DCM Download Site > What you can upload
Silver Age Charlton?
Yoc:
People,
As I have next to zero interest in the SA books I'm asking you to contact Aussie if you find anything you know doesn't belong on the site post Dec 1959. Aussie will be taking the point on this topic.
-Yoc
bbbrown:
Just want to say I agree with Fett, nothing from January 1960 on. This site is for golden age comics and I like it that way.,
I don't even like the "remixes" that take the repring from an IW or Super comic that was published in the 60's and putting the cover of the original GA comic it was reprinted in the front of the archive and naming it as the GA book instead of as the 1960's reprint it actually is.
Keep this up and I may actually get rid of that newbie status after all. :) But then I posted this and said I ony had 2 posts. Does that have anything to do with the fact I changed my password? Or did I miss something and post counts restarted as fresh on here?
OtherEric:
I think the "remixes" are likely to stay; I have no problem with them as long as they're clearly marked. I understand your objection; I just think it's unlikely to change at this point.
Which reminds me: Anybody have a scan of the IFC of Phantom Lady 23 they can share? ;D
aussie500:
--- Quote from: bbbrown on April 05, 2010, 07:18:05 PM ---Just want to say I agree with Fett, nothing from January 1960 on. This site is for golden age comics and I like it that way.,
I don't even like the "remixes" that take the repring from an IW or Super comic that was published in the 60's and putting the cover of the original GA comic it was reprinted in the front of the archive and naming it as the GA book instead of as the 1960's reprint it actually is.
Keep this up and I may actually get rid of that newbie status after all. :) But then I posted this and said I ony had 2 posts. Does that have anything to do with the fact I changed my password? Or did I miss something and post counts restarted as fresh on here?
--- End quote ---
We started again, thought it a bit unfair some seemed to have an advantage over the "newer" members, when really we are only a new site. It never really encouraged people to post anyway till the system was used in a manner we never intended it to be. Hence we got rid of both the ranks and the old post counts, unfortunately we did not do it from day one.
bbbrown:
--- Quote from: aussie500 on April 05, 2010, 11:59:54 PM ---
We started again, thought it a bit unfair some seemed to have an advantage over the "newer" members, when really we are only a new site. It never really encouraged people to post anyway till the system was used in a manner we never intended it to be. Hence we got rid of both the ranks and the old post counts, unfortunately we did not do it from day one.
--- End quote ---
I like that it was done. I know it has always bugged me to be listed as a newbie after a few months on any site, not just gac or here. I've always felt that moving up from newbie status should also include things like amount of visits, length of time a member and not just posts. Some one could just do XX amount of worthless posts to move up when only posts are counted, yet only be on a site a few days and be "ranked" higher than a long time user. That has bugged me since the first time I logged onto a web forum that did levels and posted them for all to see.
So Thank You to the admin team.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version