FTalk

Welcome guest! Please Log in or Register.

Post reply

ARCHIVES
» GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

Pages: 123 4 5 6 7 8 9..9

GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#21 2008-02-28 21:53:07

penakamaayo: » FTalker; 139; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

GOOD!

u can organize well ur photos!

Like |
Dislike

#22 2008-03-01 04:44:08

kilabot_cj: » Banned; 55; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

how didi you do that!!!!

Like |
Dislike

#23 2008-03-01 07:07:47

funmail: » Banned; 106; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

do what and to whom are talking with?

Like |
Dislike

#24 2008-03-02 06:50:51

kielmaru_07: » FTalkGeek; 1289; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

hmm.. ye. good. but they shud allow many albms.,

Like |
Dislike

#25 2008-03-03 10:20:09

moroni69: » n00b; 4; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

having the photo album is good but I noticed that sometimes you can't view your friend's album.It only shows the name of the album when you open it

Might be just on my pc

Last edited by moroni69 (2008-03-03 10:21:40)

Like |
Dislike

#26 2008-03-03 19:50:48

skyfire14: » FTalker; 259; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

its fine for me.. but its like facebook.. well not a problem anyways!

Like |
Dislike

#27 2008-03-07 01:33:10

jee-ar: » FTalker; 190; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

GOOD i guess cause yu can organize it or separate those ader pictures to ander album but hupfuli friendster allow more albums not just only ten

Like |
Dislike

#28 2008-03-12 04:44:30

scharfiena: » FTalkManiac; 755; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

heyyah.. it don't bother me at all.. ahihi..

Like |
Dislike

#29 2008-03-13 11:02:44

bearsharie: » n00b; 51; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

its not good, i think it would be better if they applied it only as an [b]optional.[/b] like something would pop to remind if, it would be new albums or not.

Like |
Dislike

#30 2008-03-14 05:00:24

babYdEvil: » FTalkAddict; 408; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

i prefer the old one than the new one which's use an album

Like |
Dislike

#31 2008-03-15 00:51:22

ecO-lif: » n00b; 73; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

i don't like that photo album.

why don't friendster create photo slide..

Like |
Dislike

#32 2008-03-15 03:08:48

jologz29: » n00b; 90; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

hate it! hahaha...

Like |
Dislike

#33 2008-03-16 03:19:40

pinkblack08: » FTalkWhiz; 3176; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

i don't know why but even if it makes photos more organized,i hate it.. and why did they do the photo album thingy just now?i mean, we have already uploaded many pics taken on different occasions or on normal days,etc. so why did they do it just [u]now[/u]? and yeah,they're copying some features of some sites and i don't like it,coz every site should be unique..

Like |
Dislike

#34 2008-03-16 03:41:17

joebz: » FTalkFreak; 1517; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

It's good, I can organize the pictures. But I don't like how it's displayed (?)..

Like |
Dislike

#35 2008-03-17 07:10:38

nElOu: » FTalkFreak; 1526; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

[quote=xavierkym]They're copying Multiply's Photo Album

[/quote] [b]yeah.. right.. don't like it.. so it means i will delete and upload again my photos in d ryt album?! eeerrr...!![/b]

Like |
Dislike

#36 2008-03-17 23:54:29

kimyasay10: » FTalkElite; 4218; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

it sucks

Like |
Dislike

#37 2008-03-19 05:08:22

krizshy: » FTalkAddict; 482; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

i think its good.. your photos would be organized..

Like |
Dislike

#38 2008-03-19 07:10:52

-Lex06-: » n00b; 12; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

it sucks

Like |
Dislike

#39 2008-03-19 21:51:39

kimberlyvette: » FTalker; 155; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

no probs for me.. i like it.. heehee..

Like |
Dislike

#40 2008-03-20 09:10:11

karuro72002: » FTalkWhiz; 3325; 0; 1969-12-31

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

Hell yeh! its Cool! dats the feature that id been waiting for! thanks FS management!

Like |
Dislike

FTalk

GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#21 2008-02-28 21:53:07

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#22 2008-03-01 04:44:08

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#23 2008-03-01 07:07:47

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#24 2008-03-02 06:50:51

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#25 2008-03-03 10:20:09

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#26 2008-03-03 19:50:48

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#27 2008-03-07 01:33:10

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#28 2008-03-12 04:44:30

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#29 2008-03-13 11:02:44

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#30 2008-03-14 05:00:24

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#31 2008-03-15 00:51:22

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#32 2008-03-15 03:08:48

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#33 2008-03-16 03:19:40

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#34 2008-03-16 03:41:17

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#35 2008-03-17 07:10:38

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#36 2008-03-17 23:54:29

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#37 2008-03-19 05:08:22

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#38 2008-03-19 07:10:52

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#39 2008-03-19 21:51:39

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

#40 2008-03-20 09:10:11

Re: GOOD or SUCKS? ---------------------- I WOULD SAY it doesnt look good for profiles, its better if it would be restored by the way it is.

Board footer