Visually mark new comments since last reload

[opusculus]

Title:
Visually mark new comments since last reload

Area:
Comments

Summary:
When you reload the page, any comments that have been posted since you last loaded the page would be marked as visually distinct and new.

Description:
This is about the only thing I really like about LJ's redesign, personally, so I thought I'd suggest it over here. It could be done with either a hardcoded visual thing like LJ's, where a little yellow new comment button shows up next to new comments, or something that can be styled with CSS to be a dot or a different header color or whatever, that would just become part of the layout and people can choose to maximize or minimize how much it stands out.

It's especially helpful in very fast-moving posts where you want/need to track what everyone is saying, but need more context for each thread than tracking and only seeing what the immediately previous comment said with the newest comment, rather than seeing the last 10 comments in a straight row. I play a game on occasion where 5-10 people can make a hundred comments in an hour all on pretty much the same topic and you have to try to be following them all, and the last time I played it was oh my god so much easier with that feature. But it's the kind of thing that seems like it would be useful in almost any discussion you want to follow, but don't quite want to track the post for whatever reason.

Poll #9007 Visually mark new comments since last reload

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 92

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
55 (59.8%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
6 (6.5%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
5 (5.4%)

(I have no opinion)
26 (28.3%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Make the tag "security" label useful, or remove, or at least explain it

[thnidu]

Title:
Make the tag "security" label useful, or remove, or at least explain it

Area:
tags

Summary:
The "security" label on the tag management page is (1) redundant and (2) misleading. (1) It is simply the lowest level (highest line on the chart right above it) that applies to any post tagged with it. (2) By being there at all, it suggests that it is useful, e.g., a settable value for "who can see this tag".

Description:
See Request #12096, under "Site Interface". I asked about the tag, and was told
"Tag security is tied to entry security. If the posts used for those tags are public, then the tags will also be public."

My reply:

So, if I use a tag only for filtered posts, the page for that tag will say "Security: filtered". But the first time I use it for a public post, the "security" level will change to "public". In other words, it's exactly equal to the label on the lowest security level (highest line on the list just above it) with a non-zero count.

The screen is deceptive. Giving a "security" level for the tag strongly implies that there is a security level ASSOCIATED SPECIFICALLY with the tag, and that it can be set somehow. I've been assuming I can set security for any post independent of any other post and any other setting. This "security" field is not only useless -- totally redundant with the list above it -- but misleading as well. Either

1. make it meaningful -- e.g., by letting the user set "who can see this tag" (I may not WANT everyone to know that I've tagged a particular post as "love life", or that I have such a tag!)
2. or rename it, e.g., "lowest security level of posts with this tag", or something shorter that says the same thing, if you can think of a wording
3. or remove it entirely.

Is the meaning of this field described anywhere online? Unless you follow option 3, there should at least be a link on the "security" label to explain it.

My preference is #1. I know that would take more work than #2 (+ the info link), but that would be adding something useful.

Poll #9006 Make the tag "security" label useful, or remove, or at least explain it

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 65

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
28 (43.1%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
8 (12.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
28 (43.1%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (1.5%)

Adding Jersey, Guernsey, and Isle of Man to profile

[starsandauras]

Title:
Adding Jersey, Guernsey, and Isle of Man to profile

Area:
profile

Summary:
Adding the Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey) and Isle of Man to the location drop down on the profile.

Description:
I'm sure that users from these places can easily select the UK as their location, but I suspect that they might like the option of their specific island as well. If nothing else, I doubt having the option would be detrimental.

Poll #9055 Adding Jersey, Guernsey, and Isle of Man to profile

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 75

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
53 (70.7%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
2 (2.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
20 (26.7%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)