Only Showing EIGHT Decks on Profile Pages Now?

TappedOut forum

Posted on May 31, 2016, 9:53 p.m. by Loco-Motive

My profile page used to showcase all decks that I created and made public. In the last week, I'm noticing that it's only showing the oldest eight decks.

When I deleted one of the decks on my Profile Page, then the next most recent deck populated my page, keeping the total number of decks on my page to eight.

There should be maybe 15 or so.

Is there a new limit on our Profile Pages on the number of decks featured? If so, do we need to just delete older decks?

Help.

Thanks!

Epochalyptik says... #2

This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum(auto-generated comment)

May 31, 2016 10:03 p.m.

enpc says... #3

There's now a limit of seven decks that you can display on your profile page.

May 31, 2016 10:08 p.m.

This is now the sixth thread on this topic. Please check recent threads before posting.

But yes, there is now a limit of eight decks on your profile page (unless it was changed in the past day to seven).

May 31, 2016 10:11 p.m.

Loco-Motive says... #5

Ah, thanks. Sorry for a repeat post. I did scan the first dozen topics, didn't see this one, so posted.

Appreciate the responses, though!

May 31, 2016 10:26 p.m.

There's a nearly identical thread 3 down from this on the homepage ;) Not a rude comment or anything- just pointing it out. It's easy to miss them.

What do you think of this change? I've seen varying responses and am curious to hear what others think.

May 31, 2016 11:50 p.m.

enpc says... #7

I have to say I'm happy for this. It just seems stupid having like 30 decks on your home page. If you have lots of decks to show off, create a folder and just link that in your bio. Much easier.

June 1, 2016 3:39 a.m.

PepsiAddicted says... #8

Yeah its cleaner. I like that.

June 1, 2016 6:42 a.m.

Loco-Motive says... #9

All in all, I dig it. Really, I'm interested in discussions over decks, not showcasing decks I brewed three years ago but longer playing, y'know?

I think it's great. Great decision.

June 1, 2016 9:25 a.m.

I generally agree. I found that anything more than a half dozen or so decks detracted from the page and made it tedious to navigate. Plus, I find it hard to keep more than a few decks updated with respect to their formats and meta changes. Maybe that's just me.

The main concern I've seen is that some users liked that they were able to order the decks how they'd like. Decks in Folder icon > Decks panel are ordered by last update, as are the decks in Folders. Not something I can relate to, but I guess I understand the difference.

June 1, 2016 11:21 a.m.

enpc says... #11

Honestly, if it's that important then people should just put some text in their bio and then they can list as many decks as they want as links.

The thing is though, the whole point of that slot is (in my mind at least) for featured decks. Ones you want people to specifically look at when they come to your page. And ones you want input on. Whenever I went to a user's page and saw 30+ decks (especially if there were a bunch of private ones on top of the list) then I would actually be less interested in leaving help than if there were only 3.

June 1, 2016 11:35 a.m.

My biggest qualm with an abundance of decks on profile pages was when I went to post on their wall or check when their most recent activity was. I don't want to scroll through all of that.

I think there is a distinction to be made here between competitive players and casual players. This is purely speculative, but I'd imagine the majority of competitive players looking for a few decks on a profile, as that can show commitment to that deck. On the other hand, casual players that look for a deck to do something flashy might be more inclined to sit and look through a bunch of decks.

I tried to make everything in that last paragraph a "possibility," and avoid making firm conclusions. Does any of that make sense?

June 1, 2016 11:47 a.m.

grumbledore says... #13

ducttapedeckbox: +1; I think you're spot on with that.

June 1, 2016 1:59 p.m.

This discussion has been closed