What's the hold up on site improvements?

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

ppaladin123

Sep 16, 2009 20:00:15

I consider myself a patient person but I am starting to get a bit annoyed with the lack of progress on fixing the various issues forum-goers have with the new site. It's been several weeks and we haven't seen movement on any of the simple requests many of us have made. For example, how difficult is it to changing the listing of sub-forums to a bullet point format for easy browsing? How difficult is it to re-enable spoiler blocks? How difficult is it to upload a theme option that does away with the bright white forum backgrounds that are making so many of us uncomfortable? Does noone at WotC have the one hour necessary to enact these changes?


I've found myself frequenting these boards far less often because they are less convinient than the previous itteration. If WotC doesn't want to hemorage users, maybe it is about time they make tweaking the board a bigger priority. Even little efforts would go a long way toward earning the good will of frustrated users.


 

#2

WolfStar76

Sep 16, 2009 20:06:25

The community team is actually doing a considerable amount of work on the forums - however just because something appears to be simple to do on the surface, doesn't mean the reality of the situation is as simple as the theory.


In truth, much of what's been worked on in the last couple weeks is back-end stuff that, no, sadly, you won't see (unless you were hit with a very specific class of bugs).  Some of these are going to be changes that are needed to put in the features people are asking for - some are going to be stuff we, the posters, never know about.


While being patient isn't the easiest thing to do (especially when a site/forum/community you care about is changed radically - and things don't work as expected), it's the best thing any of us CAN do right now.

#3

Webster

Sep 16, 2009 20:22:06

A good example would be the names being fixed.

#4

ogrehooper

Sep 16, 2009 21:57:54

Yes, names, thread background, subscriptions, and many other things have all improved.  You may not be active enough lately to be able to tell when each item is fixed, but they are doing a fine job.

#5

lokiare

Sep 17, 2009 0:40:05

The solution would be to work on back-end issues in tandem with visible issues so that we see that there is progress. I understand that getting BBCode (sblocks) to work might take some time, but the bullet issue really is just a few minute fix.

#6

drnick

Sep 17, 2009 8:44:47

Also the white background was fixed, dude. At least, for some of us apparently.

#7

mudbunny

Sep 17, 2009 10:29:09

We also don't know what type of contract WotC has with OneSite for upgrades/changes to the forums, nor do we know what back-end issues (that we don't see) WotC is asking them to do. It is highly possible that any changes/modifications made to the forums have to be done by OneSite, and then undergo a OneSite testing/QA/QC check first.

#8

lokiare

Sep 17, 2009 12:45:35


We also don't know what type of contract WotC has with OneSite for upgrades/changes to the forums, nor do we know what back-end issues (that we don't see) WotC is asking them to do. It is highly possible that any changes/modifications made to the forums have to be done by OneSite, and then undergo a OneSite testing/QA/QC check first.




Where were the OneSite QA/QC people before this site went live? I seriously doubt its that complex. They may have to have OneSite fix the problem because onesite is hosting the community site.

#9

trappedslider

Sep 17, 2009 13:01:36



We also don't know what type of contract WotC has with OneSite for upgrades/changes to the forums, nor do we know what back-end issues (that we don't see) WotC is asking them to do. It is highly possible that any changes/modifications made to the forums have to be done by OneSite, and then undergo a OneSite testing/QA/QC check first.




Where were the OneSite QA/QC people before this site went live? I seriously doubt its that complex. They may have to have OneSite fix the problem because onesite is hosting the community site.





I think we're a bit more picky than onesites normal user base.....so they may have htought it was fine and all that....
#10

lokiare

Sep 17, 2009 14:28:15




We also don't know what type of contract WotC has with OneSite for upgrades/changes to the forums, nor do we know what back-end issues (that we don't see) WotC is asking them to do. It is highly possible that any changes/modifications made to the forums have to be done by OneSite, and then undergo a OneSite testing/QA/QC check first.




