A few more observations about the new software

[Boston Guy]

I've been in the computer industry for three decades and have been involved with installing, testing and evaluating countless software packages and upgrades. But I offer the following observations from the point of view of a user, albeit one who is used to critically examining software. The observations are not complaints but simply observations.

 

1. The system is faster after the installation of the new server.

 

2. The system is still far slower than the previous software. With the threads expanded, large forums (like the Lounge, Deli, etc.) routinely take up to 30 seconds to load on a high-speed Internet connection.

 

3. If you collapse the threads, the pages load more quickly.

 

4. If you collapse the threads, the ONLY way to see what messages are new is to expand each thread that shows new updates. If you simply click on the name of the thread, you are provided a list of the messages in the thread -- with absolutely no indication whatsoever of which ones are new.

 

5. If you expand a thread to see which ones are new, you have to wait for the main forum page to reload (obviously) and, if the thread being expanded is long, the reload can be slow. Then, once you have the thread expanded, you can click "View All" to be taken to the thread in a way that preserves the list of new messages.

 

6. The above process takes time and multiple steps. If real estate is about "location, location, location", the Internet is about "speed, speed, speed." My recommendations to the folks at DCScrips are:

[ul]

[li]Figure out how to load long pages faster -- much faster. (I am assuming that the server has been properly optimized for use as a MYSQL server and that the MYSQL database software has been optimized for use with this application and that the software has been written in a way that makes appropriate use of the relational database's features. If any of those are not true or haven't been investigated thoroughly, they are obvious places to look for improvements in speed and there's lots of info available for free on all these topics.[br]

[li]When clicking on a non-expanded thread, display the "view all" thread display instead of the virtually-useless one now provided.

[/ul]

7. As I mentioned in the other note I posted -- and as others have seconded -- the current font choice is not good. It's too small for middle-aged eyes. I also don't find the blue to have sufficient contrast. It MUST be possible to change the font and I urge that it be changed.

 

 

From a technical point-of-view, I'm intrigued by the performance problems that DCS is having with a database-driven system. Their software has -- up to this point -- been known for speed. There's no inherent reason why a database-driven system should be slower so I find myself wondering about their design. Further, once the messages are in a database, one would expect additional features to flow from that, including the ability to query the database. I haven't checked their Website recently and wonder if they will provide any of these features.

 

Good luck with the new release.

 

BG

[Guest bottomboykk]

4. If you collapse the threads, the ONLY way to see what messages are new is to expand each thread that shows new updates. If you simply click on the name of the thread, you are provided a list of the messages in the thread -- with absolutely no indication whatsoever of which ones are new.

 

That's not the case. Simply click on Read New, a list will pop up showing every thread, sorted by forum, that has new posts in it. When you click on a thread you want to read, and the display will indicate which messages are new (yellow folder); the hierarchical display won't show if there are just a few messages, but any significant number will cause the display to show.

 

If, when you're done, you click Mark, and you're set for the next time. This is virtually identical to the approach in the previous version. It works great.

[Boston Guy]

>If, when you're done, you click Mark, and you're set for the

>next time. This is virtually identical to the approach in the

>previous version. It works great.

 

 

Yes -- unless, of course, you're like me and want to see the entire contents of the forum. I never used "Read New" in the old version but preferred instead to simply see each forum in expanded format.

 

It's simply a matter of different strokes for different folks and the reason the DCScripts people provide different navigation methods is because not everyone likes to navigate the threads in the same way.

 

The old way -- seeing expanded threads with new message indicators available -- is simply quite difficult at this time.

 

I can get used to anything. But I would think that the DCS guys might want to know that some users view the new software as having lost some significant browsing capability.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

"Read New" is not complete/correct!!

 

>4. If you collapse the threads, the ONLY way to see what

>messages are new is to expand each thread that shows new

>updates. If you simply click on the name of the thread, you

>are provided a list of the messages in the thread -- with

>absolutely no indication whatsoever of which ones are new.

>

>

>That's not the case. Simply click on Read New, a list will

>pop up showing every thread, sorted by forum, that has new

>posts in it. When you click on a thread you want to read, and

>the display will indicate which messages are new (yellow

>folder); the hierarchical display won't show if there are just

>a few messages, but any significant number will cause the

>display to show.

>

>If, when you're done, you click Mark, and you're set for the

>next time. This is virtually identical to the approach in the

>previous version. It works great.

 

After posting the previous message, I decided to check out the "Read New" feature since I hadn't looked at it in a while. I quickly confirmed that it's not the way I would like to browse the Message Center since it doesn't provide half the info provided by the fully-expanded threads display.

 

I then went over to the "Escorts South of the USA" thread and viewed the expanded threads. I noted that there were two threads that showed new messages in them. I thought that was odd because I had just seen only one new thread listed in this forum in the "Read New" display.

 

So I went back to "Read New" again just to be sure I wasn't imagining things. Sure enough, only the first thread was listed. Going back again to the expanded threads showed two threads with new messages -- and both really were new, since I knew when I last logged in and all of the messages that were showing as "new" were posted after I had last logged out.

 

So if you're depending on "Read New" to see all of the new messages, you may well be missing messages. I can't believe that the only time there would be an error would be the first time I check this feature out in a long time... I bet this is occurring a lot.

 

BG

[Guest bottomboykk]

RE: "Read New" is not complete/correct!!

 

I suspect you weren't logged in when you did Read New. That is one thing that seems flaky with the new software with it logging you out unexpectedly. The Read New function won't work properly if you're not logged in. I've never had any problems otherwise with Read New.

[Boston Guy]

RE: "Read New" is not complete/correct!!

 

>I suspect you weren't logged in when you did Read New. That

>is one thing that seems flaky with the new software with it

>logging you out unexpectedly. The Read New function won't work

>properly if you're not logged in. I've never had any problems

>otherwise with Read New.

 

Nope, I was logged in. I always log in before doing anything else.

 

Remember -- this is brand-new software which will certainly have its own new set of bugs. The fact that Read New worked in the past is no guarantee that it will work properly with this version.

 

There's an old saying that the only people who add up the deductions on their paystub to see if the arithmetic has been done right are accountants and programmers..

 

BG

[Guy Fawkes]

RE: "Read New" is not complete/correct!!

 

Yeah, but programmers are the only one's that'll use a $300 spreadsheet and a $2,000 computer to check the deductions where as the accountants do it in their head!