CBS Sportsline 2007 is up (1 Viewer)

[Pittsburgh United]

Looks pretty cool from what I've seen so far.

 

[Wheezer34]

Looks like the they made the same changes to the Home Page as they did with Fantasy Baseball.

Has anybody found a "What's New" link to see if CBS has added any new enhancements?

 

[Pittsburgh United]

This tickd me off because the What's New info was available to me under a Commissioner-only menu option, but not for the rest of the league. Here's the list:

What's New for 2007?

Here is a sample of what's new in this year's Fantasy Football

Commissioner. The following is a result of customer feedback, so please

continue to let us know what improvements and additions you would like

to see.

You asked for it... you got it

Wider Pages

- We've gone wider on all league pages which makes for a much nicer

layout, better utilization of space, and more content above the fold.

Video Player - You'll now be able to watch

exclusive CBS Fantasy Football video content right on your league

homepage. We've added a video player so that you can get more timely

and more in-depth advice from our Fantasy Football experts.

Fantasy League Calendar - Do you find it

annoying to constantly have to remind the members in your league of

impending deadlines? The new league calendar will do all of that for

you. It will remind everyone in your league of events such as lineup

deadlines, waiver runs, trade deadlines, and any other dates that you

want your league members to be aware of.

Message Center - We've added a more effective

means for us to communicate to our users the important site events that

take place during the season. Further, the new functionality is also

more effective for each commissioner to communicate important details

to the rest of the league.

Fantasy Navigation Bar - You may notice that

some of the site navigation has changed. We've changed the names and

locations of some links in an effort to make it easier for our users to

find the information they are looking for.

Transactions after Thursday games - With the

NFL adding more and more Thursday games, we understand the impact this

has on your fantasy experience. Now, you can add/drop and trade players

up until game time on Sundays even if there has been a game on Thursday

or Saturday...of course those players who participated in games earlier

in the week will be excluded.

Gameday Weather - Is it snowing at Lambeau

today? Is it raining in Seattle? Ever wondered how conditions on the

field may affect your players and their performance? Wonder no more!

Now you can see what the gameday weather is for each of your players

right on your lineup page.

Better Scouting Tools - In addition to our

already robust 'Roster Trends' area which show you the 'most owned free

agents', 'most added and dropped players', and the 'most activated and

deactivated players', we've added the 'most scouted players', which

will tell you who the hottest players in fantasy are. Plus we've added

'Recent Trades invloving this player' on player profile pages so you

can see what kind of value other fantasy users are getting for the same

player.

Gameday Inactives - Is Fred Taylor going to

play today? No need to sit around waiting for a fantasy writer to

speculate on the situation, we'll post the gameday inactives right on

your league's homepage as soon as they are announced on Sunday

mornings.

 

[belljr]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.

But the new updates sound good

 

[TDavi118]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

 

[Pittsburgh United]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

 

[TDavi118]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

I do have my resolution set low,... but after I tinkered with it it still is too wide... thus I still have to scroll right and left to see the whole page.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

I do have my resolution set low,... but after I tinkered with it it still is too wide... thus I still have to scroll right and left to see the whole page.

What's yours set at? Mine's at 1200x800 and I don't have to scroll at all. I'm also using Mozilla Firefox, fyi.

 

[The Shizzle]

Not too impressed. I don't use CBS for updates so that isn't that great.

 

[videoguy505]

Transactions after Thursday are a huge improvement.

 

[TDavi118]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

I do have my resolution set low,... but after I tinkered with it it still is too wide... thus I still have to scroll right and left to see the whole page.

What's yours set at? Mine's at 1200x800 and I don't have to scroll at all. I'm also using Mozilla Firefox, fyi.

I have it set at 800x600. The only other setting I have is 1024x768, It makes my screen smaller.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

I do have my resolution set low,... but after I tinkered with it it still is too wide... thus I still have to scroll right and left to see the whole page.

What's yours set at? Mine's at 1200x800 and I don't have to scroll at all. I'm also using Mozilla Firefox, fyi.

I have it set at 800x600. The only other setting I have is 1024x768, It makes my screen smaller.

