FA+
Shop
Derpy talks about yet another Fur Affinity Update (who gaf d
5 months ago
I want to preface this by saying this Journal will be repeating a few things I talked about in my Comment Thread under there. But, I will be saying some new things as well.
So, just the other day, Fur Affinity's mascot Fender made a new Journal.
I'm not alone when I say that Fur Affinity's in a bit of a... strange situation, right? I mean, let's be honest here, they've made some rather strange decisions in terms of how to handle and build up towards the things they keep eluding to on their mysterious-yet-to-be-seen roadmap. Judging from responses among the team from people in the comments, they're trying to make this the "first" of many changes that affect the way in which users will be using the search system here on the site.
However, a big problem in that is how "ancient" the system is. Keywords are even more outdated than the gender drop down box ever was, and to remove a feature that many took advantage of in the Browse feature is only making it harder for certain users to take advantage of specific content. While I wasn't aware of the Browse feature giving the gender drop down a better use, I do think the way the team handled this change despite the current state of the network is what makes this decision all the more terrible.
They're looking to do more than just that, though. It seems to be that species are next on the chopping block, and as you can guess -- they want people tagging those too.
Now, listen. I am by no means against the idea of tagging the content as to what is in it, but I don't think the team understand that a good chunk of users don't even tag their work properly/if any. Fur Affinity suffers from being one of the oldest sites for this fandom to where a lot of its systems only work by those who have used it enough to guide newer members. What's worse, is there's no consistency towards what tag applies to what work, and how many alterations should be made available. I'm no different to this, I've had my fair share of figuring out which form of "identity_death" to use in certain stories.
The concept of making tags a bigger way to filter work is nice on paper. Yes. But, when you casually admit to tags being lower on the list of this invisible priority box, it isn't helping those who are currently using the site to see what they actually want. Fur Affinity desperately needs features like "tag suggestions" or even tag box formats to where the user clicks through categories to know what to apply and where. SoFurry and e621 both do this, and they're vastly superior in that regard. This isn't even addressing the problem in which many users may begin to abuse the way in which they tag their work now due to the uncertainty/obliviousness of certain factors in the piece they're posting. I've seen a good number of male and female users complaining of seeing the opposite already, when they'd rather only see their pair.
I do appreciate the fact they made every current post as of the time of their Journal contain "male/female/any" should the creator have specified a gender for the piece, but I don't think that's enough. Fur Affinity's team suffers from a lack of transparency in what exactly they're planning to do next, and how to get to it. They're skipping steps to "crack the bottle on the boat" when it hasn't even been painted yet.
I believe that tags need to be focused on more appropriately, and certain features need to be put to the side if they're looking to cutting down more and more of what the users can currently use to make the best use of their browsing habits. To force the community to moderate themselves when there's hardly anything helping them to/against is only making this situation worse. I am by no means a software expert, but there's a case to be made in how laughably bad it is that basic features such as what I mentioned two paragraphs ago aren't even on here yet.
I can't act like I'm some Almighty Being who will push these changes. At the end of the day, I'm not even a furry. I'm practically a freeloader on here. I'm only voicing my thoughts on this decision considering I've somewhat built a reputation on my thoughts towards everything they decide upon. I don't want to end up leaving a second time because they're making the same mistakes, but it can be seen that they're going the mile of being more open and communicate their thoughts and decisions regarding what has been done throughout each Journal.
I even had the honour of Sciggles responding to my previously mentioned Comment Thread, and I believe what I said in response to her queries can summarize this Journal in whole as well.
All in all, this change towards how we as the community are expected to filter things through this site isn't looking good at the moment. I have nothing to say against the hardware updates, as those are always appreciated on a fossil such as this. I can only hope they'll do shift focus on certain features, and try to be more clear towards the community with something more public and visible towards what the audience on here wants and wouldn't scream about being terrible and unneeded. Continuing to cut down what makes this site useful is only going to drive away the audience, and I severely doubt they want a repeat of how everyone reacted to the shift in management when Neer died.
I'd love to hear some thoughts on this change, whether in regards to what I said in my Journal, or just copy-pasting from the original, leave 'em below.
