Recent Profile Visitors

[John Key 740]

On deathlist I kind of don't click on peoples profiles because I'm scared that I'll be stuck in their "Recent Profile Visitors" list. I would be more comfortable stalking individual users if this was not a feature on here.

 

It also hurts my feelings that apparently no one has viewed my profile since April

 

How do y'all feel about the recent profile visitors tab? 

[Doc 84]

I think you don’t realize that it is actually a secret tool for matchmaking. 

[Paul Bearer 6,095]

3 hours ago, John Key said:

It also hurts my feelings that apparently no one has viewed my profile since April

Is this just a way of saying " Please view my profile"?

[harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy 1,683]

3 hours ago, John Key said:

On deathlist I kind of don't click on peoples profiles because I'm scared that I'll be stuck in their "Recent Profile Visitors" list. I would be more comfortable stalking individual users if this was not a feature on here.

 

It also hurts my feelings that apparently no one has viewed my profile since April

 

How do y'all feel about the recent profile visitors tab? 

Dear John

I'm sorry to hear about your little problem, but I think I have a handy solution. Simply log off and stalk your victim's profile as a guest!

 

Yours with love,

 

Marge Proops of Viz Top Tips 

[John Key 740]

2 hours ago, harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy said:

Dear John

I'm sorry to hear about your little problem, but I think I have a handy solution. Simply log off and stalk your victim's profile as a guest!

 

Yours with love,

 

Marge Proops of Viz Top Tips 

Viewing in incognito, I legitimately haven't thought of that, I love it

 

Incognito here I come

[En Passant 3,733]

6 hours ago, John Key said:

It also hurts my feelings that apparently no one has viewed my profile since April

 

 

Sadly I discover I wasn't even the first person to think of fixing that. Not by quite a way.

 

ETA, Oh and if you find logging on and off something of a pain, you can always use a different browser.

[Sir Creep 7,069]

1 hour ago, En Passant said:

 

Sadly I discover I wasn't even the first person to think of fixing that. Not by quite a way.

 

ETA, Oh and if you find logging on and off something of a pain, you can always use a different browser.

Or an alt profile like some people around here have.  (See Admins double dipping that’s why fake ‘staff’ for this website).  How many does Deathray have now?  

[En Passant 3,733]

30 minutes ago, Sir Creep said:

How many does Deathray have now?

 

Not enough, he never ceased to amuse me.

Yes yes I know he had to go, he went too far.

But personally I'd rather be amused with some slight chance of actually being offended than bored out of my mind by one FFBI beating some other FFBI in a comp. 

[TQR 14,372]

1 hour ago, En Passant said:

 

Not enough, he never ceased to amuse me.

Yes yes I know he had to go, he went too far.

But personally I'd rather be amused with some slight chance of actually being offended than bored out of my mind by one FFBI beating some other FFBI in a comp. 

 

Absolutely agree. He was one of the entertaining posters. Sure, we’ve a few other entertaining posters here, and sure, he behaved like a fucking idiot with the PM thing, but he’s served a decent enough ban sentence now IMO for what he did; he didn’t exactly do a Z and spit bile everywhere he went.

 

Bring the silly cunt back!

[Toast 16,081]

22 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

 

Absolutely agree. He was one of the entertaining posters. Sure, we’ve a few other entertaining posters here, and sure, he behaved like a fucking idiot with the PM thing, but he’s served a decent enough ban sentence now IMO for what he did; he didn’t exactly do a Z and spit bile everywhere he went.

 

Bring the silly cunt back!

 

Well ...... I haven't quite forgiven him for not sending me an abusive PM.

[Lard Bazaar 3,799]

What do you think you’re going to find on someone’s profile?  There’s literally fuck all of any interest on them.  Who actually cares who looks at their profile? And why would you care if someone can see you’ve clicked on theirs?  

