New site design being tested!

The ONE THING that really bugs me is that if I am not 100% spot on to "Active conversations" I get the bleddy Acronyms list (again!)

And yet.. the background is now coloured again ?

My posts have recently had a lilac backdrop, which is very useful in following subsequent conversation, but they've suddenly gone back to a white background. Is anyone else having the same problem?

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone has already mentioned this.

Can we have a quote button? I used to post on mumsnet and found it very useful. It's a bit long winded at the moment when trying to answer a post further up the thread.

It's now nearly a month since we had the 'excited' post from GN
Is it done is this is it?

Why not just go to last that's how I do it

Whoops crossed post yes I always go onto last and it's still working fine for me

Sorry, haven't read all the 22 pages of posts (been away) but has the very odd looking "I'm watching " page been mentioned? There are extra bits and disjointed layout.

Also I used to like being able to jump to the last post but can't seem to do that now.

Oh, ok Elegran I'll try that. Thanks.

Bellanonna You can change the order of viewing the posts with the "customise" option up the page with the "site stuff" choices.

I always bookmark the last post I read. This means that however I try to access it, it goes to the book mark. It can take ages on 'popular' threads and that could be what you are experiencing.

Overall, I don't really have any complaints about the upgrade.

Also, when I go to "I'm on" and select a thread I get page 1, whereas before I always got the latest page. I'm wondering why thus has changed.

Is it possible, if you are still tweaking the site, to have the search facility give posts in date order?
I can never fathom out how it works. It always seems random to me.

I think there have been, I'm sure I remember more than a couple

Does HQ collect statistics to say how many times we have been mentioned in newspapers?
I have never seen GN being mentioned in the Guardian, but it seems we are in the Sun and DM quite often.

Why only certain papers?

Does that mean it would be fine for, eg, the Guardian to print articles written using comments from Gransnet threads and not for, eg, The Mail to do so? Or vice versa?

That is treading a very dangerous path

No, that would be "censureship of the press". This is not a closed group, it is an open forum, a social network. If that were possible, it would be possible for a group planning terrorist activities, for example, banning anyone from disclosing anything they said online.

Is it not possible to ban certain papers from picking up on threads on Gransnet?

I've just discovered that I can't access my inbox from the local site - I get 'page not found' ?

I wrote on MOnica's thread (petition) that GN has reduced the number of topics of Last Day to 50 - I've just seen at the bottom of the page of last day a notice "See More".

Glad you are all on the job.

EDIT button in the pipeline?

jacky I think that everyone does realise that the threads on GN can be viewed by anyone. Certainly what I didn't realise though was that selected posts are copied by GN onto their Facebook pages.

I don't feel happy about that element. I don't have a facebook page myself and certainly don't want my posts put onto Facebook by a third party. Because of this I won't be posting anything other than just chat on GN again.

I only heard of Gransnet because it was mentioned on Woman's Hour. They were talking about something that was being discussed here, or they had someone from Gransnet on talking about something, can't remember exactly.

Anyone can read these threads without signing in - we surely all know that, as most people have a look round before signing up anyway.

I've removed some information from my profile, all the same, though.

If forums are open to anyone interested, however else would GN get members, then surely it is obvious that it is open to the pres s and anybody else.

I am almost a foundation member of GN and I can remember seeing something I said quoted in a newspaper very early on. The newspaper had clearly used GN as a source for the attitudes of older people to a particular newsworthy item at the time.

I have never posted any information on my profile. I want to be free to post what I like without being identified.

Yes BlueBelle that's how I see it. Many didn't realise that GN was so open and that threads were picked up by the press or posted on FB /Twitter by GN. That seems to be why they've opted out of the profiles to lessen the chance of being identified.