Where were the OneSite QA/QC people before this site went live? I seriously doubt its that complex. They may have to have OneSite fix the problem because onesite is hosting the community site.





I think we're a bit more picky than onesites normal user base.....so they may have htought it was fine and all that....



We are not more picky. We simply want it to be as good or better than the old forum. Which this forum is not.


It doesn't even follow basic forum standards.

#11

tiamatthedragongod

Sep 17, 2009 20:45:43

It'd be nice if they posted a list of currently known bugs and make announcements as features are added and bugs aer fixed.

#12

lokiare

Sep 17, 2009 23:15:48


It'd be nice if they posted a list of currently known bugs and make announcements as features are added and bugs aer fixed.




Yes, it would. Unfortunately even if they did/have we wouldn't be able to find it, so it wouldn't matter at this point.

#13

kratch

Sep 18, 2009 1:04:28


It'd be nice if they posted a list of currently known bugs and make announcements as features are added and bugs aer fixed.




They used to have such a post, but it was taken down for some reason (I suspect it was due to it being used as a place to hassle and vent by people like Lokaire (who had been directed to it personally by myself on a number of occasions, so his "if they did/have" comment is rather underhanded), rather then leaving it simply as a means for WotC to keep the community appraised.

It would be nice if they created a blog to keep people informed.


 


And Lokaire, We are far more picky then most. We spend a lot more time here then most forum goers spend on their websites of choice (and I am not so naive as to believe that "most" is limited to enworld and other roleplaying sites). You have claimed in other threads that most sites use BBCode and Sblocks, but I have checked, The world of warcraft forums, the Allakazam forums, the various guild and resource (largely macro and class guides) forums as well as the bloodbowl forums don't have SBlock, so clearly tyour idea of "most" is skewed by your personal choices.

#14

lokiare

Sep 18, 2009 18:15:37



It'd be nice if they posted a list of currently known bugs and make announcements as features are added and bugs aer fixed.




They used to have such a post, but it was taken down for some reason (I suspect it was due to it being used as a place to hassle and vent by people like Lokaire (who had been directed to it personally by myself on a number of occasions, so his "if they did/have" comment is rather underhanded), rather then leaving it simply as a means for WotC to keep the community appraised.

It would be nice if they created a blog to keep people informed.


 


And Lokaire, We are far more picky then most. We spend a lot more time here then most forum goers spend on their websites of choice (and I am not so naive as to believe that "most" is limited to enworld and other roleplaying sites). You have claimed in other threads that most sites use BBCode and Sblocks, but I have checked, The world of warcraft forums, the Allakazam forums, the various guild and resource (largely macro and class guides) forums as well as the bloodbowl forums don't have SBlock, so clearly tyour idea of "most" is skewed by your personal choices.




They don't have SBlock? but they do have something similar and they do have BBCode or at least allakazam did last time I was there. Simply finding a few sites that don't use them isn't proof of anything. Looking at the features of most of the top forum software however will reveal that most of them have options or add-ons that include BBCode.

#15

tiamatthedragongod

Sep 18, 2009 22:39:15

I have never been to a forum that didn't have a hide or spoiler code integrated.... this one excluded obviouly... and i've been to a lot of forums, moderate(d) about 20 of them and administrated/created/ran about another 20....


All for various purposes from gaming to writing to non-profit organization, even an architectural office I worked for for a while.


So... yeah... lol...


And just because people were posting things in those threads is no reason to take them down... delete the appropriate posts, lock the thread, and keep us up to date... it's really not that difficult...

#16

drnick

Sep 19, 2009 15:57:13

I go to a lot of forums and tbh this is the only one I've used that used sblock extensively. 90 percent of the forums I visit don't even have it.


And for everything else, html is much more powerful for formatting than BBCode so I'd much rather have that.


In fact, I'm pretty sure the only reason BBCode was invented was to tightly control formatting in a forum environment. It's no easier than HTML.

