OG
I don't know why y'all are getting so cranky about the Appear Offline feature request; if you don't want it, don't use it. I want it because sometime I'm busy doing Admin stuff...at least add a "Busy" symbol so people can know I'm here if they really need me.
I think there should be more like busy, away, brb, invinsible and so on....
Well, I guess that would be an improvement, I guess - except that it implies a lot more day-to-day management than what I'm requesting: I just want to go dark and stay dark. :-)
And fwiw, I still don't see how this would be a hindrance to fast players or Big Brother or anyone else - but the notion, again, only makes me want to appear offline all the more. What are these folks actually doing with the data about who's online? Making character judgements? Sending them 'hurry up' messages? Not inviting them to future fast tourneys, whether or not they stick within the configured time limits? Again, there is no real value in seeing someone online who doesn't want to be seen as online.
I love the "download all my games as one PGN" change, and the change to download a selected set of games as one PGN. What's missing is the ability to download all of the games selected by a search as one operation. For example in the game explorer after it's narrowed down to 200 games or so I'd like to download that and use my database to classify them further. Now it takes 4 downloads, 50 at a time. Or often I'd like to download all completed games in a thematic tournament.
Of course it would be necessary to have an upper limit -- can't have someone trying to download the entire database in one go... 
unless maybe the PGN was also zipped.
But if someone's chosen not to be seen as online surely they're not interested in being matched up as though they are. I feel it is the right of whoever is online to choose whether they broadcast it or not -- this way you have some control over your opponent's expectation that you're going to play because they've decided that online is the same thing as playing games.
I still don't agree. Why would you want your opponent to not know you are online? If you want to hide just go offline and pop in at times to make moves like I've seen some do now. If this option is implemented I feel at least another icon should be added to the profile to let others know he is hiding when online. I still feel it is the right of the player to know when his opponents are online. Otherwise it results in chaos.
First off, what if they want to do stuff on chess.com that does not involve playing games, but they don't want to appear online because they don't feel like being bothered. Secondly, having a special symbol for those who are online but choose not to show it would defeat the purpose of the feature. And last, I don't think any member has the "Right" to know when others are online or not. If they want to appear offline, then more power to them.
Then we would no that a person is online but currently not looking at games or teams but may be on later
In a list of games, it would be nice to be able to see how the game ended and filter on that. For example to exclude timeouts. And would it be possible to have a set of statistics that don't include timeout wins?
Also, in 'Manage Members' in a group, if it was possible, it would be nice to have a 'Search for Members' section, as when looking for a member, it often takes ages if there are many pages to look through.
Thanks,
OG
Yes, it is boring and takes a long time....
Thirded
simple go to the biggest team match you kno and copy paste 30 names at once the you backspace and add comas , plus you only get active people that play matches : )
i invite 30 people in a minute
But if someone's chosen not to be seen as online surely they're not interested in being matched up as though they are. I feel it is the right of whoever is online to choose whether they broadcast it or not -- this way you have some control over your opponent's expectation that you're going to play because they've decided that online is the same thing as playing games.
I still don't agree. Why would you want your opponent to not know you are online? If you want to hide just go offline and pop in at times to make moves like I've seen some do now. If this option is implemented I feel at least another icon should be added to the profile to let others know he is hiding when online. I still feel it is the right of the player to know when his opponents are online. Otherwise it results in chaos.
First off, what if they want to do stuff on chess.com that does not involve playing games, but they don't want to appear online because they don't feel like being bothered. Secondly, having a special symbol for those who are online but choose not to show it would defeat the purpose of the feature. And last, I don't think any member has the "Right" to know when others are online or not. If they want to appear offline, then more power to them.
Then we would no that a person is online but currently not looking at games or teams but may be on later
And why do you need to know that? The person "may be on later" no matter what you see or don't see. Maybe I drop in to make a few moves after an hour with Chess Mentor; maybe I don't. The icon tells you nothing.
