I like most of the text changes, the grey avatars, and losing the garish orange background for sure, but find the additional colour-coding a bit blingy.
My preference would probably be the new left hand side with the old right hand side (but I’m sure the new right would settle on the senses soon enough).
Sorry, mate, didn’t mean to be hypercritical in that last post. Saturation was fine, it was just the 3 columns of colour coding that hit me as a bit much.
If anything, I’d suggest the score column doesn’t need colour coding given the ranking is already highlighted by descending order and decreasing font size.
But now I’m being hypercritical again. It looks good as is
I see what you mean. On the other hand, one thing I like about the colour coding is that it really highlights large discrepancies, like the generous voting from you and @Hercules_Rockefeller this week, and the leap in score from 1st to 2nd place (kudos @Stephen_Bean!)
Ah, so we’d have more of a spectrum going on. I should have looked closer at the colour variations. So if Steve didn’t have such a huge lead this week second place would be closer in colour to him. I get it now
I think the whole column colour coded looked better and makes more sense with the spectrum model.
EDIT: I’m guessing the leaderboard colour coding is based on a percentage of the leader’s score? If so Steve’s huge lead won’t be helping to differentiate the reds in the above example, and we could probably expect a more gradual variation in colours, generally.
I don’t see the logic of the colours used in the Voted? column - but then, I don’t see the logic of them in the older version either. And it doesn’t bother me, because if I want to know who has voted more, or less, I can just read the numbers.
It’s based on frequency, Molly. Some people won’t be on site as often as others. For example, I’m normally sound asleep during the midday caption. Others will be unable to caption for other reasons.
The frequency of captions written ignores this, and the ratios, which the colour coding reflects, express how frequently people are voting/getting votes based on how often they are writing captions.
Personally, I try to vote twice for every caption I write. I like that the new colour coding reflects this.
That’s the votes per caption column, though, isn’t it? It’s the plain “Voted?” column which puzzles me. For instance, your score of 24 and Hercules Rockefeller’s score of 44 are both bright green, whereas John Harrison’s 24 is a dull yellow-green, along with scores ranging from Karyn’s 21 and Chris Keegan’s 34. Basically, I’m saying that the colouring of this column does not match up to the values in it. However, a similar thing was the case in the original format, although this time it was 27 and 35 which are coloured the same although scores in between those are coloured differently.
Ah! So the figures shown are the number of votes given, but the colours relate to the proportion of votes given to captions written. My bad - I had just assumed that the colours would relate to the raw numbers in the column! But this way there is twice as much information available in a single column. (Apart from for those with red-green colour blindness, of course )
)