I vote for top, and declare war against the infidels who like the side bar.
Menu Bar Placement Poll
Sort:
ArgoNavis wrote:
I vote for top, and declare war against the infidels who like the side bar.
peace, no war, it's just a poll (!)
wormrose wrote:
I had hoped the vote chess comments might fit and be scrollable on the left of the diagram so that all the comments could be read while still having the diagram where you can see it.
this is an interesting point. if there are many comments with different lines, i find myself scrolling up and down, going back and forth from board to comments.
if the board were on one side, and the comments on the other, it would be much easier.
I liked the top one more also
mistermath wrote:
sameez1 wrote:
mistermath wrote:
sameez1 wrote:
mistermath wrote:
sameez1 wrote:
mistermath wrote:
sameez1 wrote:
Paul_Panther wrote:
The voting count is 3:30 (?) What happens now?
Wow a vote count of 3:30 on a site with multi-million members.LOL
Well many of those members are alternate accounts, and only a few thousand of those members are ever on at the same time. Even then, very few of those thousands actually ever check forums, or use the site for anything else than playing chess. while 33 votes isn't much, it's not little, either.
misternewmath
? If you're going to respond, I would appreciate it if the response was a legitimate one and actually had to do with the topic at hand. Otherwise, please don't post random statements in an attempt to insult the people who disagree with your statement.
I rounded the membership 24.9 million,games today 2.7million .They are not on at the same time?What does that have to do with it.You think that 33 votes,3 of them voting FOR the side bar,on a thread of complaining about the side bar is a significant amount.My post was not meant to insult YOU.just the math you used.How is it random ,and not addressing the topic?
At the time of this post, there are only 80,000 people online at the same time. As I said, many of those people also don't check forums. 2.7 million games is an arbitrarily large number, since each player can play many games within a day and that number is likely counting games that include things like disconnects. It has very much to do with it because to get 156 posts and over 30 votes on a forum is already better than most when you consider the number of posts relative to other posts and how many people are actually checking forums.
Also, saying "misternewmath" doesn't strike me as not meaning to insult me.
Again this thread is available to vote on for 24 hours,how many members on in a 24 hour period. Using 80,000 members at a particular instant only had 33 members even bother to vote,that is only.04125 percent of a fraction of the members on this site. Even within the thread itself 156 posts only 33 even bothered to vote.You think that is numbers to consider changing the format,really? Calling you misternewmath is kind.
Yet another personal insult that doesn't pertain to the argument. Clearly, trying to reason with you is a waste, since both times you responded, you proceeded to straw man my argument by ignoring half of my comments. I really hope that you won't treat others who try to reason with you like this, too.
I ignored your comments?I used your numbers ,80,000 members on at that moment,not in the whole day.Your comment,2.7 million games is an arbitrarily large number because the members play many games and a lot of them are disconnects? OK if 50% of those games were disconnects that would be 1.35 million games..Your comment,It has very much to do with it,to get 156 posts and 30 votes is better than most,when you consider the posts relative to other posts,and how many people are actually checking forums? Posts relative to other posts only counts the members that bother to post,if the other members that did not post were really upset with the side bar wouldn't they post their dis agreement with the new format.It is you who ignore the math involved...mrnomath
For whatever it's worth... One can treat this like a bionomial sample (indeed making all of the assumptions about bias and such that you guys are bickering about). With a result of 30/33, the 95% confidence interval is between 75.7% and 98.1% in favour of putting the bar on the side.
Nov 3, 2018
0
#148
Vaansen wrote:
For whatever it's worth... One can treat this like a bionomial sample (indeed making all of the assumptions about bias and such that you guys are bickering about). With a result of 30/33, the 95% confidence interval is between 75.7% and 98.1% in favour of putting the bar on the side.
That would be true if this was a random sample. But it's not. It's a sample of those who sought out the discussion in the forums and chose to participate. As such, it's likely to be heavily skewed towards those who are unhappy with the current position.