OK that explains it. Very few programs or interfaces are designed for 800x600 nowadays. Most assume a resolution of 1024x768 or higher.

 

[CalBear]

The page is too wide; people don't scan information horizontally very well, so even people who have large monitors (such as myself) don't set their browsers to be as wide as is necessary to fit the new CBS page (over 1000 pixels). It's extremely poor web design practice to require pages to be so wide. (Just look at all the successful web sites--Amazon, eBay, and Google don't require that kind of browser width).

What's more annoying is the only content they're placing in the third column is their stupid video feed, and it doesn't appear possible to turn that off.

 

[TDavi118]

The page is too wide; people don't scan information horizontally very well, so even people who have large monitors (such as myself) don't set their browsers to be as wide as is necessary to fit the new CBS page (over 1000 pixels). It's extremely poor web design practice to require pages to be so wide. (Just look at all the successful web sites--Amazon, eBay, and Google don't require that kind of browser width).What's more annoying is the only content they're placing in the third column is their stupid video feed, and it doesn't appear possible to turn that off.

I have a large monitor. But I never had this kind of prob before today... it sucks now that my league home page is too wide. Come season time,.. I'll have to put up with having to scroll side to side to see the score. Ehhhhh. No good in my book.

 

[belljr]

When I said reset - I meant put the stuff back in the spot I had it.

Like message board at the top, Player news mid left, etc.

I may actually be able to go to the automatic waivers now.

I couldn't before because we allow first come first serve from Thursday to SUnday. I'll have to see now - this would eliminate some manual work by me now

 

[CalBear]

I have a large monitor. But I never had this kind of prob before today... it sucks now that my league home page is too wide. Come season time,.. I'll have to put up with having to scroll side to side to see the score. Ehhhhh. No good in my book.

The issue isn't so much that their page is wide, it's that it's designed very badly. It's entirely possible to have fluid layouts which will work with whatever the user's browser width is; they just decided not to.

 

[TDavi118]

Well,... looks like I'll have to get a new video card. I've tried everything. I only have 2 settings with my resolution settings.

 

[Dhizz]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

I do have my resolution set low,... but after I tinkered with it it still is too wide... thus I still have to scroll right and left to see the whole page.

What's yours set at? Mine's at 1200x800 and I don't have to scroll at all. I'm also using Mozilla Firefox, fyi.

I have it set at 800x600. The only other setting I have is 1024x768, It makes my screen smaller.

Less then 5% of the net uses a resolution that low. 1024x768 lets you fit so much more on your screen. I can't imagine browsing at 800x600. You probably have to scroll down just to see anything. As others have said, increase the resolution. If everything is too small, you have a small monitor. Go get a 19inch LCD for $150 bucks and enjoy life.

 

[TDavi118]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

I have a 19 inch monitor. sir. I do have my resolution set low,... but after I tinkered with it it still is too wide... thus I still have to scroll right and left to see the whole page.

What's yours set at? Mine's at 1200x800 and I don't have to scroll at all. I'm also using Mozilla Firefox, fyi.

I have it set at 800x600. The only other setting I have is 1024x768, It makes my screen smaller.

Less then 5% of the net uses a resolution that low. 1024x768 lets you fit so much more on your screen. I can't imagine browsing at 800x600. You probably have to scroll down just to see anything. As others have said, increase the resolution. If everything is too small, you have a small monitor. Go get a 19inch LCD for $150 bucks and enjoy life.

 

[TDavi118]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

I have a 19 inch monitor. sir. I do have my resolution set low,... but after I tinkered with it it still is too wide... thus I still have to scroll right and left to see the whole page.

What's yours set at? Mine's at 1200x800 and I don't have to scroll at all. I'm also using Mozilla Firefox, fyi.

I have it set at 800x600. The only other setting I have is 1024x768, It makes my screen smaller.

Less then 5% of the net uses a resolution that low. 1024x768 lets you fit so much more on your screen. I can't imagine browsing at 800x600. You probably have to scroll down just to see anything. As others have said, increase the resolution. If everything is too small, you have a small monitor. Go get a 19inch LCD for $150 bucks and enjoy life.

Sorry, but I do have a 19 inch monster monitor, sir.

