Dear Team

[Boltondave]

Originally Posted by Upstart

[...] John (Fanning) is right, I'll bide my time with the other 108,000 (in)active users, good luck......you'll need plenty of it.

Paul

If words won't stir the "PR" lot, then maybe figures will. The "active members" tally has dropped rather alarmingly over the past couple of days. Between yesterday and the day before, that figure dropped by ~2,000. It's also lost another ~2,000 since this afternoon, that's for sure, and it currently stands at 98,594.

Around ~4,000 users going awol over two days..? Computers and databases don't slowly alter their information to bring their data in-line with what's correct. Face facts... it's an exodus, going off what's been said about those figures before. Or, maybe what was said before was purely a fabrication... hmm.

If it is an exodus, the PR team seriously need to take lessons in PR skills.

[Eileen]

Rachel,

the new site certainly has more 'stuff' than DCMAG. The tutorials, blogs and news stories etc are of varying quality and interest but at best they are like icing on a cake. This site doesn't look too bad when people first log in - it's only when you bite into the cake, or start to use the site, that you realise it is fundamentally unsound.

It is always difficult to get negative feedback on something you have worked hard on, and you may choose to think that I (or any particular person you are dealing with at any one time) don't know what we're talking about, or are at least unrepresentative.

But ask yourself this question: were John Fanning, Upstart, Peter, Wayne, Tony, Jonathan and a host of others whose names don't spring to mind just now, serial complainers on DCMAG? No. So what has stirred us all up in this way? Is it just possible that maybe there are some fundamental problems with the site from a user's perspective? And are you really sure that the technical concerns raised by Boltondave and Jonathan are completely unfounded? The customer isn't always wrong, even if sheer frustration means that their feedback can be crunchier than you'd like.

Papering over the cracks (fixing a few bugs) and rushing to launch may seem like the best thing just now to avoid short-term embarrassment and avoid losing advertising revenue. I imagine that this entire comments section will disappear from the new site so it may look OK on day 1. But the problems won't go away, even if 90% of your former regulars do.

[ABERS]

Originally Posted by Eileen

Papering over the cracks (fixing a few bugs) and rushing to launch may seem like the best thing just now to avoid short-term embarrassment and avoid losing advertising revenue. I imagine that this entire comments section will disappear from the new site so it may look OK on day 1. But the problems won't go away, even if 90% of your former regulars do.

Eileen,you must not put ideas into the team's heads. Maybe you'll get the stock reply, "It's something we're considering"

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by Boltondave

If words won't stir the "PR" lot, then maybe figures will. The "active members" tally has dropped rather alarmingly over the past couple of days. Between yesterday and the day before, that figure dropped by ~2,000. It's also lost another ~2,000 since this afternoon, that's for sure, and it currently stands at 98,594.

Around ~4,000 users going awol over two days..? Computers and databases don't slowly alter their information to bring their data in-line with what's correct. Face facts... it's an exodus, going off what's been said about those figures before. Or, maybe what was said before was purely a fabrication... hmm.

If it is an exodus, the PR team seriously need to take lessons in PR skills.

I think the most telling figure is the most users online at anyone time was 171 on the 30/07/09. At that time most of the regular posters on DCM handn't recieved an invite, so one can assume people look in and then move somewhere else.

[Hevans]

Originally Posted by OldBoy

I think the most telling figure is the most users online at anyone time was 171 on the 30/07/09. At that time most of the regular posters on DCM handn't recieved an invite, so one can assume people look in and then move somewhere else.

You need to be very careful interpreting these figures. I'm guessing that the number of active users is probably determined by them having logged into the site in the last X days/weeks. If it's 4 weeks or 1 month, then you'd expect this number to drop quickly one month or so after the large number of users were loaded into the system, as those that haven't tried/bothered to log in will have their accounts classified as inactive in large numbers. Nothing to do with them having visited or not.

Similarly for the most number logged in at an instant. You'd expect an initial pulse as everyone logged into the new site to see what it was about in a synchronous fashion.

These numbers won't start to be useful until you're several months into the future and the "statistics" have had time to regress towards the mean.

H.

PS. @ClactonDave: I'm currently using FF 2.0 on SuSE 10.3 to post this, and the format looks fine to me. Looks like it might be time to get the FF updated, though.

[Jerry WSL]

Originally Posted by Eileen

But ask yourself this question: were John Fanning, Upstart, Peter, Wayne, Tony, Jonathan and a host of others whose names don't spring to mind just now, serial complainers on DCMAG?

Considering you were replying after his post how come you missed Bolton Dave off this list !!

[Boltondave]

Originally Posted by Hevans

PS. @ClactonDave: I'm currently using FF 2.0 on SuSE 10.3 to post this, and the format looks fine to me. Looks like it might be time to get the FF updated, though.

Yeah, that figures. An older version of Firefox works better. Konqueror also renders the site correctly, but as that's a core part of the KDE desktop, it's very sluggish to fire up... I use Gnome, which is much more responsive. Shame Ubuntu moans and complains if older versions of software are installed.

Mind you, there's always a tarball.

Originally Posted by JerryWSL

Considering you were replying after his post how come you missed Bolton Dave off this list !!

Easily done.

Edit: GAAHH!! Five smilies!!? The "maximum image count" gubbins has triggered!! Damn fscking....**#!@##... site!!!

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by Hevans

You need to be very careful interpreting these figures. I'm guessing that the number of active users is probably determined by them having logged into the site in the last X days/weeks. If it's 4 weeks or 1 month, then you'd expect this number to drop quickly one month or so after the large number of users were loaded into the system, as those that haven't tried/bothered to log in will have their accounts classified as inactive in large numbers. Nothing to do with them having visited or not.

Similarly for the most number logged in at an instant. You'd expect an initial pulse as everyone logged into the new site to see what it was about in a synchronous fashion.

These numbers won't start to be useful until you're several months into the future and the "statistics" have had time to regress towards the mean.

H.

True, but as I didn't receive my invite until 5/08/09 and others after that then, it would suggest that a lot of people have given up.

[Boltondave]

Originally Posted by Boltondave

Yeah, that figures. An older version of Firefox works better. Konqueror also renders the site correctly, but as that's a core part of the KDE desktop, it's very sluggish to fire up... I use Gnome, which is much more responsive. Shame Ubuntu moans and complains if older versions of software are installed.

Mind you, there's always a tarball.

Well, I've just tried the site with Firefox 2.0, and... the rendering isn't glitchy! That doesn't mean the site is working though. Back in Firefox 3.0.13, the rendering's not changed... it's still not working.

I've tried to find what's listed as "Not working" in FF3, and "Working" FF2, in the "w3c DOM Compatibility" list, and I've drawn a blank. So it seems that FF 2.0 assume (or overlooks... or guesses... or defaults) things when they're broken, whereas FF3 says "Wtf??"

[ABERS]

Originally Posted by Hevans

These numbers won't start to be useful until you're several months into the future and the "statistics" have had time to regress towards the mean.

Useful to who apart from the PR team reporting to the CEO?