#17

lokiare

Sep 20, 2009 13:23:15


I go to a lot of forums and tbh this is the only one I've used that used sblock extensively. 90 percent of the forums I visit don't even have it.


And for everything else, html is much more powerful for formatting than BBCode so I'd much rather have that.


In fact, I'm pretty sure the only reason BBCode was invented was to tightly control formatting in a forum environment. It's no easier than HTML.




BBCode is much easier than HTML.


BBCode consists of a set of [command="variable"]text here[/command].


HTML consists of a set of < command variable="" variable="" variable="" variable="" > text here < / command >


When integrated properly BBCode is much simpler and allows for better formatting as well as things like spoiler blocks or SBlocks that would require a lot of HMTL and javascript code to implement (which we can't use anyway).

#18

calronmoonflower

Sep 20, 2009 16:45:19

I have never been to a forum that didn't have a hide or spoiler code integrated.... this one excluded obviouly... and i've been to a lot of forums, moderate(d) about 20 of them and administrated/created/ran about another 20....



While not a perfect substitution you can use the icons to change your text white to hide it.
->Like this. <-

Also many of the supplied button allow you to do basic things without knowledge of HTML.
Like above turning the above text white.

#19

lokiare

Sep 20, 2009 22:55:51


I have never been to a forum that didn't have a hide or spoiler code integrated.... this one excluded obviouly... and i've been to a lot of forums, moderate(d) about 20 of them and administrated/created/ran about another 20....



While not a perfect substitution you can use the icons to change your text white to hide it.
->Like this. <-

Also many of the supplied button allow you to do basic things without knowledge of HTML.
Like above turning the above text white.




Yes and the BBCode editor did the same, it allowed you to insert BBCode into your post just like this editor lets you insert HTML. While HTML itself is very powerful, the crippled version they allow us to use is hit or miss. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

#20

drnick

Sep 22, 2009 12:43:23


BBCode consists of a set of [command="variable"]text here[/command].


 


HTML consists of a set of < command variable="" variable="" variable="" variable="" > text here < / command >



The only difference I see is the brackets. ;) Anyway, I'm not here to get into an argument on the merits and drawbacks of bbcode. When I first started posting on message boards 10 years ago it annoyed the hell out of me that I had to learn a new tag system just to post when I knew HTML just fine but nowadays I know both so it's no big deal to me either way.

#21

trappedslider

Sep 22, 2009 13:59:40





We also don't know what type of contract WotC has with OneSite for upgrades/changes to the forums, nor do we know what back-end issues (that we don't see) WotC is asking them to do. It is highly possible that any changes/modifications made to the forums have to be done by OneSite, and then undergo a OneSite testing/QA/QC check first.




Where were the OneSite QA/QC people before this site went live? I seriously doubt its that complex. They may have to have OneSite fix the problem because onesite is hosting the community site.





I think we're a bit more picky than onesites normal user base.....so they may have htought it was fine and all that....



We are not more picky. We simply want it to be as good or better than the old forum. Which this forum is not.


It doesn't even follow basic forum standards.





well as the great obi wan said its all based on your point of view....
#22

lokiare

Sep 22, 2009 14:46:57






We also don't know what type of contract WotC has with OneSite for upgrades/changes to the forums, nor do we know what back-end issues (that we don't see) WotC is asking them to do. It is highly possible that any changes/modifications made to the forums have to be done by OneSite, and then undergo a OneSite testing/QA/QC check first.




Where were the OneSite QA/QC people before this site went live? I seriously doubt its that complex. They may have to have OneSite fix the problem because onesite is hosting the community site.





I think we're a bit more picky than onesites normal user base.....so they may have htought it was fine and all that....



We are not more picky. We simply want it to be as good or better than the old forum. Which this forum is not.


It doesn't even follow basic forum standards.





well as the great obi wan said its all based on your point of view....



No, its not based on your point of view. There are simple standards you can hold forums up to and this one fails to meet them.