 

[CalBear]

Less then 5% of the net uses a resolution that low. 1024x768 lets you fit so much more on your screen. I can't imagine browsing at 800x600. You probably have to scroll down just to see anything. As others have said, increase the resolution. If everything is too small, you have a small monitor. Go get a 19inch LCD for $150 bucks and enjoy life.

Once again, you're missing the point. The point is that the CBS layout is not fluid, and non-fluid layouts are bad web practice. If your screen is open wider than 1000 pixels, you only get more background. If your screen is open narrower than 1000 pixels, you can't see the whole page. It's stupid and unnecessary. It's exactly what happens when you have someone who doesn't know anything about web design designing web pages. (In this case, someone who is used to TV where the output device characteristics are well-defined).

 

[ffweasel]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

I have a 19 inch monitor. sir. I do have my resolution set low,... but after I tinkered with it it still is too wide... thus I still have to scroll right and left to see the whole page.

What's yours set at? Mine's at 1200x800 and I don't have to scroll at all. I'm also using Mozilla Firefox, fyi.

I have it set at 800x600. The only other setting I have is 1024x768, It makes my screen smaller.

Less then 5% of the net uses a resolution that low. 1024x768 lets you fit so much more on your screen. I can't imagine browsing at 800x600. You probably have to scroll down just to see anything. As others have said, increase the resolution. If everything is too small, you have a small monitor. Go get a 19inch LCD for $150 bucks and enjoy life.

Sorry, but I do have a 19 inch monster monitor, sir.

People use 800x600? It's not the size of your monitor that matters, it's your resolution setting in this instance with CBS Sportsline. I do agree with CalBear though about the fluid layout issue.

 

[TDavi118]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

I have a 19 inch monitor. sir. I do have my resolution set low,... but after I tinkered with it it still is too wide... thus I still have to scroll right and left to see the whole page.

What's yours set at? Mine's at 1200x800 and I don't have to scroll at all. I'm also using Mozilla Firefox, fyi.

I have it set at 800x600. The only other setting I have is 1024x768, It makes my screen smaller.

Less then 5% of the net uses a resolution that low. 1024x768 lets you fit so much more on your screen. I can't imagine browsing at 800x600. You probably have to scroll down just to see anything. As others have said, increase the resolution. If everything is too small, you have a small monitor. Go get a 19inch LCD for $150 bucks and enjoy life.

Sorry, but I do have a 19 inch monster monitor, sir.

People use 800x600? It's not the size of your monitor that matters, it's your resolution setting in this instance with CBS Sportsline. I do agree with CalBear though about the fluid layout issue.

I have used 800x600 for years,... never had a problem with anything until today, when my league homepage was wide.----and still is.

 

[Dhizz]

Less then 5% of the net uses a resolution that low. 1024x768 lets you fit so much more on your screen. I can't imagine browsing at 800x600. You probably have to scroll down just to see anything. As others have said, increase the resolution. If everything is too small, you have a small monitor. Go get a 19inch LCD for $150 bucks and enjoy life.

Once again, you're missing the point. The point is that the CBS layout is not fluid, and non-fluid layouts are bad web practice. If your screen is open wider than 1000 pixels, you only get more background. If your screen is open narrower than 1000 pixels, you can't see the whole page. It's stupid and unnecessary. It's exactly what happens when you have someone who doesn't know anything about web design designing web pages. (In this case, someone who is used to TV where the output device characteristics are well-defined).

Having a fluid layout, means your layout can look like utter #### on some resolutions.And it's hardly bad practice, that's up for debate.Cnn.com, ESPN.com, NFL.com, Ebay, Myspace, AOL.com, apple.com all non fluid layouts. I suppose they're all dumbasses? It depends on the content. A fluid design on 800x600 looks like ### when all the divs start drooping. Back to the point, 800x600 will be under 1% within 2-3 years. Almost no one uses it. No reason to sacrifice design for an old resolution. Fluid layouts have their own set of problems. There's lots of CSS nerds out there pimpin the uber fluid layout, that turns to utter crap when you lower the resolution. If you have lot of fixed length content, you're far better off using a centered fixed width design. Any background on larger resolutions simply frames your content, it's hardly a negative against it.It’s not a knock of CBS for using a fixed width layout, it’s actually standard practice.

