[theforum] weo signoff

Martin Paul Burns martin.burns at uk.ibm.com
Thu Mar 3 10:28:00 CST 2005

Morgan wrote on 03/03/2005 16:07:12:

> 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
> old site.

A few tiny bits and pieces. That's one, but it's at the "Wouldn't it be
good if..."

None of the core functionality is gone

> (while gaining some backend functionality from what i understand)
Version control is a *real* biggy

> - i miss the highest rated articles bar
> - the new rate this article cubes are cute, but i have no clue what they
> mean.

Same as.

> > 2) the current teo design, while not ideal as an end state, is Good
> > 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.

See last week's discussion - the primary objective was to move. We're now
very, very late with that. The new site is missing a few minor bits, and
isn't 'lush' as perhaps we'd like it to use neuro_'s phrase.

OTOH, it *is* tableless, and we're only, what, 4 years behind the curve on

I don't actually consider it to be particularly worse in any given area
than the existing site. Perhaps we're too quick to compare it to the ideal
we hold in our heads...

And, y'know, perhaps being more solid backend than lush front-end more
accurately reflects the balance of evolters...

> > 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.

Please see Jeff's filed bug report on that:

The only thing keeping it this slow is lack of caching, which we won't
enable until shortly before launch. We did a test, and it's very fast once

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

This is default Drupal - and a few minutes spent with SEs shows that they
don't have a problem with Drupal sites whatsoever.

> > 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
> we need another dump to do the work.

We don't. However, our team aren't inclined to do it twice.

> > 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
> a
> site for a client that wasn't as good as the original.

Swings and roundabouts imo - better in some aspects, not so good (as we'd
like) in others.

> can we have a vote?

That's what we are having.


More information about the theforum mailing list