Send buttom options....

I like the fact that you can choose where you are send after submitting a move, but I think it could be a little more user friendly if either it are differnet buttoms, or the list is by default on the same place as the previous game. I mean if you asked to be send to the next reversi game at last game, you probably will want to do again, next time... now I'm not using the option very much, because I'm forgetting to reset the option each time

Good point, Hjallti! Although my vote wouldn't go out for the itsyourturn style you suggest, with different buttons! I always click the wrong one there! ;-)

I really like the feature, but it doesn't work for me. It worked one time, and now it just goes to the next game no matter what i select.

I also noticed it doesn't work anymore.... Another way to do it is to give each player a default send direction in his profile for the send - buttom, but I think the IYT-buttom-style is better. Here the content is better!

me just goes to te next game
the feature doesn't work

Same here. I'm sent to the next game no matter which option I select.

just wondering... could there be a option to get pointed to 'the latest played game'.
........it sounds weird, but I believe it would speed up the games slightly for players with a lot of games, since at the moment you move a game where the opponent moves back, you are automatically pointed to that game, which means you keep on moving in the games where opponents are online as well....

That's not my experience. Games are ordered by the time when your opponent last made a move. If you have a long list of games to move in, and the opponent of your first game responds immediately, that game will be placed at the end of the queue, and you will see it again only when you have gone through the other games. At least, that's what happens for me. I should also mention that this is the only option for me as well; the other choices, such as "proceed to the list of games," do nothing. I always get the next game where the opponent moved most recently, when I send a move.

Oh, I beg your pardon. You were talking about what would be, if your proposed game order were included, not what is. The moment you send a move, the server has to know what game to show you next. It can't sit around and wait for the opponent to move, regardless of how quick the response is. So even if the order were reversed as you propose, you would still see another game on your list, in between moves from your fast opponent. It's debatable whether reversing the order would actually increase the speed at which games are completed, anyway. I suppose it could be implemented, but first the bug discussed in this thread should be fixed of course.

Another Send Button option suggestion is to go to the next game against the same opponent. Is this were available, at times I can see myself using this option.

I agree that fixing the problem should be the first priority, but at that moment, I can imagine it is much easier to ass some other buttom, then to do it later. Any way I have over 75 games now, of which 40 are played each day. Let's say I have 40 games and number them 1 to 40. Currently I would play probably 1.2.3.4.5. ... .36.37.38.39.40 (with maybe one early game jumping in between, because of a move and I'm not on 240 hours) and then those that have moved, each one move. In my suggestion it could go like this :
40.39.38.37.36.38.35.34.33.38.32.37.31.38.30.29.37.38.28.33. .... It's unlikely the second series would be shorter than the former, and probably I made much more moves... since the advantage of being online both is used.

"... Any way I have over 75 games now, of which 40 are played each day. Let's say I have 40 games and number them 1 to 40. Currently I would play probably 1.2.3.4.5. ... .36.37.38.39.40 (with maybe one early game jumping in between, because of a move and I'm not on 240 hours) and then those that have moved, each one move. In my suggestion it could go like this : 40.39.38.37.36.38.35.34.33.38.32.37.31.38.30.29.37.38.28.33. .... It's unlikely the second series would be shorter than the former,..." If it's unlikely the 2nd series is shorter, what's the advantage of that? "... and probably I made much more moves... since the advantage of being online both is used." Why would you not make as many moves with the current ordering? Are you suggesting, for example, that an opponent might go off line if you don't respond quickly enough? Let's look at a simpler example. Suppose you have 10 games to move in, and in 3 of those games the opponent is online and ready to respond. Suppose the games were listed your way, with the most recent response first. With this ordering, suppose games 1, 9, and 10 involve the online opponents. As I said in a previous post, the server will not show you game 1 again immediately after you move there; it will show you game 2 next, and if your opponent in 1 has moved quickly, you will see game 1 again after game 2. So, if you and your game 1 opponent keep making moves this way, the order in which you play your games will be: 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 6, 1, 7, 1, 8, 1, 9, 1 and then if the opponent in game 9 responds quickly, you will continue to alternate between games 1 and 9, and you may not even reach game 10 that day, where you have another opponent waiting. In this scenario, your game 9 opponent had to wait for you to make 15 moves in other games before you got around to him. And your game 10 opponent did not get a response from you at all, that day. Compare this with the ordering that currently exists. With this ordering, the same online opponents would be in games 1, 2, and 10. Again listing the first 17 moves you make that day, we get: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1, 2, 10, 1, 2, 10, 1. This way you have made fewer moves against one of your opponents, but more moves against the others. So what's the advantage of your proposed ordering? Thanks for your time.

Either I miss your point or you completely miss mine. First of all, if I move more in a day I speed up my games (I guess this makes sense). Second, your example is wrong since the orders in both examples should at least be opposite (considering the first time you arrive at each game). Third, you seemingly have chosen an example that makes your point but doesn't look general at all. Fourth, I do think players go offline or doing their own other tasks when no moves are available, and since I'm one of them, it applies to my own games. Fifth, even if it is the case all players stay online the same time (and needing to get the time of the moves in the argument important), I'm still convinced it works. Sixth, a major point in may argument is that I'm talking about some 40 games or more, if you have 10 games it indeed doesn't matter that much, if you have 40 games, in which there are 10 with 'crucial' moves where I want to think about it does make much difference. Anyway never mind, I lost more time on this discussion than the one buttom would give me back, I guess....

When I read Hjallti's last remark... "Anyway never mind, I lost more time on this discussion than the one buttom would give me back, I guess...." I practically fell out of my chair since I starting laughing so hard!

Now this is functioning, i have to say thanks 4 this time saving feature.:)

bump