 

[Dhizz]

Nice. I need to reset my homepage to the old way I had it.But the new updates sound good

I need to "reset" my homepage like it was before. I like the changes except for the wide page. I don't want to have to scroll left or right to see the whole page....I shouldn't have to. So,... how does one reset their homepage?

I don't have to scroll. You must have your resolution set very low.

I have a 19 inch monitor. sir. I do have my resolution set low,... but after I tinkered with it it still is too wide... thus I still have to scroll right and left to see the whole page.

What's yours set at? Mine's at 1200x800 and I don't have to scroll at all. I'm also using Mozilla Firefox, fyi.

I have it set at 800x600. The only other setting I have is 1024x768, It makes my screen smaller.

Less then 5% of the net uses a resolution that low. 1024x768 lets you fit so much more on your screen. I can't imagine browsing at 800x600. You probably have to scroll down just to see anything. As others have said, increase the resolution. If everything is too small, you have a small monitor. Go get a 19inch LCD for $150 bucks and enjoy life.

Sorry, but I do have a 19 inch monster monitor, sir.

On a 19inch monitor, at 800x600, icons are the size of your hand. Unless you have major vision problems, you need to up your resolution and join the 21st century.

 

[TDavi118]

Less then 5% of the net uses a resolution that low. 1024x768 lets you fit so much more on your screen. I can't imagine browsing at 800x600. You probably have to scroll down just to see anything. As others have said, increase the resolution. If everything is too small, you have a small monitor. Go get a 19inch LCD for $150 bucks and enjoy life.

Once again, you're missing the point. The point is that the CBS layout is not fluid, and non-fluid layouts are bad web practice. If your screen is open wider than 1000 pixels, you only get more background. If your screen is open narrower than 1000 pixels, you can't see the whole page. It's stupid and unnecessary. It's exactly what happens when you have someone who doesn't know anything about web design designing web pages. (In this case, someone who is used to TV where the output device characteristics are well-defined).

Having a fluid layout, means your layout can look like utter #### on some resolutions.And it's hardly bad practice, that's up for debate.Cnn.com, ESPN.com, NFL.com, all non fluid layouts. It depends on the content. A fluid design on 800x600 looks like ### when all the divs start drooping. Back to the point, 800x600 will be under 1% within 2-3 years. Almost no one uses it. No reason to sacrifice design for an old resolution. Fluid layouts have their own set of problems. There's lots of CSS nerds out there pimpin the uber fluid layout, that turns to utter crap when you lower the resolution. If you have lot of fixed length content, you're far better off using a centered fixed width design. Any background on larger resolutions simply frames your content, it's hardly a negative against it.It’s not a knock of CBS for using a fixed width layout, it’s actually standard practice.

I disagree,... they should satisfy all users.

 

[CalBear]

Having a fluid layout, means your layout can look like utter #### on some resolutions.

And it's hardly bad practice, that's up for debate.

Cnn.com, ESPN.com, all non fluid layouts. It depends on the content. A fluid design on 800x600 looks like ### when all the divs start drooping.

Back to the point, 800x600 will be under 1% within 2-3 years. Almost no one uses it. No reason to sacrifice design for an old resolution. Fluid layouts have their own set of problems.

There's lots of CSS nerds out there pimpin the uber fluid layout, that turns to utter crap when you lower the resolution. If you have lot of fixed length content, you're far better off using a centered fixed width design. Any background on larger resolutions simply frames your content, it's hardly a negative against it.

It’s not a knock of CBS for using a fixed width layout, it’s actually standard practice.

Cnn.com and espn.com are also TV outlets who are imposing a TV paradigm on a medium where it doesn't work. Frankly, I hate both of their home pages and never visit them except when someone sends a link to a specific story. CBS's layout looks like crap at 800 pixels or 1200 pixels wide. I also happen to think that it looks like crap at 1000 pixels wide, though that's more debatable. Certainly having a fixed layout doesn't make their site look good at all resolutions.