#23

Herrozerro

Sep 22, 2009 14:49:56


No, its not based on your point of view. There are simple standards you can hold forums up to and this one fails to meet them.




Where are these standards?  is there an ISO standard for them?


Last time I checked a forum needed to be able to have messages posted and read.

#24

kratch

Sep 22, 2009 15:03:38



No, its not based on your point of view. There are simple standards you can hold forums up to and this one fails to meet them.




Where are these standards?  is there an ISO standard for them?


Last time I checked a forum needed to be able to have messages posted and read.




I've already gone down that road. He listed off his education and past work experience as a response.
#25

Herrozerro

Sep 22, 2009 15:04:52




No, its not based on your point of view. There are simple standards you can hold forums up to and this one fails to meet them.




Where are these standards?  is there an ISO standard for them?


Last time I checked a forum needed to be able to have messages posted and read.




I've already gone down that road. He listed off his education and past work experience as a response.



Well I remember a list before of features.  but i dont remember a citing on its source.  I mean if there is an official standard lets have it.

#26

lokiare

Sep 22, 2009 17:05:50





No, its not based on your point of view. There are simple standards you can hold forums up to and this one fails to meet them.




Where are these standards?  is there an ISO standard for them?


Last time I checked a forum needed to be able to have messages posted and read.




I've already gone down that road. He listed off his education and past work experience as a response.



Well I remember a list before of features.  but i dont remember a citing on its source.  I mean if there is an official standard lets have it.




Here's one source Business Standards.


Wikipedia says that a forum:


"On Western forums, the classic way to show a member's own details (such as name and avatar) has been on the left side of the post, in a narrow column of fixed width, with the post controls located on the right, at the bottom of the main body, above the signature block. In more recent forum software implementations the Asian style of displaying the members' details above the post has been copied."


Which the post controls are not following.


It also says this about polls:


"Most forums implement an opinion poll system for threads. Most implementations allow for single-choice or multi-choice (sometimes limited to a certain number) when selecting options as well as private or public display of voters. Polls can be set to expire after a certain date or in some cases after a number of days from its creation. Members vote in a poll and a statistic is displayed graphically."


This forum doesn't have polls.


It also mentions this:


"An ignore list allows members to hide posts of other members that they do not want to see or have a problem with. In most implementations they are referred to as foe list or ignore list. Usually the posts are not hidden, but minimized with only a small bar indication a post from the user on the ignore list is there. Internet forums include a member list, present in almost all forums it allows display of all forum members, with integrated search feature. Some forums will not list members with 0 posts, even if they have activated their accounts."


The ignore list currently doesn't work properly.


If you need more I can probably dig them up.

#27

kratch

Sep 22, 2009 17:42:54


Here's one source Business Standards.



And which of those standards have they failed to meet?



Wikipedia says that a forum:


"On Western forums, the classic way to show a member's own details (such as name and avatar) has been on the left side of the post, in a narrow column of fixed width, with the post controls located on the right, at the bottom of the main body, above the signature block. In more recent forum software implementations the Asian style of displaying the members' details above the post has been copied."


Which the post controls are not following.



"The classic way"...That is not a standard, it is one way to do it that is traditional, but not always how it is done.



It also says this about polls:


"Most forums implement an opinion poll system for threads. Most implementations allow for single-choice or multi-choice (sometimes limited to a certain number) when selecting options as well as private or public display of voters. Polls can be set to expire after a certain date or in some cases after a number of days from its creation. Members vote in a poll and a statistic is displayed graphically."


This forum doesn't have polls.



Check your blog controls.


And I need to point out "most", not all.



It also mentions this:


"An ignore list allows members to hide posts of other members that they do not want to see or have a problem with. In most implementations they are referred to as foe list or ignore list. Usually the posts are not hidden, but minimized with only a small bar indication a post from the user on the ignore list is there. Internet forums include a member list, present in almost all forums it allows display of all forum members, with integrated search feature. Some forums will not list members with 0 posts, even if they have activated their accounts."


