My page is not magnified. Lays out the same if I zoom in or out. I am currently at 100%. If I magnified the icons wouldnt be minute.
You neither zoomed in nor adjusted the browser window size, as you had said earlier, so not sure what is going on with yours. Maybe you need a new computer 
Anyway, if you can figure out how to capture a screen shot and mail it over I can share with our team. Wonder how many others are having this same issue with the wrapping menu item.
But its NOT the computer. I am using a dell, which shows FINE on the dell screen (which is smaller) in IE, but wrong in chrome on the other, attached monitor. Sorry- cant deal with this now-- will wait til tech support (AKA DH) is home.
On my computer it switches to four rows when the chrome window is 784 pixels wide. That seems narrow on a high def (1920 pixels wide) monitor, but on a 1600x900 laptop that’s almost 90% of the screen width. This could use some tweaking I think.
Is that in English? But thanks-- I am guessing you are identifying my problem, notrichenough.
Just tried IE (IE11), and got the same behavior - at 784 pixels wide it switched to 4 rows.
both screens have it up through talk.collegeconfidential.com
^ What resolution are your monitors running at?
Even though a screen may be physically smaller, it could have a higher resolution than the larger screen (higher resolution == more pixels).
In Windows 7 if you right-mouse on the background somewhere you can select “screen resolution” and see the resolution for each monitor by clicking on each display (the will be numbered 1, 2, etc).
I reloaded the chrome one using a link with just “college confidential” and those tabs went back to one row. So I think lenitus may be on to something.
I’m on 1440x900 resolution, by the way. Also, when you say I’m on to something, are you saying that the tabs are in two rows only on the talk.collegeconfidential.com site, but not the <a href=“http://www.collegeconfidential.com”>www.collegeconfidential.com</a> site? Even if that is the case, I still am not clear why. So, I may be on to something, but still don’t have the answer 
Returning to the issue of posting on old threads: I ran across something today that would be a logical addition to a thread which was active a while back. If I post to that thread, am I in for a scolding and getting the thread closed? Or is it better to start a new thread which would be exactly the same topic as an existing thread?
We prefer to see a new topic.
ONE of the issues moderators face is that fairly often, there will be posts in old threads that were borderline problems the first time, or that was were just not noticed the first go around. We don’t have time to comb through old threads to make sure they won’t cause problems.
Ok. But i hope I don’t get blowback from mods or others along the lines of “This was addressed in a previous thread.”
Maybe you could include a link to the old thread in your new thread so that interested people could read the past thread and then contribute to yours.
@LasMa, just keep a link to MaineLonghorn’s post about starting a new topic handy just in case 
Seriously, I know members will sometimes chastise others for starting new discussions around topics that are brought up frequently. I don’t think you will have an issue starting a new thread based on the topic of an older thread (and by “older” I am thinking of several months or more). In many cases, information has changed over time and starting a new discussion from scratch will make sense.
@musicmerit…that’s not a bad idea either. A link to the old thread could be included for added context (though we’d have to make sure the old thread was closed so that discussion wasn’t split across old and new).
Thanks!
The old thread was at least 6 months ago, it’s not a frequent topic, it’s not new information per se, but a small addendum, sort of. Ok this is sounding unnecessarily mysterious lol. Later when i have more time, I’ll just lay it out and see what you think. Thanks for the input.
Tecchies: I am about to upgrade my phone which will use the IOS 8. Is the app going to work?
Asking @CCtech_David about this…
Here’s the old thread, about iconic movies our kids should see. Not necessarily movies about youth, but movies which contain ideas, songs, sayings which get used in the popular culture. Sort of a cultural literacy question. <a href=“What iconic movies should our High school & college kids be sure to see? - #256 by Hat - Parent Cafe - College Confidential Forums”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1587511-what-iconic-movies-should-our-high-school-college-kids-be-sure-to-see-p18.html</a>
So a couple of days ago, I was sent this video:
<a href=“Yes on 2 Medical Marijuana - GREASE PARODY - YouTube”>Yes on 2 Medical Marijuana - GREASE PARODY - YouTube;
and it occurred to me if one had seen Grease, the video would be more engaging and have more impact, which of course is the point since it’s an ad. So I thought it was a good data point for the thread.
OTOH, would the video itself be allowed? The subject matter is controversial in some quarters.
Ok…I’m not a moderator…but here is my opinion. That movie thread in the cafe is just like the one for Passover and thanksgiving recipes. Bump it up.
The old posts that bother me are ones where a poster (usually new) finds a thread about a college issue, financial aid, chances or whatever…that is well over a year old, and responds to it (sometimes the posters on the thread have been LONG gone from the forum). OR the poster attaches a completely new question about themselves to a lengthy thread when really, starting a new thread makes a lot more sense.