A Couple Change Recommendations...

a few changes i think should be made..

a. change the text that groups the torrents from words to pictures. (seeds
coloum, peers coloum, etc.)

b. change the forum part from number & message to just text. (ex. just "3"
instead of "3 messages".

c. remove the "transferred" coloum. simple math will give you that.
(size/1024 x completed). i'm not saying it's a bad thing, but since everything
is so crammed - i think it would be good to remove it.

d. change the time from hr:min:sec to just hr:min. i don't think too many
people would mind not knowing how many seconds a torrent has been up.

this is a very great site but how it is right now is very unorganized - names
of the torrents take up 3-4 lines each! here's an example of what i would
like it to look like....

before: img264.imageshack.us/img264/5783/eztvbqk8.png

after: img264.imageshack.us/img264/8733/eztvasl6.png

..tell me what you think.

i think that not everyone is viewing the site on an 800x600 resolution display
like you seem to be 😉

you might want to consider that the huge majority of site users don't have the
unusual usage issue you do.

that being said ...

a. no thanks. the heading text is not sufficiently wider than the data in the
column to make that worthwhile.

b. ok, but perhaps just abbreviate `messages` to `msgs`

c. yeah to the transferred column removal. it isn't really a useful datum.

d. no thanks. most people are conditioned to see time on computer related
data points as 3 element arrays. just losing a couple of digit widths doesn't
compensate enough for loss of speed of comprehension imho.

i think changing the text headings to pictures is a cute idea, but i'm not sure
everyone will understand them. i also agree that you should turn your
resolution up a couple notches. i know that the 1280/1024 can be hard to see
if you have bad eyes like me, so i reccommend using 1024/760. everything looks
perfect for me using that.

i would change my resolution to 1024x768 but my monitor is really small so
when i do that things are hard to read. ☹️

am i the only one who thinks this needs to be changed?!? i mean, i know i'm
not the only one with an 800x600 resolution. and even if i had a higher
resolution, i think it still looks better with pictures.

firstly i believe our site already has too many images on it. this website
produces a lot of outbound data (at present it avg's 200kb-750kb/s) adding more
images will not help this cause.

but with that said, the main page will change a little, more the overall html
layout. front display will look more than likely the same, but the code itself
will be smaller, making faster load times.

i will never design a site to work on 800x600 res. get out of the stone age,
waste a good $100 and buy a crap monitor which will probably do better res than
what you currently have now.

that will be enough of my rant for now.

firstly i believe our site already has too many images on it. this
website produces a lot of outbound data (at present it avg's 200kb-750kb/s)
adding more images will not help this cause.

the total size of all the images combined is 1.95kb. thats more than 3x
less than the banner at the top of the page (7.15kb). also images from
webpages are stored in the web cache which means it would probably use less
resources than text. it's up to you. i personally think it looks better with
images.

i will never design a site to work on 800x600 res. get out of the stone
age, waste a good $100 and buy a crap monitor which will probably do better
res than what you currently have now.

i don't really like the idea of spending $100 just to be able to use this
site. lol. i mean i would love to have a bigger monitor but i don't have $100
laying around.

lol. to use this site? upgrade to use the rest of the internet. 800x600 is not
supported heavily by most half decent sites.

it's like asking us all to revert back to windblowz 95, because you won't fork
out for xp.

:d

what are you talking about? 95% of the sites out there based off of the
800x600 resolution. there is only a very minimal amount that does not support
800x600.

stats for this site suggest that 2.02% of people use 800x600 res. while the rest
use 1024x768 or 1280x1024. even 8.43% use 1280x600. the only res to have less %
then 800x600 is 1280x960 which is 1.85%.

800x600 died a long time ago..

oh in regards to your images point, yes there is caching, but most disable it,
and with html compression, less data to send text compared to images.