open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The new EVE forums - technical underpinnings
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2011.05.02 10:15:00 - [1]
 

CCP Rhayger's newest dev blog gives us details into the choice of YAF as a platform for the new forums, the work that was done to bring it up to our needs, and how we are moving forward to get them back to the public. You can read all about it here.

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2011.05.02 10:24:00 - [2]
 

/me gets firecoat

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2011.05.02 10:35:00 - [3]
 

\o/

Nadarius Chrome
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:08:00 - [4]
 

That was an ENTIRELY UNSATISFYING READ!

TLDR: We thought we were awesome. We may discuss other possibilities later. ugh

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:10:00 - [5]
 

came expecting blog on what went wrong. got lots of cool techno babble about code.

5/10 not good, not bad.

I want to know why it failed, and so on. Does YAF just have a hole that can't be filled?

why did take a whole year to build a simple forum?

Versuvius Marii
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:10:00 - [6]
 

Inb4 "Old forums work fine, are fine, and don't need changing. Away with this "new forums" nonsense"? I'm surprised this isn't more of a threadnaught filled with bitter 0.0 vets moaning about change for the sake of change...

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:15:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Versuvius Marii
Inb4 "Old forums work fine, are fine, and don't need changing. Away with this "new forums" nonsense"? I'm surprised this isn't more of a threadnaught filled with bitter 0.0 vets moaning about change for the sake of change...
I want better forums, I don't want those forums.

TheLostPenguin
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:20:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: TheLostPenguin on 02/05/2011 11:20:56
Originally by: Versuvius Marii
Inb4 "Old forums work fine, are fine, and don't need changing. Away with this "new forums" nonsense"? I'm surprised this isn't more of a threadnaught filled with bitter 0.0 vets moaning about change for the sake of change...


Give it time, TQ only just went down so people are still reading/foaming at mouth so can't post yet.

And to be fair whilst it's dated, these forums do the job well enough, certainly enough that anything new linked to failgate concerns people. Maybe if failgate itself wasn't as clunky and annoying to use as the worst parts of old EVE ui/website some of us would be more hopefull for new forums/whatever else CCP try to plug into it...

Jupix
Minmatar
MuroBBS United
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:25:00 - [9]
 

Are any of the changes/improvements to the forum suite gonna trickle back to the YAF project? Or are they all strictly CCP-specific?

BugraT WarheaD
Astromechanica Federatis
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:34:00 - [10]
 

Quote:
– everything from writing it from scratch


So bad you didn't do this ... Rolling Eyes
But can we expect a new-new-forum for the 6 months ? ^^

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:36:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Jupix
Are any of the changes/improvements to the forum suite gonna trickle back to the YAF project? Or are they all strictly CCP-specific?


Read the blog - they answer your question quite specifically.


Ix Forres
Caldari
Righteous Chaps
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:37:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Ix Forres on 02/05/2011 11:40:58
... and this blog just confirms my suspicions. Damn.

Here's hoping the next blog is written by someone with enough guts to say something.

Just for kicks, though...
Quote:
In choosing YAF for the forum piece of EVE Gate, it was not so much to pick a solution to meet all of our needs but to choose a package that we could build off of.

And then later:
Quote:
The entire authentication mechanism was rebuilt to tie the forum into EVE Gate but we also had to rework the permissions to be based off of role information retrieved from Tranquility to give the community team, GMs, devs, CSM members, volunteers, etc. their appropriate access, capabilities and badges. We rebuilt and added a lot of functionality to the admin functions to give the community team all the custom tools they needed including reporting, various banning options, moderation abilities, custom filters and searches, etc. We did a lot of cross integration with EVE Gate so that if you clicked on a user's name you were taken to the EVE Gate profile page, etc. There was an awful lot of stress and load testing done with subsequent performance improvements made under the covers. And not least of all we spent considerable effort on writing from scratch a more powerful search capability and then spent a lot of time optimizing it. Also from an appearance side we certainly skinned it but we also did all the integration work to pull in the new character avatars efficiently.


So what the fsck was left from the original YAF codebase? Why the hell -not- write a forum from scratch considering you can write it all once and get it right, to-spec and have it be exactly what you want without having to gut existing code and modify huge amounts, which often takes much longer than just doing the job once properly from scratch? Sure, look at existing things and learn from them; open source stuff, you can see how other people do things. But why did CCP feel the need to take an existing forum and hack it to pieces instead of just making one themselves, properly? We're talking forums, not rocket science.

ivar R'dhak
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:42:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: ivar R''dhak on 02/05/2011 11:42:54
Just one question really.
Did somebody get fired over this?
Or at least demoted in leadership and given the SelfHTML thingy to read in the meantime?