And having no way to remove their obnoxious video content certainly doesn't make the site look good, either.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

If you have lot of fixed length content, you're far better off using a centered fixed width design. Any background on larger resolutions simply frames your content, it's hardly a negative against it.It’s not a knock of CBS for using a fixed width layout, it’s actually standard practice.

 

[Dhizz]

I disagree,... they should satisfy all users.

You don't sacrifice the end user experience of 95% of your visitors for 5%. The other 95% are sorry you'd using an ancient setup, but we frankly don't care. We shouldn't have our site crammed into 800x600 designs to placate 5% of the net.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

And having no way to remove their obnoxious video content certainly doesn't make the site look good, either.

Holy crap, man. Drag it to the bottom corner and forget about it!

 

[CalBear]

I disagree,... they should satisfy all users.

You don't sacrifice the end user experience of 95% of your visitors for 5%. The other 95% are sorry you'd using an ancient setup, but we frankly don't care. We shouldn't have our site crammed into 800x600 designs to placate 5% of the net.

You don't have to cram the site into 800x600; you just have to use a fluid layout.(While you're at it, you could try attempting to design to something approximating web standards. My league home page reports 429 HTML errors).

 

[Swing 51]

Great thread

 

[TDavi118]

I disagree,... they should satisfy all users.

You don't sacrifice the end user experience of 95% of your visitors for 5%. The other 95% are sorry you'd using an ancient setup, but we frankly don't care. We shouldn't have our site crammed into 800x600 designs to placate 5% of the net.

So I'm forced to go buy top-of-the-line equipment to satisfy my needs.

 

[Dhizz]

Having a fluid layout, means your layout can look like utter #### on some resolutions.

And it's hardly bad practice, that's up for debate.

Cnn.com, ESPN.com, all non fluid layouts. It depends on the content. A fluid design on 800x600 looks like ### when all the divs start drooping.

Back to the point, 800x600 will be under 1% within 2-3 years. Almost no one uses it. No reason to sacrifice design for an old resolution. Fluid layouts have their own set of problems.

There's lots of CSS nerds out there pimpin the uber fluid layout, that turns to utter crap when you lower the resolution. If you have lot of fixed length content, you're far better off using a centered fixed width design. Any background on larger resolutions simply frames your content, it's hardly a negative against it.

It’s not a knock of CBS for using a fixed width layout, it’s actually standard practice.

Cnn.com and espn.com are also TV outlets who are imposing a TV paradigm on a medium where it doesn't work. Frankly, I hate both of their home pages and never visit them except when someone sends a link to a specific story. CBS's layout looks like crap at 800 pixels or 1200 pixels wide. I also happen to think that it looks like crap at 1000 pixels wide, though that's more debatable. Certainly having a fixed layout doesn't make their site look good at all resolutions.

And having no way to remove their obnoxious video content certainly doesn't make the site look good, either.

Okay add NFL.com, Ebay, Myspace, AOL.com, apple.com, Delta.com.Almost every site on the net is fixed width content.

And I hate CBS, I agree it looks like crap, and the site sucks.

But fixed width design is the standard design for MOST of the internet. It's *standard practice*. I could name top 1000 sites all day that use fixed width. Fluid CSS designs are gaining in popularity, but they have their own set of issues and are not widely accepted.

Like I said, it's not a knock on CBS that they're not using a fluid design. Everyone with a clue is using fixed width.

 

[Dhizz]

I disagree,... they should satisfy all users.

You don't sacrifice the end user experience of 95% of your visitors for 5%. The other 95% are sorry you'd using an ancient setup, but we frankly don't care. We shouldn't have our site crammed into 800x600 designs to placate 5% of the net.

So I'm forced to go buy top-of-the-line equipment to satisfy my needs.

Uh no. Try 1998 equipment. I haven't used 800x600 since about 1996. I have no clue why your computer is setup that way. 95% of the net uses larger resolutions. I'm not sure why you were left behind. I'm terribly sorry you were.

 

[Dhizz]

I disagree,... they should satisfy all users.

You don't sacrifice the end user experience of 95% of your visitors for 5%. The other 95% are sorry you'd using an ancient setup, but we frankly don't care. We shouldn't have our site crammed into 800x600 designs to placate 5% of the net.