[John Key 740]

1 hour ago, Lard Bazaar said:

What do you think you’re going to find on someone’s profile?  There’s literally fuck all of any interest on them.  Who actually cares who looks at their profile? And why would you care if someone can see you’ve clicked on theirs?  

The only way to express a response to this is through emojis, but emojis aren't allowed here. So allow me to show you what my reply should have been:

https://ibb.co/mDTyqy7

[Lard Bazaar 3,799]

8 minutes ago, John Key said:

The only way to express a response to this is through emojis, but emojis aren't allowed here. So allow me to show you what my reply should have been:

https://ibb.co/mDTyqy7

Right. Ok.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

8 hours ago, John Key said:

The only way to express a response to this is through emojis, but emojis aren't allowed here. So allow me to show you what my reply should have been:

https://ibb.co/mDTyqy7

I think you have answered your own question.

Nobody is interested in you because you are a boring bell end who makes YW look highly interesting.

 

[Grim Up North 3,720]

10 hours ago, Lard Bazaar said:

What do you think you’re going to find on someone’s profile?  There’s literally fuck all of any interest on them.  Who actually cares who looks at their profile? And why would you care if someone can see you’ve clicked on theirs?  

 

I presume, like me, the only time anyone ever visits someone's profile is when you click on the name instead of the last post details and find yourself looking at someone's profile instead of the thread, mutter FFS to yourself, and immediately go back and click on right bit.

 

Or you click to go to John Key's because he's set up a whole thread begging you to do that - so far I have resisted even though there is now the added temptation of finding out how many and who the sad fuckers were who clicked and went to his profile to satisfy his wildest desires. 

[msc 18,402]

5 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

 

I presume, like me, the only time anyone ever visits someone's profile is when you click on the name instead of the last post details and find yourself looking at someone's profile instead of the thread, mutter FFS to yourself, and immediately go back and click on right bit.

 

Usually when I'm looking for a specific post for something and click on the wrong bit.

[John Key 740]

2 hours ago, Grim Up North said:

 

I presume, like me, the only time anyone ever visits someone's profile is when you click on the name instead of the last post details and find yourself looking at someone's profile instead of the thread, mutter FFS to yourself, and immediately go back and click on right bit.

 

Or you click to go to John Key's because he's set up a whole thread begging you to do that - so far I have resisted even though there is now the added temptation of finding out how many and who the sad fuckers were who clicked and went to his profile to satisfy his wildest desires. 

My wildest dreams are coming true, I have so many people to thank!

 

My larger point was to try point out how weird it was that we can see that info and that I never see it discussed rather than an actual ego tug, I think it's a feature that should be taken away completely rather than each profile being able to opt out. 

[TQR 14,372]

4 hours ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

I think you have answered your own question.

Nobody is interested in you because you are a boring bell end who makes YW look highly interesting.

 

Now come on LFN, that’s a bit strong.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

I have actually clicked on his profile to find that he has a whole 195 posts under his belt over three sodding years.

He then expresses an opinion that a feature be removed!

People truly take the piss.

[Paul Bearer 6,095]

On 3 December 2020 at 03:44, John Key said:

How do y'all feel about the recent profile visitors tab? 

Doesn't bother me in the slightest.  Now, take a look at yours. 

[En Passant 3,733]

2 hours ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

I have actually clicked on his profile to find that he has a whole 195 posts under his belt over three sodding years.

He then expresses an opinion that a feature be removed!

People truly take the piss.

 

Ah well now that's a bit of a double edged sword though isn't it? I'd rather have a couple of hundred posts over that 3 years, mostly relating to actual pool entries, than several thousand all consisting of utter drivel.

Mind, it is a way to trim stuff in a hurry. Oh it's you.....next thread.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

1 hour ago, En Passant said:

 

Ah well now that's a bit of a double edged sword though isn't it? I'd rather have a couple of hundred posts over that 3 years, mostly relating to actual pool entries, than several thousand all consisting of utter drivel.

Mind, it is a way to trim stuff in a hurry. Oh it's you.....next thread.