Sorry, guys. If I'm feeding a Tactics Trainer addiction (etc.), it's nobody's business but my own - and any action you take or assumption you draw from my online status is as likely as not to be unfounded.
As I mentioned above, if I could choose whether or not to show the world that I'm here, the online indicator would be even more useful to its defenders than it is today.
My sense of humour is intact, thanks, it's just that taken in the context of your numerous other posts chastising him for not pulling a summary together for you it certainly didn't read as a joke.
Obviously you have not been under such pressure and lack the complete understanding of being efficient and effective in a very large company.
you know nothing about TheGrobe, you know nothing about me, and from the platitudes and poor-advice you spout you have no experience running a business or website. and yet you fly around the forums, judging, commanding, and offending. i think it's time to stop.
this is a forum topic for people to throw out ideas. it isn't my project management platform, and it isn't a democratic referendum on the future of chess.com. i know that your life feels incomplete without me diverting countless hours on perfectly formatting each and every suggestion made on this forum and that i am a horrible website manager for not delivering said report to you on time... but i'm not going to do it. i read each and every post made in this forum, and i absorb the good ones, ignore the ones we can't or won't do, and keep my own list, which i may or may not share as i deem it appropriate. i'm too focused on important things to waste my time on unimportant things. get over it.
In my field I meet all sorts of people that don't really understand what I do or how I do it but proceed to tell me what to do and how to do it. The number of times that I have wanted to convey to someone what you said here is innumerable.
I laughed like a little school girl after reading this retort and has truly made me happy to give you money if only to read witty remarks like this again.
Well done. The most verbal finger I have ever seen :)
But if someone's chosen not to be seen as online surely they're not interested in being matched up as though they are. I feel it is the right of whoever is online to choose whether they broadcast it or not -- this way you have some control over your opponent's expectation that you're going to play because they've decided that online is the same thing as playing games.
I still don't agree. Why would you want your opponent to not know you are online? If you want to hide just go offline and pop in at times to make moves like I've seen some do now. If this option is implemented I feel at least another icon should be added to the profile to let others know he is hiding when online. I still feel it is the right of the player to know when his opponents are online. Otherwise it results in chaos.
First off, what if they want to do stuff on chess.com that does not involve playing games, but they don't want to appear online because they don't feel like being bothered. Secondly, having a special symbol for those who are online but choose not to show it would defeat the purpose of the feature. And last, I don't think any member has the "Right" to know when others are online or not. If they want to appear offline, then more power to them.
Then we would no that a person is online but currently not looking at games or teams but may be on later
In theory this could be automated but it still doesn't change the fact that the original request to be able to suppress your status has merit.
I´d like to search (current) tourneys by name, instead of looking through 90 pages, that i can type in a name...
Thanks in advance!
Also, in 'Manage Members' in a group, if it was possible, it would be nice to have a 'Search for Members' section, as when looking for a member, it often takes ages if there are many pages to look through.
Thanks,
OG
Yes, it is boring and takes a long time....
Thirded
simple go to the biggest team match you kno and copy paste 30 names at once the you backspace and add comas , plus you only get active people that play matches : )
That's not what we're talking about! We're talking about 'Manage Members', and a search bar in that, not ideas as to how to invite 30 people quickly! But thanks anyway!
OG
Can anyone tell me if this idea has been tried and or implemented?:
In the starting position option list, have a set of starting positions where certain pieces have been removed from the board, in particular the Queens.
It's been said that if one can win consistently without the Queen, they've become a much better player.
Maybe these games would default as unrated?
I'm just bumping this up in case some missed it due to the discussion about the online symbol option.
Peice odds is a great idea, and should be easy to implement with preset opening positions. They wouldn't just have to default to unrated, though, they'd have to be required to be unrated.
Also, in 'Manage Members' in a group, if it was possible, it would be nice to have a 'Search for Members' section, as when looking for a member, it often takes ages if there are many pages to look through.
Thanks,
OG
Yes, it is boring and takes a long time....