So, just the other day, Fur Affinity's mascot Fender made a new Journal.
I'm not alone when I say that Fur Affinity's in a bit of a... strange situation, right? I mean, let's be honest here, they've made some rather strange decisions in terms of how to handle and build up towards the things they keep eluding to on their mysterious-yet-to-be-seen roadmap. Judging from responses among the team from people in the comments, they're trying to make this the "first" of many changes that affect the way in which users will be using the search system here on the site.
However, a big problem in that is how "ancient" the system is. Keywords are even more outdated than the gender drop down box ever was, and to remove a feature that many took advantage of in the Browse feature is only making it harder for certain users to take advantage of specific content. While I wasn't aware of the Browse feature giving the gender drop down a better use, I do think the way the team handled this change despite the current state of the network is what makes this decision all the more terrible.
They're looking to do more than just that, though. It seems to be that species are next on the chopping block, and as you can guess -- they want people tagging those too.
Now, listen. I am by no means against the idea of tagging the content as to what is in it, but I don't think the team understand that a good chunk of users don't even tag their work properly/if any. Fur Affinity suffers from being one of the oldest sites for this fandom to where a lot of its systems only work by those who have used it enough to guide newer members. What's worse, is there's no consistency towards what tag applies to what work, and how many alterations should be made available. I'm no different to this, I've had my fair share of figuring out which form of "identity_death" to use in certain stories.
The concept of making tags a bigger way to filter work is nice on paper. Yes. But, when you casually admit to tags being lower on the list of this invisible priority box, it isn't helping those who are currently using the site to see what they actually want. Fur Affinity desperately needs features like "tag suggestions" or even tag box formats to where the user clicks through categories to know what to apply and where. SoFurry and e621 both do this, and they're vastly superior in that regard. This isn't even addressing the problem in which many users may begin to abuse the way in which they tag their work now due to the uncertainty/obliviousness of certain factors in the piece they're posting. I've seen a good number of male and female users complaining of seeing the opposite already, when they'd rather only see their pair.
I do appreciate the fact they made every current post as of the time of their Journal contain "male/female/any" should the creator have specified a gender for the piece, but I don't think that's enough. Fur Affinity's team suffers from a lack of transparency in what exactly they're planning to do next, and how to get to it. They're skipping steps to "crack the bottle on the boat" when it hasn't even been painted yet.
I believe that tags need to be focused on more appropriately, and certain features need to be put to the side if they're looking to cutting down more and more of what the users can currently use to make the best use of their browsing habits. To force the community to moderate themselves when there's hardly anything helping them to/against is only making this situation worse. I am by no means a software expert, but there's a case to be made in how laughably bad it is that basic features such as what I mentioned two paragraphs ago aren't even on here yet.
I can't act like I'm some Almighty Being who will push these changes. At the end of the day, I'm not even a furry. I'm practically a freeloader on here. I'm only voicing my thoughts on this decision considering I've somewhat built a reputation on my thoughts towards everything they decide upon. I don't want to end up leaving a second time because they're making the same mistakes, but it can be seen that they're going the mile of being more open and communicate their thoughts and decisions regarding what has been done throughout each Journal.
I even had the honour of Sciggles responding to my previously mentioned Comment Thread, and I believe what I said in response to her queries can summarize this Journal in whole as well.
All in all, this change towards how we as the community are expected to filter things through this site isn't looking good at the moment. I have nothing to say against the hardware updates, as those are always appreciated on a fossil such as this. I can only hope they'll do shift focus on certain features, and try to be more clear towards the community with something more public and visible towards what the audience on here wants and wouldn't scream about being terrible and unneeded. Continuing to cut down what makes this site useful is only going to drive away the audience, and I severely doubt they want a repeat of how everyone reacted to the shift in management when Neer died.
I'd love to hear some thoughts on this change, whether in regards to what I said in my Journal, or just copy-pasting from the original, leave 'em below.
Some other sites at the very least allow tags as a community-affected thing, where users can add and vote on the tags, making the image match closer to the community expectations/impressions of it.