People who are happy with the change won't usually care enough to look in the forums to find a discussion or survey about it.
Vaansen wrote:
For whatever it's worth... One can treat this like a bionomial sample (indeed making all of the assumptions about bias and such that you guys are bickering about). With a result of 30/33, the 95% confidence interval is between 75.7% and 98.1% in favour of putting the bar on the side.
Binomial sample,I must admit I had to look it up.Would it be more accurate to say the confidence interval is in favor of just leaving it on the side because the majority does not have a real preference.Just wondering if I was understanding binomial sampling correctly.
Nov 3, 2018
0
#150
sameez1 wrote:
Vaansen wrote:
For whatever it's worth... One can treat this like a bionomial sample (indeed making all of the assumptions about bias and such that you guys are bickering about). With a result of 30/33, the 95% confidence interval is between 75.7% and 98.1% in favour of putting the bar on the side.
Binomial sample,I must admit I had to look it up.Would it be more accurate to say the confidence interval is in favor of just leaving it on the side because the majority does not have a real preference.Just wondering if I was understanding binomial sampling correctly.
No, you can indeed estimate the preference of the majority from a small sample - if your sample is representative of the whole. A decently-large random sample has a good chance of being representative of the whole.
However, a self-selecting sample such as we have here is almost sure to be skewed and unrepresentative.
This is starting to feel like I'm at work, lol. ;-)
Right, the confidence interval only really captures the inherent randomness in a sample. If the entire sample space has an equal chance of being selected (and an equal chance of responding), then it really works. That's what I meant by the comment about the assumptions. The sample is definitely biased... (voting in an election is a highly biased sample!) For example, I cast a vote myself after hitting the forum through a Google search about how to move the bar back to the top!
@sameez1: I don't think that the confidence interval says that the majority had no preference either way. We don't know what the majority who did not vote would say. What the confidence interval really says is that (again, assuming a truly random sample), that if you took a sample of 33 people with those results, there is a 95% probability that the actual, true value (what you would find if you sampled every person with a right to vote), would be in the range I posted.
Vaansen wrote:
This is starting to feel like I'm at work, lol. ;-)
Right, the confidence interval only really captures the inherent randomness in a sample. If the entire sample space has an equal chance of being selected (and an equal chance of responding), then it really works. That's what I meant by the comment about the assumptions. The sample is definitely biased... (voting in an election is a highly biased sample!) For example, I cast a vote myself after hitting the forum through a Google search about how to move the bar back to the top!
@sameez1: I don't think that the confidence interval says that the majority had no preference either way. We don't know what the majority who did not vote would say. What the confidence interval really says is that (again, assuming a truly random sample), that if you took a sample of 33 people with those results, there is a 95% probability that the actual, true value (what you would find if you sampled every person with a right to vote), would be in the range I posted.
Also @MGleason Amazing,,and very interesting. To gain a confidence level from such a small sample in relation to such a huge number. As long as the sample is randomly achieved, I am sure you would try for more samples than that though....Both of your replies are very much appreciated......sorry no OT pay.
@mistermath I truly apologize if I insulted you.I was just trying to be funny playing with your name.Also your statement that the 33 votes was not small was kind of true (read the binomial posts).
sameez1 wrote:
@mistermath I truly apologize if I insulted you.I was just trying to be funny playing with your name.Also your statement that the 33 votes was not small was kind of true (read the binomial posts).
I'll take that apology. Thank you.
Nov 5, 2018
0
#155
SweetPeaBuddy wrote:
I vote to go back to the way it was before,no side menu!
I agree 100% !
Nov 5, 2018
0
#156
Top, please bring it back.
Tried and tried to get used to the side bar over the last two weeks but it just makes me not want to log on the site due to how clunky and unintuitive it is (for me). So frustrated I actually renewed a long dormant ICC membership.
