HMTL is not enabled on the board -- that is for security purposes --- to prevent the potential for malicious code to be entered. We do enable UBB code which acts like html but has a limited number of codes available. If you would like to include something that requires html you can email mpetry@bankersonline.com and we will find a way to post it for you.

Watch out for this feature David -- as adminstrators Mary Beth and I have ultimate control! --- the rating system does average the ratings which could be very helpful if they are used responsibily by all --- as always, we'll be watching!

I guess it was a glitch (I didn't think I lost my cookies!) All of the posts I hadn't read were still orange when I went back.

I'm testing to see if I can now post messages.....here goes!!!

YEAH!!!! It worked......Thank you - Thank you - Thank you!!!!!

Rick: I HOPE you didn't lose your cookies!

I do like the ability to pick my emoticon (aka "graemlins" - where did THAT come from?) But I don't like the narrow column listing the title of the post. Is there a way to change the columns that I display? I guess I don't really care when I'm looking at the index who posted what - I'm looking for the subject. That's the column that is too skinny. Other than that, it's WAY cool!

New features are very kewl and add a new element of "fun" to work. Even if I am on vacation.

And the correct term is toss your cookies.

I am embarrassed to have more stars than Andy Zavoina. Surely that's a temporary condition?

I did notice that the horizontal of our pix has been emphasized. I thought it was only TV that added 10 pounds! Or am I being just a bit sensitive here?

John-
Try this picture

Perfect! Except for the fact that the picture is the work of a graphic artist who has posted it in his portfolio on the Internet, I would download it and use it on BOL. But I see no release on his site, so I'll leave it.

Thanks!

OK, how about this one? You get the added benefit of getting in on the blinking ads thread.

Its not how many stars you have. Its how you use them.

And the pictures are wider. I'm not bothered by that as much as I am the way the "silver" background in my pix blends into my hair.

You win the prize, Andy, for posting the 19,000th contribution to this forum!

These stars . . . verrry interesting! I was able to take Hussam and Howard from zero to five stars in one swipe . . . but for David and Andy, a five-star vote only budged them one bullet!! Watching the market fall again today - - we can use a little fun and diversion!

I noticed the personal picture files are distorted. Did you change the dimensions of the image size or could it just be the "skin" I've chosen to use?

The message and reply counts on the index pages seem to be inflated. When I see 25 new posts when I log in, I usually don't see that many color coded new messages. Is this just me? I admit I haven't used a calculator, but it didn't work with fingers either.

This may be a case of operator headspace. I have unread messages (vacationitis, no readus where no interest) on page 2 of the indexes. Sorry.

The picture dimensions have changed. The board now accommodates pictures of up to 80 x 80. The old board used 75 x 65.

I think it is very interesting to compare the number of times threads are read to the number of posts. I had no idea!

Did I miss something??? Is there a rating system to go with this star rating??? If not, I rate the star system a total and complete failure!!!!!!!!!!!

This rating system in no good without a guide. Is there a guide? With movie guides one star usually means a very bad movie with some redeeming qualities and then they use a bomb or the word "bomb" to reflect a bad movie with no redeeming qualities. Well, if I get 5 stars am I a compliance guru? 4 stars and I am exceptional? 3 stars and I am good? 2 stars and I am fair? 1 star and I am poor? Or does one star mean that I am respected and then it just just goes up from there.

If I missed the guide, I apologize. If not, I think some guidance is needed. Scrap the current ratings, give guidance, and then reinstate it.

As near as I can tell, the star ratings depend upon who you know. It should be obvious to everyone how knowledgeable someone is based on their participation in the discussions and not on some undefined rating system.

The star ratings do not depend on who you know. They depend on being a registered user. Since you are posting as an Anonymous Unregistered poster, you do not see the rating opportunities that registered users see with every thread and every poster. Once registered, and logged in as a registered user, you have the opportunity to rate any user you find to be helpful or not so helpful. You are correct that there has been no provision of an official "scale" to clarify what the ratings mean. I've taken it to mean only upside ratings (that is, I don't take 1 star to be a poor rating, I take it to mean one step above no rating). I don't think it is in the spirit of this group to assign negative ratings, so in my opinion, no rating is as low as I'll go.

I am a registered user. And I am rated with several stars. I am just not sure what the significance is.

I am viewer 1000 yippie. What did I win?