EVE Search - New EVE Online forums temporarily disabled

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

New EVE Online forums temporarily disabled

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 36 post(s)
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.09 23:57:00 - [1] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Oohà that reminds me. Another thing to put on my fix-list. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.10 00:09:00 - [2] Originally by: Kerfira It seems like they either didn't get, or chose to ignore, the customers input. Without that, any agile project is normally doomed to failure as you'll not be delivering what the customer wants or needs, and will have a lot of design and coding errors. In this case, the really sad thing was that plenty of feedback WAS supplied after the first test, but seemed to be completely ignored. My best guess is that management chose to override agile procedures (which is never a good idea, but try telling a manager that)... Pretty much. They gave it one test, and got tons of feedback. Based on this, they made ù what? ù 16 changes? At best, it could be considered a performance tweak. They gave it a second test, and got tons of feedback (much of which was copypasta from the old feedback), along with some worried mentions that these tests didn't seem toà you knowà test much. Then it went live, and nothing seemed to have changed. With the pace of change they chose, it would have needed maybe 5û10 more testing rounds before we ever got to that point. It was hardly a surprise when it fell on its face in numerous and humorous ways right out the gate. àso now we've essentially had a third (and maybe fourth) testing phase. Hopefully, they'll actually start listening to the feedback now, once it has become abundantly clear how skipping this step will bite them in the arse in many new and improved ways. àhopefullyà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.10 00:50:00 - [3] Edited by: Tippia on 10/04/2011 00:52:01 Originally by: Elyssa MacLeod Originally by: CCP Wrangler Sig: If it's stupid but works, it isn't stupid. What if its stupid and it doesnt work? Then it's stupid. If it's stupid and explodes, that's when you start to have some real issuesà Originally by: De'Veldrin Tippia, I have often said you have the patience of a saint, but I think you may have moved into a state bordering on denial at this point. I wouldn't call it "denial" so much as some kind of nanve romanticism ù hope springs eternal and all that noise. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:12:00 - [4] Edited by: Tippia on 10/04/2011 01:12:45 Originally by: dexington Originally by: Akita T how about an assurance that user feedback will be actually USED next time you ask us to test the forums ? eve user feedback... 50% says the font is to small, 50% says it's not big enough... 50% says the background color should be black, 50% says it should be white... àand the beauty of modern web design is that you can have it both ways with next to no work. Moreover, these poor old forums that should have been put out to pasture a long time ago already offer similar functionality. Quote: Except form the security being non existing, the forums was ready for use no reason not to release them. àexcept that they were hugely lacking in functionality compared to what they were meant to replace. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:24:00 - [5] Originally by: Jack Tronic Dude needs to be less silly. If css file is cached, and it contains all the css for all the pages regardless of how much is used on the current page, it's fine. àexcept that, as mentioned, the server doesn't pass along any expiry information so there's a distinct risk that the browser won't cache it. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:30:00 - [6] Originally by: Siiee And is it typical for a single page on a site to use 6% of the entire site's unique CSS rules? I could think that it would happen if, say, most of the styling is done on the thread pages (which contain a larger number of, and far more varied, elements), whereas the test was run on the topic list page. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.10 13:57:00 - [7] Edited by: Tippia on 10/04/2011 13:57:23 Originally by: Miilla You all got what you wanted, the old fourms back, why are you all still whining? Because it won't last, and because we actually do want a new forum ù just a new forum that is also better than the old one. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.10 14:02:00 - [8] Originally by: Miilla So go make your own style sheet. That only solves (some of) the design issues ù the functionality is still gone. Design-wise, I could probably live with the way the forums looked with my CSS. Feature-wise, it made little difference and didn't improve on what the forums offered. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.10 14:05:00 - [9] Originally by: Miilla Like button withdrawals? Ok, correction: I could improve on the feature offering by removing the whole like system with CSS. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.10 15:07:00 - [10] Originally by: Helicity Boson I've written up a blog post on the subject here: http://www.machine9.net/blog/?p=592 Thumbed. (Who needs likes? We already have that functionality.) ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.10 15:40:00 - [11] Originally by: Kerfira What's all this talk of 72000 or 75000 man hours to build the new forums? That's about ~45 MAN YEARS (which is several hundred miles beyond ridiculous for a forum)!!! I seem to recall that it was a figure mentioned at one of the fanfest presentations. It also kind of makes sense: they started mumbling about new forums just over a year ago, and apparently, the web team consists of 40 ppl. So if that last number is correct, the man hour count seems reasonable as well. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 12:10:00 - [12] Originally by: Akita T Funny (to me) translated and slightly adapted tidbit from my brother (who's a .Net/C#/whatever codemonkey)... if this is not accurate, I have no clue... àand what's even more fun is that they're overdoing the same translation in the normal post edit boxes, where text is encoded on the fly so you can't even use HTML entities to insert special characters (which is yet another reason for the slowdown in the post editor). As soon as you enter "&", it gets translated into "&" and entering "×" to get a × sign only prints the original × you entered. These forums do it much better: the translation is done when you click post, and entities you've entered manually are preserved and come out as the special characters you wanted to display. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 12:34:00 - [13] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Grimpak wait, are you telling me that this the exact same ***up as on boot.ini but in a different place? It would appear so, at least as far as signatures are concerned... wtf, didn't they fired that guy? Not exactly "fire"à. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki*
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 14:43:00 - [14] Originally by: Miilla He did do damage, he started posting as somebody else, modifying other customers posts and end result we where denied access to the service for a few days. So where's the damage? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 14:46:00 - [15] Originally by: Miilla 2 days inaccessible forum service we pay for, loss of confidence in our account security, damage to the reputation of the product and processes. Yes, but where's the damage he did? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 15:12:00 - [16] Edited by: Tippia on 11/04/2011 15:12:11 Originally by: Miilla It probalby was evaluated for security. Saying it was not just naieve. Most processes have a threat model. àand yet the most common threat imaginable was not found. So either the process was deeply flawed (and shouldn't exist in its current incarnation) or it already didn't exist. The effect is much the same. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 15:16:00 - [17] Edited by: Tippia on 11/04/2011 15:17:07 Originally by: Miilla Or perhaps it wasn't reported correctly which resulted in a breakdown of communication, that seems one factor here. I would love to see his report on this but I didn't all I saw was him exploiting it. Bad news. Now you're mixing two completely different processes. I'm talking about the security evaluation; you're talking about what happened because no such evaluation took place (while at the same time saying that it did, even though, as mentioned, the effect of any such evaluation was the same as if there was none). ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 15:23:00 - [18] Originally by: Miilla So what your saying is, we're both guessing. No, what I'm saying is that you can't call people nanve for saying that no security evaluation when the one solid fact we have is the end result had a security hole so huge that "no security evaluation" ù be it in practice or by active choice ù is the only reasonable explanation. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 15:41:00 - [19] Edited by: Tippia on 11/04/2011 15:43:16 Originally by: Jaik7 in these forums, making a hyperlink is not very straightforward, i still havent gotten it right. in the new ones all i had to do was copy/paste a URL. Funnily enough, the old new forums use the same linking button as the new new (old) forumsà àunless you're talking about the auto-discovery and translation of link-like text strings pasted straight into the text flow, which is somewhat nifty, but which tends to cause quite a lot of funny issues if you want to discuss more technical things. Originally by: Miilla You are avoiding the fact that it was Catari who EXPLOITED this for his own ego gain. He even bragged about it. And you have yet to specify the damage he supposedly did. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 18:02:00 - [20] Originally by: Miilla It is even more of a problem when people EXPLOIT the defects for their own gain. Good thing no-one did that then. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 18:04:00 - [21] Originally by: Miilla You're right, nothing happened. The forums just modified themselves. So who exploited the defects for their own gain? Oh, and you still haven't answered the question about what damage Cat did. What was it? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 18:07:00 - [22] Originally by: Miilla Apparently the forum will answer you all by itself, its sentient. So who exploited the defects for their own gain? Oh, and you still haven't answered the question about what damage Cat did. What was it? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.11 18:09:00 - [23] Originally by: Miilla The forums will type up a response all by itself any minute now. So who exploited the defects for their own gain? Oh, and you still haven't answered the question about what damage Cat did. What was it? Last chance. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.