Well, I can't figure that out.

All I can suggest is that you try Safari, Opera or Exploder.

it's SP2, should be enough. and as far as i remember i always had problems with login and account and so on... after 3 days with major problems i decided to say something...

3.5.5 is latest Firefox. If that's what you have and your flash player is up to date, that shouldn't be the reason.

Is your XP as up to date as possible?

WinXP home, Firefox 3.5.something

I've not noticed a problem with this. What system and browser versions are you using?

It happens quite often that I am logged in but when i visit my profile it says I am not.
If ask to login and I do it it doesn't solve the problem. If I log out and log in, the mask for logging is proposed again.
At the moment I can write this as Wentu but the page of my Profile offers me to log.
Is it possible to solve this ? maybe it's a problem with the management of the Session...

thank

bye

If I find a wonderfully realized game with 50 chinese kanji where everything is perfect I do wanna rate it 5 but I don't wanna learn 50 kanji to do that !
... that's just my opinion

to paulfunl:

In this case, I think it might be political. I played your game, and as a game in itself it is not bad.

When I started playing it, it had 2 ratings and 1 star, and the only way that happens is 2 separate people rate it at one star (or one person with two accounts).

I rated it 5 stars, but that won't help much.

I think the bad ratings are from someone with a political axe to grind. A holocaust denier, maybe (you know the type: they claimed it never happened, and would like to do it again.)

Better luck next time.

Well, now I can more easily feel the rage, when someone (a fellow member of PG!!!) rated my new game without even play it. With a single star. I. have been eager to see if someone liked it and what do I see... http://www.purposegames.com/game/jewish-refugees-quiz/info

No, I stick with my suggestion - only those who finishes a game may vote. I never vote on games I haven't played, myself. See also: http://www.purposegames.com/topic/922

This is a very interesting discussion, with several important questions and ideas. I want to share my opinion on some of them:

- I agree with Paul's suggestion, rating until you have finished the game is a good limit, if you played it you have some basis to rate fairly, and someone who is just being a vandal will have less motivation since they would have to finish each game, 1 by 1

- I, myself, rate games using all the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Each and every game I have played in the site I have rated, I think this is good for all of us, it's feedback for creators (I usually leave a comment too) and it's a notice for players. I try not to be extremely subjective. 1 star would be a worthless game, like when the whole info is wrong (not just a couple of mistakes), I rate 2 stars when the game has a big problem that makes it hard to focus or lean, like awful spelling all over or its concept it not coherent, I rate 3 stars when I think it's a fair game but maybe it's been done a million times, it won't teach you much, etc, I rate 4 stars for good games better than those, and 5 stars to great games (it's very fun to play, or too creative, or a nice challenge, or it teaches very well, great to look at, etc.. any of those will do).... I've given 5 stars lots of times... Anyway, I don't think people should give a bad rating just because they're not interested in the subject. Or all I'd be making would be geography games because it's what most people here seem to love. I want myself and everyone else to be able to create games of diverse areas, some of them few people will be interested on. And if only people who finish them (doesn't need to be 100%) are allowed to vote, then there's a standard and voting isn't so meaningless to them.

- But I also don't think voting should be mandatory. That'd make people not take it seriously, and maybe they'd rate a 3 or whatever in every game without thinking, just to get out of it.

- I also think it's important to say, I really disagree with some people that imply in several threads here, that the amount of dot makes a game better or worse than other. A game could have 3 dots and teach something important, or 100 dots and be worth to play. Or 20 dots and be awfully made.

Anyway, just the fresh opinion of someone very new to the site...

Well, I don't really mind the one or two dot games, but I think there should be a seperate category for them in the main game page. Unfortunately, as someone said before, who is going to go through and organize the games, when there are thousands to sift through. I have made a variety of games, from ones based on books and movies, to a nonsense game just for the fun of it. The ones which have no point are often made in order to help people practice clicking quickly. But low rating without a reason, well, I don't really like that, especially as my games are particularly vulnerable to it. I think that most PGers are sensible enough to rate the game where they think it deserves. But, One man's junk is another man's treasure (human's, if you will). For example, most people couldn't really care less about Elves from Tolkien's Middle Earth, But I do. As far as how I rate games, If I like it, and it has a low rating, I will compensate with a higher-than-it-deserved rating, as then the average shows up closer to my opinion of it. Same goes in reverse. If a game has a 5 star rating, and it is worth only three, I might rate it at a 1, at which point it has an average closer to the 3 I think it deserves.

