Replies

Two-step verification at login -- user name/pw, then a code from the text msg the system sends to the user's mobile phone. NOT email, additional email accts are easy to find. The mobile phone number would be unique across the system, and not re-assignable, but would be able to be changed when the user changes phone numbers. But each phone number would be permanently associated with just one nick. Period.
We should be able to keep an email address attached to our acct's, and given the option of making it visible. The email or the mobile phone would be way we could get reset if we lose our passwords.
The donation screen should be visible to members only, apparently that's been the problem with the donation system -- it's open to non-member bad actors.
Easier posting of topics, using just the originating URL; URL would be checked by the system to make sure it isn't the root. Dolts who used to use "drudge.org", or "nytimes.com", instead of the permalinks, would find that it won't work under the new system.
When trying to post a new topic with this URL-first method, forbidden sources (independent, AP, whatever else) would be rejected up front to save everyone time. Also the forbidden list is already kept up to date, but the boom doesn't get lowered until the topic is ready for posting.
When trying to post a new topic with this URL-first method, if the URL has already been used, the user would be directed to the existing topic.
When starting to post a new topic this way, the user would have some arbitrary time limit, say, five minutes, during which anyone else trying the same URL would be notified that a topic is in process.
When starting to post a new topic this way, the software would pull in any excerpt provided in the META tags at the source, but give the user here the option of auto-excerpt as now (but improved, because it has whiskers).
When starting to post a new topic this way, the software would pull in META info for author(s), date, and source name.
Part One: Elimination of TOPIC and KEYWORD, replace with TAGS. The 50 states are listed with "US:" in front of each in the News subforum, and listed without that in the GOP subforum, and those are two separate lists.
Part two: eliminate the subforums, they serve no purpose.
Part three: the links are too long, and the extra chaff serves no useful purpose. "/Focus/" and "/f-" should be eliminated, along with the "news/" "/chat" etc. The new URL format would be the FR domain, slash topic number, slash function ("posts" "replies" and in the case of posting a reply "post"). This alters the lengths of that set of standard links on each topic post, and saves bandwidth with every page served.
Most websites provide useful TAGS right in the META entries of the articles and such that get posted here, those could be fished out when the URL is entered.
The USPS two-letter state abbrev's have been in use 50 years or so, but there are still those who use MI for Minnesota (MN), Missouri (MO), Mississippi (MS), as well as Michigan (actually is MI). That should be cleaned up.
Single letter and single number keywords should be eliminated, and probably banned at the software level. Same goes for "The" "and" "at"...
Source servers that are for blogs (and perhaps server names containing "Sports") would have "bloggers" added to the TAGS.
The current subforums would be trimmed down (we don't need BREAKING, EXTENDED, FRONT PAGE) and the leaner meaner TAGS would have the remaining old subforum names added to the appropriate topics.

I see you thought a little about this :-)

"Two-step verification at login -- user name/pw, then a code from the text msg the system sends to the user's mobile phone. NOT email,

Do that and I'm outta here. I hate that crap.

And it is ridiculous to have it on a non-finance related - non-business site where criminals can steal money or product.

“Two-step verification at login — user name/pw, then a code from the text msg the system sends to the user’s mobile phone. NOT email,...”

My mobile phone, unsurprisingly, accepts TXTs, but I have seen a couple of FR posters who claim they don’t have such.

No matter, I generally dislike 2FA. In most cases I view it as a extra burden on users, more oriented to securing the website (like this proposal) than benefiting the visitor.