You don't have to cram the site into 800x600; you just have to use a fluid layout.(While you're at it, you could try attempting to design to something approximating web standards. My league home page reports 429 HTML errors).

Er no. You use a fixed width 1024×768 design. It's becoming standard practice. That whole CSS fluid hack column stuff is a mess. Until CSS3 supports real columns, it's a nightmare to deal with. Ever designed a fluid width site? Go fire it up with Firefox, Opera, Safari, IE6, IE7. It's a freaking nightmare. Then when people are using 800x600, all your divs #### the bed, and your site looks like utter ###.Did you just finish some grade 10 web design class? Tell your teacher his CSS fluid affinity is cute, but he should save it until CSS3 so his students can actually get a job in the real world.A pure fluid design only works perfectly with 100% text. As soon as you add in images, video, it becomes a huge mess. At some point, you have to decide where to stop your content. Even with a fluid design, if you have a row of 1200px images, it won't FIT on smaller resolutions. Even with a fluid design, you need to limit your image/video/iframe content to 800x600. Real sites are not 100% text. Not everything wraps in on itself perfectly.

 

[TDavi118]

I disagree,... they should satisfy all users.

You don't sacrifice the end user experience of 95% of your visitors for 5%. The other 95% are sorry you'd using an ancient setup, but we frankly don't care. We shouldn't have our site crammed into 800x600 designs to placate 5% of the net.

So I'm forced to go buy top-of-the-line equipment to satisfy my needs.

Uh no. Try 1998 equipment. I haven't used 800x600 since about 1996. I have no clue why your computer is setup that way. 95% of the net uses larger resolutions. I'm not sure why you were left behind. I'm terribly sorry you were.

Ahh, don't feel sorry for me,...I'll have this problem fixed, no big deal. It just puzzles me that this has happened. I do nothing but play poker, chess and read FBG all the time anyway. I guess it's time to upgrade.... I feel like Chester Taylor.

 

[Dhizz]

Ahh, don't feel sorry for me,...I'll have this problem fixed, no big deal. It just puzzles me that this has happened. I do nothing but play poker, chess and read FBG all the time anyway. I guess it's time to upgrade.... I feel like Chester Taylor.

Just bump your resolution up.I think some of your accessibility options might have been changed. There are windows options to increase or decrease the size of text/icons for people who have issues reading the screen. Yours might be set very low, meaning you need 800x600 for it to be readable. 1024×768 should not be very small. It should actually be very readable, and vey large on a 19".1024×768 is well within any computer/monitor combo. There's something going on with your windows if it looks horrible.

 

[TDavi118]

Ahh, don't feel sorry for me,...I'll have this problem fixed, no big deal. It just puzzles me that this has happened. I do nothing but play poker, chess and read FBG all the time anyway. I guess it's time to upgrade.... I feel like Chester Taylor.

Just bump your resolution up.I think some of your accessibility options might have been changed. There are windows options to increase or decrease the size of text/icons for people who have issues reading the screen. Yours might be set very low, meaning you need 800x600 for it to be readable. 1024×768 should not be very small. It should actually be very readable, and vey large on a 19".1024×768 is well within any computer/monitor combo. There's something going on with your windows if it looks horrible.

Nothing wrong with the quality of my video, I have alot of background with 1024x768. The only 2 settings are 800x600 and 1024x768,... no in-between.

 

[m_sell31]

this thread blows

 

[Red Apples]

did anybody else lose salary info?

i did in 2 different leagues not too happy.

 

[CalBear]

Did you just finish some grade 10 web design class? Tell your teacher his CSS fluid affinity is cute, but he should save it until CSS3 so his students can actually get a job in the real world.

Did you just finish the part of Rhetoric 1 where they describe ad hominem?I run a professional web design group, and if we were turning out crap like the CBS Sportsline page, we'd be out of business in no time. I guess, unless we could market to morons who don't understand how a web site is not a television.

I just visited the top 10 web sites by traffic on the net; 9 out of 10 view just fine in my browser at 900 pixels wide, the exception being Yahoo, which is getting its lunch eaten by Google largely because it has forgotten what made its web site good in the first place (clean design and user-relevance). Many of them are fixed-width, but again, with the exception of Yahoo, those that are fixed-width are fixed at well under 1000 pixels.

