[theforum] weo signoff

[Morgan Kelsey]

martin said:

> After the other week's discussion, I think we're now all agreed that
> 1) the main objective is to move the site

yes but -- we seem to have lost some of the front-end functionality of the 
old site.
(while gaining some backend functionality from what i understand)
- i miss the highest rated articles bar
- the new rate this article cubes are cute, but i have no clue what they 
mean.
  which one is good -- which one is bad?

> 2) the current teo design, while not ideal as an end state, is Good Enough 
> for launch, and we'll look at it again - probably with a competition - 
> after go-live

seeing the time this implementation has taken (i'm not bitching, i wish i 
had time to help too)
i don't feel optimistic that this will get done before xmas. i'm not 
comfortable with
"good enough for launch", we're short-changing ourselves.


> I'd also like to add:
> 1) We've had plenty of opportunity to test the site, and just about all 
> the issues raised have been resolved

- i have a big issue with the speed. i haven't brought it up, because i 
thought it would
get better as development went along. i get a 8-10 second delay loading up 
the home
page, (like the site used to be when we were using oracle for the DB).

- also, is there any reason we're honking a big old php session id on to the 
url when
cookies are turned off? this is REALLY bad for search spiders (they're gonna 
index
those links with the session url too, since spiders don't eat cookies)


> 2) This includes content people, familiarising themselves with workflow.

excellent. let's hope new articles get up faster.


> 3) We are otherwise waiting for a final data dump which we'll use to do 
> the URL alignment

- this is really critical, if we care about our search listings and 
preventing link-rot.
can't this be implemented now with the data we have? i don't understand why
we need another dump to do the work.

> Therefore, can we please sign this thing off by midnight GMT on Friday. 
> I'm going to assume silence means that you're OK with it, so if you have a 
> burning showstopping reason why not, speak up!
>

well, those are my reasons for holding off a little....i've never relaunched 
a
site for a client that wasn't as good as the original. we're not our own 
worst client, are we?

can we have a vote?
can finance tell us how long we can afford to pay jeff?
realistically?


nagrom
http://www.morgankelsey.com