Ok, that´s two questions.

Sarmatiko
Posted - 2011.05.02 11:47:00 - [14]
 

Quote:
To that end, our Community department had prepared a white paper outlining the features that any new forum solution had to have to meet your needs. This included all the functionality you are used to from the existing forum, functionality you can expect from most modern forum packages and additional functionality that the community department really needed to serve you better. It was a pretty daunting list so the challenge was to come up with an option that met as many of those needs as possible and still fit within our technical criteria.

So in the end you all decided not to use this list and cut not only old forum functionality (images?) but even basic and stable YAF functons for posting.
Image posting as is a huge headache for mods (image-to-link change) but really this shouldn't be the problem for user. Why for example, EA forums allow users use images and nobody complaining about this?
Mad
I feel only one bad thing about all of this. In the end when all security holes will be patched, we can`t really change anything with our feedback on that moment. "Use new forums AS IS of GTFO" - that`s how it was and that`s how it will be.

Raid'En
Posted - 2011.05.02 12:00:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Raid''En on 02/05/2011 12:02:22

so... you're saying you forgot to check some basic things cause there were lots of things to redo ?
okay why not... BUT YOU DIDN'T SAID IT, this is what i read between the line...

a little image at the begining of the wall of text is nice, but after seeing it, we hope to see more... and there were nothing else.

what i read on this blog is "yaf is good + we did lots of works to adapt it"

as said before we don't care much about that. you want to explain us that even if there were big flaw you worked a lot ? okay fine, say it. BUT don't take a BIG blog to say that, and ONLY that. a big blog begining with the impression you'll gonna explain us WHYyou ****ed up, and that you are sorry... if you don't do it at all.

mitigating circumstances are AFTER saying why you missed and saying sorry.

you can't give us a wall of text explaining how you work well without what we want to know. that's ridiculous.
i though you were skilling communication, but seems you're still at level 2.


Darth Vapour
Posted - 2011.05.02 12:13:00 - [16]
 

This is fascinating. When my car breaks down I'd be very interested in learning how the metal it was made from was mined from iron ore and made into car parts.


El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.05.02 12:45:00 - [17]
 

Quite frankly no matter how much you try to explain it away, simple truth is you messed up. The whole team did, no one double checked anyones work, the team leader did not check to make sure basic security requirements were met, and there was no QA outside the team. So what we ended up with was hours of wasted work hours and an unuseable product that will take just as much time to fix as if we'd written up the code just from scratch and not used YAF......

that about sum it up?

Chruker
Posted - 2011.05.02 12:47:00 - [18]
 

Put this in the top:
"I didn't address the significant flaws that made it into release and how that came to be, that will be for another dev blog to detail."

Other than that the biggest flaw in the forum is that you chose not to include the content of the old forum.

Ifly Uwalk
Caldari
Concentrated Evil
Posted - 2011.05.02 12:49:00 - [19]
 

Quote:
The goal is to ... release the new forums when they are truly ready.

soon(tm)
:18months:
:whenpigsfly:

lmfao

EnderCapitalG
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.02 12:50:00 - [20]
 

Well done, this blog said literally nothing about the issues.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.05.02 12:54:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Chruker

Other than that the biggest flaw in the forum is that you chose not to include the content of the old forum.


They consulted previous CSMs on the matter, and given the volume, we told them it was acceptable as long as the existing forums stay archived and reachable.
Just for the record...

Tekedo
Danger Girl.
Posted - 2011.05.02 13:01:00 - [22]
 

The derp is strong with this one.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.05.02 13:16:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Chruker

Other than that the biggest flaw in the forum is that you chose not to include the content of the old forum.


They consulted previous CSMs on the matter, and given the volume, we told them it was acceptable as long as the existing forums stay archived and reachable.
Just for the record...

Bad bad CSM. To port the old forum database across should be the top priority of any new forum. If it for some reason is technically utterly impossible to do it all, at least migrate all threads that are less than 90 days old.

From a user perspective it will be aweful to jump back and forwards between the forums when you link to old information.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.05.02 13:25:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Chruker

Other than that the biggest flaw in the forum is that you chose not to include the content of the old forum.


They consulted previous CSMs on the matter, and given the volume, we told them it was acceptable as long as the existing forums stay archived and reachable.
Just for the record...


More evidence of the worthlessness of the CSM, no speaking up on major game changing issues like jump bridges, then agreeing to do away with years of guides, feedback etc....

EnderCapitalG
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.02 13:33:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Originally by: Chruker

Other than that the biggest flaw in the forum is that you chose not to include the content of the old forum.


They consulted previous CSMs on the matter, and given the volume, we told them it was acceptable as long as the existing forums stay archived and reachable.
Just for the record...