Nov 6, 2018
0
#158
john_chandler wrote:
SweetPeaBuddy wrote:
I vote to go back to the way it was before,no side menu!
Do keep in mind that for some of us, we've only ever had a side menu. I've been here almost two years, and never seen the top menu except in screenshots.
Given the lack of vertical space, I'm not overly keen on using the limited space to cram in a menu, while I have horizontal space going unused.
Having said that, I do understand where people are coming from with this (I'd certainly be annoyed if I suddenly had the menu at the top), especially given that an option had previously been provided to change the location. I'd be interested to know the reasoning why it was dropped (most likely maintenance costs), and whether it is possible to have the styling applied in such a way that the menu could be shown on the left or top depending on preference.
See this comment earlier from @ignoble:
ignoble wrote:
Sorry everybody. I know you loved the top menu bar. So did we, actually. Many of us at Chess.com will also miss the top menu. But we have to move to one navigation system, and unfortunately the majority of our users are using the site on shorter, wider screens. We have never been able to use the top menu in Live chess because of this, and we have new features coming out in the next few months that will have similar demands for vertical space that Live chess has.
Maintaining two navigation systems was also a big reason for slower performance on older systems. We all want the site to be faster. We've heard that request from many of you. We've put a lot of work into making that happen, and this is part of the solution.
The hardest thing to deal with when websites change is when something gets moved. It's disorienting. Adjusting to that is not fun. Like going from the darkness to the light. Unfortunately the path forward today requires that we adjust to this change.
Thank you for your patience!
Also https://www.chess.com/blog/News/new-navigation-being-rolled-out-in-coming-weeks, which says "Having both a top nav and side nav available essentially doubles the amount of necessary code and leaves us far more prone to bugs."
Nov 7, 2018
0
#159
Encyclopedia-C wrote:
Why not just have the top?
From @ignoble's comment:
"we have to move to one navigation system, and unfortunately the majority of our users are using the site on shorter, wider screens. We have never been able to use the top menu in Live chess because of this, and we have new features coming out in the next few months that will have similar demands for vertical space that Live chess has."
The voting count is 3:30 (?) What happens now?
Wow a vote count of 3:30 on a site with multi-million members.LOL
Well many of those members are alternate accounts, and only a few thousand of those members are ever on at the same time. Even then, very few of those thousands actually ever check forums, or use the site for anything else than playing chess. while 33 votes isn't much, it's not little, either.
misternewmath
? If you're going to respond, I would appreciate it if the response was a legitimate one and actually had to do with the topic at hand. Otherwise, please don't post random statements in an attempt to insult the people who disagree with your statement.
I rounded the membership 24.9 million,games today 2.7million .They are not on at the same time?What does that have to do with it.You think that 33 votes,3 of them voting FOR the side bar,on a thread of complaining about the side bar is a significant amount.My post was not meant to insult YOU.just the math you used.How is it random ,and not addressing the topic?
At the time of this post, there are only 80,000 people online at the same time. As I said, many of those people also don't check forums. 2.7 million games is an arbitrarily large number, since each player can play many games within a day and that number is likely counting games that include things like disconnects. It has very much to do with it because to get 156 posts and over 30 votes on a forum is already better than most when you consider the number of posts relative to other posts and how many people are actually checking forums.
Also, saying "misternewmath" doesn't strike me as not meaning to insult me.
Again this thread is available to vote on for 24 hours,how many members on in a 24 hour period. Using 80,000 members at a particular instant only had 33 members even bother to vote,that is only.04125 percent of a fraction of the members on this site. Even within the thread itself 156 posts only 33 even bothered to vote.You think that is numbers to consider changing the format,really? Calling you misternewmath is kind.
Yet another personal insult that doesn't pertain to the argument. Clearly, trying to reason with you is a waste, since both times you responded, you proceeded to straw man my argument by ignoring half of my comments. I really hope that you won't treat others who try to reason with you like this, too.