Thirded
simple go to the biggest team match you kno and copy paste 30 names at once the you backspace and add comas , plus you only get active people that play matches : )
That's not what we're talking about! We're talking about 'Manage Members', and a search bar in that, not ideas as to how to invite 30 people quickly! But thanks anyway!
OG
oops sorry was just skimming through and yes i agree its tiresome
One more thing I forgot. I brought it to staff before but I thought I'd post it here to see what others think too...
What about allowing animated gifs as our avatars like this
Well when I brought it to staff, they said it wasn't possible right now.
If you are worried about privacy principles this is hardly the place for you. We have features here that invade your privacy much more than hiding from being logged in. All members can look at all your online games. All members can track your activity. Paying members can look at your stats. Platinum and Diamond members can check your games in the Game Explorer. These are features a lot of us like but if you want total privacy you would want to turn them off. Same thing goes for the online icon. But it is really not invasive at all compared to any of the above examples. All it tells you is a computer somewhere is connected to the web and that it is logged in to chess.com. It does not even tell if you are where this computer is at. Or where the computer is at. I just can't see any harm at all in it, even in principle. You could even tell your boss your home PC is logged in to chess.com when you are at work.
If we want some of the cool features of chess.com, like looking at others' games, then there must be some compromise of privacy principles or they won't work. If everyone got to choose if they wanted players to check them out or not then it does affect those that want those options to look. Therefore, for the majority of users here I bet the privacy issues for these features are secondary to them as compared to the benefits these features give them. And that is why I don't want the option to turn the online icon off. It is the same in principle to turn off the ability of others to look at your games. Do we really want that too? Where does it end?
I posted this in another thread. My point is that a lot of the cool features here at chess.com invade our privacy to some extant. But if we want these features then some compromise must be made for privacy concerns. Otherwise we could not look at others' games, track players, look at stats, see when they are logged in, etc. if players have an option to not allow others to use these features on them.
Funnily enough, I (for one) don't think my primary concern is with "privacy principles." My primary concern is that a feature -- whose main purpose is to suggest that I will likely soon be making a move in my current game(s) -- is not often accurate given my usage of this site. If I'm not playing with other people, other people gain nothing by knowing I'm on the site. It's almost a courtesy to want to "hide" as you put it, since I'll spare my opponents all the guesswork around the enduring mystery of why the heck I'm not moving.
But let's say that I AM at least secondarily concerned with protecting my privacy. I think most of your analogies on this point are pretty stretchy. If I'm tracking someone, it means I get a notification if they post in the forums or publish a blog. You can't seriously believe these activities are meant to be "private." Quite the contrary, right? And to a lesser extent, there's the chess games themselves, also public in nature. (Other chess sites actually do allow the players to decide how 'public' their game will be, so this specific example is probably debatable. Since I don't care about who looks at my games, I'll leave that for another forum thread.)
If I track someone and read their blogs, I'm entertained and educated. If I review the past games of my opponents and friends, I can improve my chances against them, or maybe offer advice for improvement. These are tangible benefits I can actually describe in words, borne of features that are not really invasive. Likewise, if I were the guy who was in here solely to play e-chess and I enjoyed playing stretches of e-chess in 'real time,' I can see how my like-minded opponents would get some bang out of the online indicator. But: That. Ain't. Me. And I've yet to hear what's so "cool" about a feature that allows you to see people who don't want to be seen. What's the benefit?
The other thing that hasn't been acknowledged or refuted is the (obvious?) point that if I -- and all my slow-moving, Tactics Training, anti-social brethren -- had a way to take ourselves out of the visible online population, that visibility would be MORE valuable to the folks out there (you) who care about who's "in the game" and who isn't. Frankly, I'm starting to find your insistence that nobody should be able to "hide," regardless of what they're doing here, borderline creepy.
absolutely not!!! and if they are ever allowed then for those who feel like me then the way to stop them bouncing around and distracting you is to hit the esc key.
Agreed -- same goes for forum-post signatures. The least thing these forums need is this stuff distracting from the actual content.
3-4 minutes for me