More evidence of the worthlessness of the CSM, no speaking up on major game changing issues like jump bridges, then agreeing to do away with years of guides, feedback etc....


How is leaving it read-only "doing away with"?

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.05.02 13:33:00 - [26]
 

You gave us quite a scare CCP, but good for you that you have the balls to own up to your mistakes.

Oh, and the 'unlike' thing ? Change it to 'dislike' and all will be forgiven Wink

Ix Forres
Caldari
Righteous Chaps
Posted - 2011.05.02 13:46:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Louis deGuerre
You gave us quite a scare CCP, but good for you that you have the balls to own up to your mistakes.

Oh, and the 'unlike' thing ? Change it to 'dislike' and all will be forgiven Wink


We have yet to see any evidence that CCP has internally distributed blame for those mistakes. That's what takes balls. Not going "Whoops, we're sorry!" in public. When people are packing their bags, then we'll know CCP has changed - for the better, for EVE.

BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.05.02 13:59:00 - [28]
 

Quote:
To that end, our Community department had prepared a white paper outlining the features that any new forum solution had to have to meet your needs. This included all the functionality you are used to from the existing forum, functionality you can expect from most modern forum packages and additional functionality that the community department really needed to serve you better.


I would like to highlight and quote this because I want to know what happened to this white paper. Was it stuffed through a shredder and used for hamster bedding? Did you crumple it up and light it on fire to keep warm on a cold Icelandic night? I ask this because my main complaint about the new forums was precisely it's LACK OF functionality I would expect from any modern forum package. No signatures, no images, no changing text size, no changing text color, no email subscriptions, just to name a some that popped up during feedback. That's just a few things, off the top of my head, that both made it into feedback and things that exist in every forum package out there. Not to mention everything that goes with those (why not allow images and have auto thumb-nailing? How about only changing text size and color in places the the bazaar, where people are essentially creating their own ad pages? Polls, there's another one, but you'd probably only want those in features and ideas).

Maybe I'm being a little harsh here, but it seems to me that you guys either created a list of all the features that were found in modern forum packages, and then threw that list away, or there was never a list to begin with, or you don't really know whats included in modern forum packages. If your objective was to add these things later, then you weren't really looking for one that included all the base features and you could have gone with anything, which again, tosses that list right out the window and we're back to square one.

I've pretty much chalked this one up to CCP being a large company, and mistakes will happen. I held you guys to the flame for the first few days because I think if the community just glossed over it then it wouldn't be taken seriously, but really, I understand that oversights occur. However, with the addition of this dev blog, and the quote above, I feel it necessary to hold you to that flame again. So here we go, just to recap...

I felt that, other than the obvious security mistakes made by CCP that the community has already lashed you for, this forum package contained a severe and crippling lack of features. Furthermore, the feedback from the user base (things like BIG QUOTES ARE TOO BIG) wasn't taken into account and implemented. The quotes example wasn't merely a design suggestion, but something every user response I read agreed upon, there were more but I neither have access to the feedback, nor have the time to personally document it, I'm sure someone else did. I hope the next iteration once you finish house cleaning won't be as disappointing.


CCP Rhayger

Posted - 2011.05.02 13:59:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Ix Forres
Originally by: Louis deGuerre
You gave us quite a scare CCP, but good for you that you have the balls to own up to your mistakes.

Oh, and the 'unlike' thing ? Change it to 'dislike' and all will be forgiven Wink


We have yet to see any evidence that CCP has internally distributed blame for those mistakes. That's what takes balls. Not going "Whoops, we're sorry!" in public. When people are packing their bags, then we'll know CCP has changed - for the better, for EVE.


Not sure what you are looking for, blame is clearly on me for technical direction, the dev team for the coding flaws and the QA staff for not catching the errors. Blame isn't the important thing in my eyes, we screwed up and each of us knows it and owns up to it - the important thing is to find the flaws, fix them and then most importantly make significant changes so that it does not happen again.

I tell my teams consistently I prefer not to make mistakes, but they will happen especially if you are pushing hard - what I do have a problem with is repeating mistakes and that's where the focus is.

As for this blog not spelling out exactly what went wrong, this blog was intended to answer the question "Why did you use YAF? and what did you do to it?". We're going to do another blog entirely on what went wrong, why and what we are doing to address it


Touring Eve
Posted - 2011.05.02 14:13:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: BeanBagKing
Quote:
No signatures, no images, no changing text size, no changing text color, no email subscriptions, just to name a some that popped up during feedback.

EMail subscriptions are unnecessary, EVEMail would be enough for me, or even a separate subscriptions page accessible through EVEGate.

Seriously tho, more features needed.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only