I thought she just began to play, then forget it for a while and came back to the pc to end it... isn't that the case Alcyone ??

in this game:

http://www.purposegames.com/game/extinct-languages-of-europe-quiz/info

Alcyone's time is not credible. Even Alcyone doesn't believe it, according to a note left in the game comments...

already happened to me, this is perfect stuff for a FAQ :)

Ah, thank you guys!!! It's what David said :D I fixed it with Ctrl + Seems like I'm always pressing the wrong stuff :P

Is this just the games on the site, or is it the rest of the site, other webpages and windows in other applications, too?

If it's global, it would seem you might need to go to your control panel and adjust your monitor settings.

Or, if it is just in your browser, then it is probably that you activated a zoom of some sort. If you look at the view menu in most browsers there will be an item called either "zoom" or "text size". You should be able to use that to change it back. There may also be something in the preferences for the browser that allows you to change the window size.

If it's just PurposeGames, I have no idea whatsoever....

This is usually your browser settings for that page.

Depending on what browser you are using, there are different ways of "zooming out" again.

CTRL and + (CTRL and -) is common in Chrome, Firefox and later versions of IE.

Try using those key combinations or see the menu-bar in your browser, look for View -> Zoom

I'm not sure, I'm sure a more techincal person will pop along soon Sunny!

~~ Huggie

Hi! Yesterday the games I played started looking "zoomed", in a way I can't see the whole background, I'm missing the extremes right/left. I thought it would be fixed by today when I turned the computer off and on again, but it isn't.

Is that something I pressed or activated? Please help me put it back to normal.

The anonymity is a good thing, I think. I agree with tickman above. Sure, it would be nice for a t'ment holder to be able to give out an extra nod now and then.
I take the opportunity to say thanks to all who have given me 40 nods!

@ Wentu

Now that I'm hosting tournaments, I appreciate that extra "nods consumption dilemma", and realize your suggestion of allowing at least one extra nod per tournament hosted is a good one.

-also in danger of becoming an "Nod-To-Arturo Factory " (no offense, Arturo)

@ Sunny1:

I guess the anonymity protects the giver (if he / she desires that).

The nodder can always choose to inform the recipient by a note in their message board (or a PM if recipient is in the friends list).

Not saying that I would have given a nod to the person that would have given me a nod gained me an anonymous nod (thankx anon.) therefore it's way out of my mind to say that I will give a nod to the persone that will give me my 51st nod.

Have fun !

and, i think Slaaty's idea is good, maybe in need of some working out but good.

And there should be a sort of authomatic special nod , or prize or else for the people that organize tournaments. I usually have 4 tournaments a month and only 5 nods to give so just one spare nod for other merits. And Arturo is winning all the tournament nods :)
At the moment i am just a Nod-To-Arturo Factory :P

it's a good idea right now to always sign in the leaderboard the fact that you are giving a nod. it's not just that you want a "thank you" back, but because it's nice to know who appreciate your work.

Thank you to all the people who gave me so far 49 nods !!!
(I'd like to say " a nod to the person who will give me the 50th nod" , but i won't :P )

Is there a good reason for them to be anonymous? I received two and would love to know who gave them to me :P

LOL 1970! I love it.

No, I don't have a better idea. I just wondered.
I would, as is said above, sometimes like to nod more people, but on the other hand, we all have two things we can do, if not three.
1. Give positive comments. That's what I like; I often do that, as you might have seen.
2. Write to a fellow member and tell her/ him what a star she/he is.
3. Use the commentary beneath the tournament more often, in order to give away your hurrahs.

the fact is you can rank people in many ways and each way will lead to an aberrant behaviour. The solution could be to implement many possible rankings but it's harder to relize.

It depends on what is your goal. If you are trying to boost the number of plays, give points for that: just playing. If you want to give credit to good groups... well i don't know ! but each goal needs a different approach

many times i feel the need for different kinds of tournament. I'd like to give prize for the first one completing with 100% a dozen of difficutl games but i don't know how to be sure who was the first one to complete that.

:)

I had not seen that before. I'll let you know when it's been attended to.
Thanks for reporting it.