Does it really matter how much shit I or anybody else posts?

If you actually invest the time to contribute here then your opinion will be more relevant regarding how the forum works, good or bad.

That is hardly an outdated concept, is it.

 

 

 

[En Passant 3,733]

8 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

Does it really matter how much shit I or anybody else posts?

 

Hell no.

But you said JK had only made "a whole 195 posts" in 3 years. Did I misread the implication that this was not enough of a contribution to have an opinion on a feature? And that if he had posted 10,000 times but said nothing much that was enough?

 

In practice I probably largely agree with you, perhaps unsurprisingly. Only on what a worthy contribution is do we differ. I don't personally conflate quantity with quality in that I'd sooner read 200 interesting posts than 10,000 tedious ones (though I'm not saying what JK posts necessarily are or aren't here, but he does take part in the pools that are the reason for this place).. And if they are all tedious I'd sooner only have to wade through the 200.

At least two of the posters you regularly take pot-shots at post an awful lot. I don't find their contributions particularly stimulating either, but that's by the by if what is being asked is whether they contribute sufficiently to have their opinion considered.

 

Are you saying that the author of 10k tedious posts is more worthy to have their opinion considered  than 200 (tedious or otherwise but mostly related to actual dead pools) over a long period? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy 1,683]

14 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

Hell no.

But you said JK had only made "a whole 195 posts" in 3 years. Did I misread the implication that this was not enough of a contribution to have an opinion on a feature? And that if he had posted 10,000 times but said nothing much that was enough?

 

In practice I probably largely agree with you, perhaps unsurprisingly. Only on what a worthy contribution is do we differ. I don't personally conflate quantity with quality in that I'd sooner read 200 interesting posts than 10,000 tedious ones (though I'm not saying what JK posts necessarily are or aren't here, but he does take part in the pools that are the reason for this place).. And if they are all tedious I'd sooner only have to wade through the 200.

At least two of the posters you regularly take pot-shots at post an awful lot. I don't find their contributions particularly stimulating either, but that's by the by if what is being asked is whether they contribute sufficiently to have their opinion considered.

 

Are you saying that the author of 10k tedious posts is more worthy to have their opinion considered  than 200 (tedious or otherwise but mostly related to actual dead pools) over a long period? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't for me. 

 

I'm fairly sure this qualifies as a tedious post.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

9 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

Hell no.

But you said JK had only made "a whole 195 posts" in 3 years. Did I misread the implication that this was not enough of a contribution to have an opinion on a feature? And that if he had posted 10,000 times but said nothing much that was enough?

 

In practice I probably largely agree with you, perhaps unsurprisingly. Only on what a worthy contribution is do we differ. I don't personally conflate quantity with quality in that I'd sooner read 200 interesting posts than 10,000 tedious ones (though I'm not saying what JK posts necessarily are or aren't here, but he does take part in the pools that are the reason for this place).. And if they are all tedious I'd sooner only have to wade through the 200.

At least two of the posters you regularly take pot-shots at post an awful lot. I don't find their contributions particularly stimulating either, but that's by the by if what is being asked is whether they contribute sufficiently to have their opinion considered.

 

Are you saying that the author of 10k tedious posts is more worthy to have their opinion considered  than 200 (tedious or otherwise but mostly related to actual dead pools) over a long period? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the context of this discussion, yes.

This forum is much more than the pools that are here, there are a whole plethora of threads that have little or nothing to do with dead pooling.

That is why the forum survives, thrives and will continue to exist.

My point about the levels of contribution made are not unreasonable, if somebody only used their local boozer a couple of times a month would they really be entitled to suggest to the landlord and regulars that they should change the decor and install a jukebox?

This thread started out as a bit of frivolity, and that was fine but the OP then came across as an absolute dick when replying to Lardy and then suggested that changes should be made, primarily to accommodate his view on how things should be here when things are just, generally, fine.

Yep, I admit it, he boiled my piss a lil bit.

Happens to us all, right?