Don't you girls just love this larger print? The place is really shaping up nicely now. I would like to be able to edit when necessary however, and am sure this to shall come to pass... All in all its GREEEEEEAT!!!

Hoping other changes will take place this week.

Yes, I love the larger font size. It's easier on these boomer eyes.

Yes the larger font suits me.
Mountain ash

ME, TOO!

Note: some time back, JJ shared instructions on how to manually increase your screen view temporarily and without changing your screen resolution settings... it's done by holding your keyboard's Control button down while moving your mouse wheel (the wheel located between the right and left click buttons on a mouse) forward or backward - forward for enlarging; backward for downsizing.
I learned another way... this is just an FYI, because Dots had her tech set the font at a larger default size.

Again, this is just sharing learned info ------ you might need it on another web site or blog...

Instead of Control/Mouse Wheel, use Control/+ (located to the left of the Backspace key on standard keyboards) for enlarge and Control/- for downsize.

SOme of the latest changes are with thanks to gims. She sent me soem ideas, which I forwarded to our Web master, and they took them from there. All buttons are now on the left so the width of the forums is wider.

My eyes thank you, Dotsie & Gims! I like the blue on the sides too.

BTW, I don't mean to post right on top of anyone else's posts, like I just did to Dotsie's. There's a time lag between my computer clock and the clock on this site. My clock showed 1:45, which I took to mean that Dotsie's post had already been up for 20 minutes. But when I responded, the BWS clock shows I posted a mere two minutes after Dotsie's post. I'll have to watch that! Sorry Dotsie! (and anyone else I've inadvertently done that to)

LOOKING GOOD!!!

If I covered a post, I wouldn't know it. I guess every time I post, I'm covering up the previous one.

Same here, EH... I set my clock to be -1 to BWS forum time (My Stuff/preferences) ... the BWS forum time is not correct. It is off by 31 minutes (i.e. BWS 8:44 vs. my computer 8:13, this is with me setting mine at -1 hours).

The blue background was dots, not me... so much easier on the eyes, I think...

Thank you dots for taking members' suggestions into consideration... shows good leadership. And, you most definitely didn't have to mention me by name, but that was sweet.

You know what, I forgot that it wouldn't let me change the 1... never mind the -1 statement.

DUMB question time... what do is meant by "covering up a post?" This term was used back during the naughty people invasion. Does it have to do with order? Or, is there a 'cover' button some of us don't see? I guess I need to be told what you all mean by it, exactly.

uuuuggggghhhh, will the edit option ever come back?

anne327, It feels as if it has a 'negative' connotation, the more I put thought into it... makes it sound as if some are intentionally pushing down the posts of others. That's not logical, because all someone has to do is come behind and do the same. What would be the purpose? Our interests are different, and because of it, we choose to hang out in particular areas of BWS. For instance, I rarely, if ever, read from forums such as the ones for divorce, step parenting and being single. Maybe I should. I'm speaking for myself, here... but I never intentionally try to put my posts at the top... in fact, sometimes when I get carried away (talkative, so to speak), I'm conscious of 'gims' being on all the posts floating above and at those times, I wish I could mix them up some. A great many times, I'm on here alone, and naturally, it'll look like I'm hogging the board... but, let me assure you, I'm not.... at the same time, when I see others with a succession of posts up top, I think nothing of it.
I don't believe others are 'covering' mine up, either... if someone thinks I am, I hope they speak up... the idea is ludicrous.

Gims, don't fret about it. I'm sure Chatty or JJ or Dotsie will come forward to explain. This year I learned to sign on and go to Active Topics to see what the latest posts are, but then I still miss some by not going to the forum list. I think that if someone is deliberately covering up others' posts, or if someone thinks that someone is deliberately covering up her posts, well, yes, that's ludicrous. It would take an awful lot of extra time and energy to purposely bury another's post, or to think that someone else is doing so to you (not YOU, you in general).

Thanks PL... I wasn't worrying over it... if someone has the need to push me down, let 'em. But, there might be others present that it would cause a different feeling for. To even have a term seems strange. I still wish to learn what is actually meant by it, and hope one of the three sheds some light. And, I knew you were using a general 'you,' but I appreciate you pointing that out.

You know what I do? After I finish with 'Active Topics,' I go to 'Forum Lists' (located far left of 'Active Topics' in the index header) and look for the forums with numbers in parenthesis, which are in red. Then I visit the forums with new post indicators (parenthesized numbers in red), which I want to visit. Just the way I do it.

This is all my fault...using that term "covering posts"...and to be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure exactly what it means either. All I know is that, when I first joined here, every once in awhile someone would come on and ask everyone not to cover someone else's posts. I never really knew what that meant because I've always used the "Active Posts" option and that lists ALL posts in ALL threads, so nothing is covered over. That only happens when someone browses through the "Forum List" option. I think it was more about starting a new topic right on top of an active topic within the same board.

I've found that with this new format, it's so much easier now to use the "Active Topics" to browse, I rarely ever need to use the "Forum List" option anymore. So I don't see that it would be as much of a problem for anyone who had a problem with it in the old format.

My apology was because I inadvertently posted on top of Dotsie's post mere seconds after she posted, and since hers was an announcement, I felt badly about covering it up, even though it wasn't intentional.
In all my years here, I don't think I've ever known anybody to INTENTIONALLY cover over anyone else's posts. And again, I don't know why it was ever a problem, only that it seemed to be a problem for some people, so I've just tried to be careful about not covering up someone else's post too quickly.

The main problem here? My tendency to apologize for everything even if it's something that doesn't require an apology (which this probably didn't). I don't know if I do it that much here, but all of my friends and family say that I say "I'm sorry" all the time and it seems to be a major pet peeves about me.

I did not realize that parenthesis meant they were new posts. THX

The numbers in the parenthesis is how many you haven't read on that forum... ooops, needed more clarification. sorry...
If yours is like mine, the majority of forums will have no numbers, but a few will.
On my list, the forum about step parenting has over (1036) posts that I haven't read.

I see. Thank you!

Dotsie, did Lola get a hold of you about not being able to view the forums. From what I understand, she can receive your PMs, but with a security message, she can read her PMs, and she can navigate around the board, but she can't get on the forums. She prefers not to change her security settings, esp. since she gets some sort of warning when receiving your PMs.

JawJaw, Dots hasn't posted since yesterday... do you know if Lola's issue requires a question to the techs?

I'm sure Lola will figure something out... she's one smart cookie, but I can imagine her frustration in the meantime. I remember Dots saying something early on after the update about the gals across the pond not being able to get in, with the exception of M.Ash. Could a global security issue exist?

Gims, we're working it. Thanks...JJ

Great... didn't know whether to say anything or not.