fairness

[spin498]

In the interest of fairness, where's the We Hate Photoradar thread?
This is a beta? It's not perfect? So why all this back slapping and it's wonderful crap? It's not. Not saying its bad, not saying it doesn't have positives, but frankly I have issues with all these it's great posts, particularly by people I don't remember ever seeing on the old site. And if the old site only had 88,000 or so active members and a lot of the regulars still waiting for invites how did this site get itself 102,000 or so registered users? Smacks of fraud frankly. There's enough people have issue with the bugs. I don't like the B.S.

[ABERS]

The figures are definitely interesting.
Way back, before blessed retirement came along, when approached by any publication for advertising, sponsorship, advertorials, I always consulted BRAD, a facilty that regularly audited the circulation and readership figures claimed by members of the media industry.
I think BRAD still exists, it was a subscription based facility so it's not readily available to the public gaze.

I don't know if web sites are now included in its remit, but it would be interesting to find out. A couple of calls to some old mates may reveal if they are.

Um, I think pretty much all the other threads are about "issues" as the spin merchants like to call them.

If linking worked then I'd link to them but it looks like

1. Forum and gallery aren't integrated properly (that's huge and should be written in red pen at the top of the list)
2. Video either works or doesn't on different machines with no obvious pattern (wow, it's like 2005 all over again)
3. Photo upload doesn't work reliably (another red pen job for a photo site)
4. Text is tiny. Adverts are huge. Guess which pays for the site (hint: no members = no advertising revenue...)
5. Layout is patchy - there appear to be major snafus in the CSS
6. It's pretty hard to find anything
7. Moderation seems "interesting" - see all the threads about "where did my thread go?"
8. No real thought to the text entry boxes
9. Legal position re copyright and under 18s seems ill thought out and indefensible
10. Performance is "patchy" at times adequate at times disturbingly slow
11. Content seems a little "thin". Can't wait for another mag to get hold of some of the "tutorials". Especially if they have a habit of making fun of poor quality tutes.
12. People are getting fed up of being taken for granted, ignored and told not to raise stuff.

I think that's what would be on page 1 of my to do list if I were test manager. There would be several other pages.

Originally Posted by JonathanRyan

6. It's pretty hard to find anything

9. Legal position re copyright and under 18s seems ill thought out and indefensible

12. People are getting fed up of being taken for granted, ignored and told not to raise stuff.

agreed. Still trying to work out where the box is for landscape, portraits etc .. or if they don't exist where i create a folder for them.

To think this site has been on the cards for the best part of 4 years. It's nothing short of a disgraceful

[Rachael DCruze]

Originally Posted by spin498

In the interest of fairness, where's the We Hate Photoradar thread?
This is a beta? It's not perfect? So why all this back slapping and it's wonderful crap? It's not. Not saying its bad, not saying it doesn't have positives, but frankly I have issues with all these it's great posts, particularly by people I don't remember ever seeing on the old site. And if the old site only had 88,000 or so active members and a lot of the regulars still waiting for invites how did this site get itself 102,000 or so registered users? Smacks of fraud frankly. There's enough people have issue with the bugs. I don't like the B.S.

They'll be no 'We hate PhotoRadar' thread, as if people hate it they are welcome to leave.

Fraud? No, the figures are the opposite - the higher figure is because the Forum database and the DCM user database are slightly different content management systems, there'd also be accounts that have not been activated (on DCM), those would have been brought across as well. There was no way around this for import.

As for back slapping - people like the site and have been kind enough to say so, that's all!

[Lurkalot]

Originally Posted by Rachael DCruze

They'll be no 'We hate PhotoRadar' thread, as if people hate it they are welcome to leave.

As for back slapping - people like the site and have been kind enough to say so, that's all!

Why is there a "We love photoradar" thread in the first place? If people come here and say how good the site is, then surely they are not testing it. I'd love it if it was finished and working.

Save this stuff for later IMO. Replace this thread for a "Gallery issues" thread would be a better idea.

[ABERS]

Originally Posted by Rachael DCruze

Fraud? No, the figures are the opposite - the higher figure is because the Forum database and the DCM user database are slightly different content management systems, there'd also be accounts that have not been activated (on DCM), those would have been brought across as well. There was no way around this for import.

So if you know what the make up of the total figures are, is it not possible to subtract those that have not been activated from the total to give a true nett figure? That is of course if you know the number that have not been activated.

[Rachael DCruze]

I can't really see why this is an issue. The users who were inactive on DCM were those who signed up for the newsletter or as a result of POTY and may want to use PR.

Cheers, Rach

[ABERS]

Originally Posted by Rachael DCruze

I can't really see why this is an issue. The users who were inactive on DCM were those who signed up for the newsletter or as a result of POTY and may want to use PR.

Cheers, Rach

It's only an issue if the 108,000 odd members of Radar you claim all exisit, and as I understand from what you say they do. And they comprise former members of the old site plus all entrants of POTY, 2008 + 2009?, and anyone who in the past has signed up for the newsletter.

I wonder how many tens of thousands of people don't realise they're members? What you should really claim is 108,000 potential members.

As you are aware there's another thread concerning the T&C's, and Amy has been valiantly defending the assurances concerning the use of images posted on PR.
When we read how the membership figures are arrived at it raises all sorts of doubts in one's mind.

I know, it's free, and if you don't like it you can leave.

[Rachael DCruze]

Of course, Amy and I are working closely together - everything she's said regarding the T&C's is correct.

Rach