The ignore list currently doesn't work properly.



The list was working exactly as described. Though it has become buggy now, it is still there.


Again, it says most, not all.



If you need more I can probably dig them up.




None of these are actually standards, they are what wiki says "most" forums use. Given the only one of these that really even remotely stands up is the placement of the quote/edit/reply buttons, I hardly see how you justify the hostility you direct towards the boards and the people who like it or think it deserves a chance to be improved, being a beta. So yes, you'll need to dig up more, if you can (you said probably)
#28

mudbunny

Sep 22, 2009 22:17:28

Here's one source Business Standards.


That just says, summarized, that it is important for a business website to follow web standards. It doesn't actually give any standards itself.


Wikipedia says that a forum:

[snip]




You forgot the first part of that part of the article:


By default to be an Internet forum, the web application needs an ability to submit threads and replies. Forum software may sometimes allow categories or subforums.


Of course, it is also important to note that the article doesn't actually give any link to any sort of standards for internet forums. Beyond the ability to post things and respond to them, anything else that a forum offers is gravy.


Now, is the state of the forums where WotC wants it to be? No. Only a complete moron would think so. However, the forums, as they are now, are *very* useable.

#29

lokiare

Sep 24, 2009 0:33:40

I didn't say anything about usable. I can 'usable' a rock to drive a nail into a peice of wood, but is it the preferred way to do it? no. The standard I'm calling attention to on Wikipedia is 'most' or 'traditionally' in other words if you don't have the features that 'most' or 'traditional' forums have, then you are not up to standard. These forums fall far short of that standard.

#30

kratch

Sep 24, 2009 6:14:29


I didn't say anything about usable. I can 'usable' a rock to drive a nail into a peice of wood, but is it the preferred way to do it? no. The standard I'm calling attention to on Wikipedia is 'most' or 'traditionally' in other words if you don't have the features that 'most' or 'traditional' forums have, then you are not up to standard. These forums fall far short of that standard.




One out of three you provided were not available on this site, and that one is a minor one (and seriously, wikipedia as a standard? You could have writen the article yourself), far from "falling short". You have shown no evidance that this site fails to met any meaningful standard, because you have yet to produce any kind of reasonable standard for it to fall short of. Not haveing the quote button in the typical place does not justify your hostility and outspokenness.
#31

Seeker95

Sep 24, 2009 7:04:42

When will Boards code start hiding quoted text from blocked members?!?!.

Also, if you find that someone never budges from a position, responds to every response, and repeatedly says the same thing, wouldn't you be wise to just stop replying to him?

#32

Herrozerro

Sep 24, 2009 7:45:07


When will Boards code start hiding quoted text from blocked members?!?!.


Also, if you find that someone never budges from a position, responds to every response, and repeatedly says the same thing, wouldn't you be wise to just stop replying to him?




But this is the internet, doesnt he win if he has the last word?

#33

Mock

Sep 24, 2009 12:18:12

Is there an ETA on the issue about not being able to hide signatures? This is mentioned in some other threads, but as of now, I can still see the signatures (and sometimes the posts) of individuals on my block list.


I know I'm not the only one, and it's not OMGCRISISBBQ, but I was wondering if someone with more clout than me knew anything. Until its fixed, I try to make my visits as brief as possible.


 


Edit: oh, also...is there a way to hide avatars, without resorting to using Stylish or blocking images?

#34

EscherEnigma

Sep 24, 2009 16:31:17

When will Boards code start hiding quoted text from blocked members?!?!.


That wont' happen completetly.  They might make it so that if someone does a full quote that cites the post author they can snip that out, but as you can just make a quote tag and put anything inside, there's no real way for the forum to pick that up without trying to parse through everything and then compare it to all posts of everyone on your ignore list to see if any of it appears to have been from someone you ignore.

So I don't expect to see that feature.  Ever.