It's not like the CBS site is providing great content in its extra width. It's a typical ugly marriage of corporate drones and marketing dweebs.

 

[CalBear]

did anybody else lose salary info?i did in 2 different leagues not too happy.

We still have salary info. I think last year they lost it when they rolled out the new product but then got it back later.

 

[TDavi118]

Problem solved men,... I enlarged my fonts and resolution.

But I still don't like it. When I re-booted and double-clicked on my FBG icon, it appeared 75%. Then I clicked "forums" and everything is cool. My league homepage is in its entirety when I double-clicked it,...so everything is alright,...for now. Thanks for the discussion and sorry for the hijack.

 

[videoguy505]

Anyone else have wack projections? Top 3 RBs in my league are projected to be LJ (324 pts), SA (280 pts), and LT2 (265 pts).

Under both "projections" and "player ratings" from the front page.

 

[tulane]

The minimal enhancements are a joke. A video player, wider screen, and weather updates. Ho hum. I figured that after last season's disaster where they refunded half of the entry fees that they might come out with some new features. <I don't want to start the "who's site is better" topic all over again, but> Sportline is behind the times with some cool features on the other league management sites, but ahead of the game in user-friendly interfaces.

I am very disappointed in the product that they have put out this year (despite my annual list of suggestions that are always ignored). Our league is content with Sportsline, so we will end up staying, but I sure wish they'd add some useful features.

 

[tulane]

Anyone else have wack projections? Top 3 RBs in my league are projected to be LJ (324 pts), SA (280 pts), and LT2 (265 pts).Under both "projections" and "player ratings" from the front page.

My projections seem fine. Keep in mind that projections are based on your league scoring system. You might want to check any changes that may have been in your scoring system.

 

[Buffalo0987]

fine for me

 

[ELI2TYREE]

the enhancements aren't all that great.

I like the thursdayand saturday game players being locked and the others still available for add drop. Other than that...not much to speak of.

I wish they would allow some more customization with logos and maybe a league banner at the minimum. just saying,..

 

[videoguy505]

Anyone else have wack projections? Top 3 RBs in my league are projected to be LJ (324 pts), SA (280 pts), and LT2 (265 pts).

Under both "projections" and "player ratings" from the front page.

My projections seem fine. Keep in mind that projections are based on your league scoring system. You might want to check any changes that may have been in your scoring system.

Still wack for me. I think it's great. I'm hoping the other owners in my league use their projections without looking at the numbers... it's got some guys waaay overvalued and out of place.Nothing has changed in my scoring system, in fact, that can't possibly be it because LT2 outscores LJ in almost every category--so there's no way he could have fewer points.

Here's CBS's projections for my league:

Note: Ratings are based on your scoring system and statistical projections for the 2007 season.

1. Larry Johnson Projected FPTS: 324

Projected 2007 Att: 334 Yd: 1439 Avg: 4.3 Lg: 0 TD: 11 Recpt: 39 Yd: 415 Avg: 10.6 Lg: 0 TD:2

3. LaDainian Tomlinson Projected FPTS: 265

Projected 2007 Att: 333 Yd: 1503 Avg: 4.5 Lg: 0 TD: 19 Recpt: 41 Yd: 347 Avg: 8.5 LG: 0 TD: 2

Scoring System from my league's rules page:

FL - Fumble Lost, Including ST plays -3 points

Pa2P - Passing Two-point Conversion 2 points

PaInt - Passing Interception -3 points

PaTD - Passing TD 6 points

PaYd - Passing Yards 0+ PaYds = 1 point for every 25 PaYds

Plus a 3 point bonus @ 300+ PaYd

Plus a 4 point bonus @ 400+ PaYd

Re2P - Receiving Two-point Conversion 2 points

ReTD - Receiving TD 6 points

ReYd - Receiving Yards 0+ ReYds = 1 point for every 10 ReYds

Ru2P - Rushing Two-point Conversion 2 points

RuTD - Rushing TD 6 points

RuYd - Rushing Yards 0+ RuYds = 1 point for every 10 RuYds

The correct numbers they should be projecting are 310 for LT2 and 262 for LJ.