It goes without saying that I support image-map thumbs.

Guys, I didn't say it was important. It's a bug. This is the bug report site. -__-

It's weird without a scrollbar. There's more text than can fit in the little tiny area, and you can scroll using non-scrollbar methods, but it's weird. There are no indications that more text is there, and it's more difficult to view that text in a specific way. It bothers me. The MOA site had the same problem and sidke fixed it in a flash. It's an easy thing to fix.

Southpaw, for the last time, knock it off complaining about Afternoon Dragon being #1. By their very nature, the best n-arts are bound to be more highly rated than any playable map. If you don't want to see them, type "-n-art". Just like if there was an n-art on the hot maps page and you didn't want to see it. I mean come on, this is like not liking Microsoft Word because of the little paperclip helper guy. He serves a purpose, and if you don't want him there, you can make him go away with one or two clicks.

A solid feature to have. I would've been fine with just a counter, but a list of names is even better. Good stuff!

This would be awesome. My suggestion is to emulate the way Uservoice does it - show the stats (histogram is already there, # of rated maps is there, but ratings subbed should also be shown, and anything else that's included), then show the points/score. Also, in my first post I was talking about the "rates submitted" total, as you put it. I imagine it's not on new NUMA because it got reset in the update, so old users that aren't currently active would have "0" when in fact they may have rated 1000+ maps back when. Still, it'd still be good to have it back.

What did you have in mind? I like how old NUMA had that counter for how many rates a user has given out. I wish that was still around, partly because it functions as a participation gauge.

@exuberance: No, it won't let you add a tag like that. Go try it right now and see.

Anyway, I agree with this, though maybe not the exact way mentioned above. I like AltArc's way of doing it - the original map poster gets a code that he has to then give to the collaber(s). Once they enter it, the site treats the map as being owned by both users. Pretty slick.

Whoa, my numbers are fixed! Thanks, Arachnid! :) And why am I the only one talking on this suggestion?

Well, you may have fixed the error caused by the histogram implementation, but there's still other problems with map # errors. For example, I have 80 maps even though my profile says I have 83. Also, I thought this was a general suggestion for all profile errors to be fixed, in which case my # of favorites and # of featured maps are both one less than they should be. Shall I make a new topic or something?

I was gonna say to cast your votes for http://nmaps.uservoice.com/pages/3527-general/suggestions/26275-blackson-has-2-favorites instead, but you've already tied it in votes and your title is more general. I'll switch my vote over.

I'm down with this. It may not be the best, but it allows the user greater control over search results, and that's always good.

Ooooh! I finally understand where you're coming from, Arachnid. Okay, then yes, I agree with player_03's assessment: it works, but it's just confusing. The histogram ends up showing things differently than the whole rest of the site. Please go to http://forum.therealn.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1520
That's my case for my suggestion, in full. It should be easier to understand this way.

Uh, as I stated earlier, the actual interval ranges don't matter. The point is that there should be 6 intervals, one for each possible rating a map can be shown as having. It's not something that's open to interpretation. 6 consecutive integer values shouldn't lead to 5 intervals. If you don't get that, then you don't understand histograms. Also, Arachnid has yet to answer my previous question.

@SkyRay: No. Do you realize what you're saying? "Let's prevent the public from finding maps rated 5/5 just so that the small portion of the public that would snipe it don't snipe it." Your intentions are good but that would be a deplorable policy.

Hmmm, this is confusing. You seem to be suggesting that the histogram IS representing continuous data (that is, the EXACT averages). The trouble with that is you also say that the current intervals are [n, n+1), from n=0 to n=4. Are you suggesting that if a map has an exact average of 3.75 that NUMA will show an average rating of 4, but it will show up on the histogram as a 3?

Continuing the previous post, in the case of discrete data, you can define your intervals as whatever you like. It doesn't matter so long as each interval only contains one whole number. So the ranges are trivial. You could start from -0.5 to 0.5, or -0.9 to 0.1, or 0 to 1 with inclusive low endpoint and exclusive high endpoint. Whatever. It all works. Am I making sense?

@Arachnid: Okay, I see now that the problem is you don't understand the variations of histograms. Histograms can be used for continuous data, which case you're more or less right. (Though in certain circumstances, using bars of different sizes is perfectly acceptable) However, histograms can also be used for discrete data, which is the case here. We want to count how many 0's, 1's, etc. there are.

Exactly. Well said, player_03.

Um, wtf? Sorry, no. Put a column for 5. Why combine 4-5? Why not 3-4? Or 0-1? Just make it a normal flipping histogram. There are 6 possible values, therefore there should be 6 possible blocks. End of story.

kisler, I think people get it. The point is: why? If the answer is the flawed "it's an antisniping measure" argument, it would be best to know that.
This should never have been an issue to begin with. I would throw 2 votes behind this if I could, but alas, I am out.

So, how much demand is enough? I think it's pretty good that this is 5th ranked when it's a rather small issue. Also, there aren't any comments in disagreement here -- not that no one will disagree, just that the disagree-ers probably aren't that abundant.

Well that depends on what maps you're looking at. If you're browsing the newest page, you'll only be looking for older maps. If, on the other hand, you're looking at a featured map, you'd like to see older and newer stuff. But in any case, if the 3 older/3 newer thing were implemented, would a user's newest map show 6 older maps or still just 3?

So, Arachnid, is this possible or what?

Absolutely agreed. This has long been an annoyance for me. But perhaps it's difficult to implement because the 1 or 2 newest maps by an author would need to be made an exception to the rule or something. I just feel like for something this simple, if it hasn't alread been implemented, there's probably a good reason for it.

Questions!
1) If this always happens when the query is over 1000 maps (due to GAE restrictions, right?), how are you going to "fix" it?
2) Why not implement some sort of error-catching system, where if the query returned "oops, I hit 1000", the site would force that page's listing to end there, and you could click "next" to go to the next page (the next 1000). So, for example, if your search returned only 3 maps in the 2000-3000 range, it'd only show 3 maps on that page, and you'd have to click "next" (instead of 3 maps and "results truncated! haha, got you!"). It'd still be annoying, as you'd have to go through 160 pages to search the whole database, but it's better than the current situation.

Why isn't this marked as "Planned" yet? : /

Okay, now that I'm actually using NUMA again I am seeing this with moderate frequency. That may not sound bad, but it's infinitely worse than no frequency. The worst part is that while sometimes it's just an annoyance, other times it kills my search (by which I mean it won't let me browse past a certain map).

I despise "results truncated". If I ever see it again it will be too soon. ;)
Seriously though, this was supposed to have been fixed a long time ago.