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

Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.05.05 15:46:00 - [121]
 

"Soul searching." Right. Will CCP developers be required to practice the Roman Catholic ritual of "Confession" next?

CCP is still struggling to achieve some semblance of professionalism with their project management and quality assurance practices. Simple as that.

That CCP released the 'new forums' at the end of a work week is evidence enough. Any sane (and experienced) project manager knows that putting new product in the hands of users at the end of the work week almost guarantees that the project team will be either on-call or in the office for most of the weekend responding to user-communicated questions or problems. That is neither fair to the project team as they have no weekend downtime to recoup their energy nor to the customers who gain little benefit from overworked employees.

Zarathul Shayiskhun
Posted - 2011.05.05 16:21:00 - [122]
 

o/

Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises
Babylon Project
Posted - 2011.05.05 17:09:00 - [123]
 

Edited by: Keitaro Baka on 05/05/2011 17:17:33
Originally by: BeanBagKing
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.




Basically what this guy says

I do agree with Helicity Boson that this is not the way to regain this part of our trust, but CCP has never really got their 'this is how we talk to our customers' right from the start so we'll see

Ix Forres
Caldari
Righteous Chaps
Posted - 2011.05.06 16:17:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: KIR5TOFF
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
I have a feeling CCP have abandoned this thread.


Would you come in here if you were a part of the web team?


I wouldn't come into the office if I were part of the web team.

I'd be surfing job websites, because I would assume that management would have fired me already if I'd done that or been partly responsible.

If CCP want to start rebuilding our trust, well, they're not going about it the right way. There's an excellent thread on Failheap Challenge with people more articulate than me talking about why that is.

Lederstrumpf
Posted - 2011.05.07 11:28:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: CCP Rhayger
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


No, you obviously don't know enough. The security flaw was a security flaw. So what.

But the blame you're still not willing to take is

a) to attempt to change a running system by force
b) to force paying customers to change their habits
c) to provide less functionality where it matters
d) to think a slower service is a better service
e) to believe crippling input windows by reinventing wheels is good
f) to choose what you consider to be fancy over functionality
g) for not listening
h) to have some styleblind person choose fonts
i) etc., etc.

"our Community department had prepared a white paper outlining the features that any new forum solution had to have to meet your needs."

^ They failed. But you're just too arrogant to acknowledge it.

A better system would be accepted by the users themselves without you pushing them a fork up the ass.

But you must force "happiness" onto paying customers, because you do know it's appropriate and you are "excellent", correct?!

Zhou Wuwang
Federal Laboratories
Posted - 2011.05.08 03:30:00 - [126]
 

@CCP Rhayger - I think you will find my limited posts on the this forum are not particularly inflammatory or trollish. I would like to write, however, you don't make a better comedian than you do project manager. I find that picture you posted directly insulting on a number of different levels. Your little passive aggressive snipe isn't lost on us. I couldn't care less about the forum in any event, but your superiors should take a long hard look at your judgement. You would be out on your ass if you worked for me.

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2011.05.14 11:16:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Mynxee

CCP: "Sorry, can't port old forums content due to technical issues."


Back then this probably seemed like they were blowing smoke. However now, in hindsight, it looks like maybe they were telling the truth, and parsing a bunch of text was really beyond their competence.

Look at it the other way: Porting forums WILL change all thread addresses.
External links to threads WILL die.
What in the result? You have forum pile noone will use.
Keeping archive in place, on the other hand, will keep external links intact, so forum will still be a source of information for a foreseeable future.

What to the new forums: I see two issues over the unhealthy forum layout that is easily fixed even on client side byt some creative CSS tweaking.
1. HTTPS. DAMN IT! I don't have enough bandwidth to feed forums with this amount of my money spent on uncacheable content which othervise will be cached locally.
2. Unbelievable amount of JavaScript, that killing the whole point of browsing forums. It's bad enough now, you can't log off from forums if JS failed or disabled, but with new forums it grew ridiculously. Largely unable to browse new forum on my phone.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.05.29 18:58:00 - [128]
 

Dearest CCP cretins, I see that true transparency, in other words owning up to your own embarrassing incompetence, is still not on the cards. No matter how much shiny crap you desperately release in the hope of gaining new customers who don't jump ship a week later (and no, putting lipstick on the pig doesn't make it any less porky), you have still lost the trust of a good number of your customers.

o/ Bye

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.06.04 12:09:00 - [129]
 

Still got your heads stuck up your behinds?

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.06.04 23:08:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Bomberlocks
Still got your heads stuck up your behinds?


Please stop talking now.Rolling Eyes

Salene Gralois
K-2
Posted - 2011.06.05 04:06:00 - [131]
 

Will you implement a proper, actually working, wordwrap this time? Or are CCP's web-devs still stuck in the previous decade?

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2011.06.20 17:59:00 - [132]
 

I cannot login into the new forums. I tried three, four times. It says:

Login failed. Possible reasons can be:

* Invalid username / password
* Incorrect character name entered
* Account is expired or banned



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