The reason why i'm thinking to leave the interference forum - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > ZOOTV > Inside Broadcast
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-15-2003, 12:05 PM   #1
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:18 PM
The reason why i'm thinking to leave the interference forum

Hello,

i really injoy discussion on your forum.
There are some things i really disslike:
1st - the forum just runns well with a few browsers (because it isn't w3c compatible? -> see http://validator.w3.org)

2nd - i start go get "spam" (or informations i didn't ask for) from "u2" - which sound's way to official - could you turn this one to interference" or "u2interference"?

3rd - and that's the main reason.
paying for getting the funcionality which was free before. It's not that i can't afford it, but i don't want to pay for it. I don't charge interference.com for my postings and i don't want to be charged or get angry about the limited functionality

so - any way to stop the inconveniences?

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-15-2003, 03:27 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 8,800
Local Time: 11:18 PM
To 3rd:
__________________

__________________
FallingStar is offline  
Old 02-15-2003, 04:47 PM   #3
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FallingStar
To 3rd:
Falling Star, people are entitled to their opinions.


I think Elvis may be the one who would have to address the first two issues, Klaus.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 02-15-2003, 05:53 PM   #4
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 03:18 PM
the w3 compatible thing is really overrated imo. i believe now different people are handling it or something and the stupidest stuff will have a webpage fail.

i'm not sure what the stats are, but i'm sure probably like 90% or more people browse interference with ie. while it would be nice to make every page on the site compatible with an unpopular browser (like safari, which is used by maybe 1% of the people not just here, but the whole net in general) would probably be too time comsuming and even impossible.

i'm not elvis so i don't know, this is all opinion so don't yell at sicy or elvis about what i said.

about #2, i'm guessing this is the updates interference occasionally sends. i get those too. there may be a function to opt out of this, if not, perhaps it can be added.

and for #3, it's all a matter of personal opinion. if you don't want to pay, i understand. that's why it's not mandatory.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 03:11 AM   #5
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Um, for #2, what does it matter what it says in the "From" line? The content is still the same. If you dont want to receive the mailings you can disable receiving mail from admins in your usercp under edit options.

For #3 maybe you should read this thread

http://forum.interference.com/showth...threadid=67107
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 07:00 AM   #6
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:18 PM
1) (or to KhanadaRhodes)

No w3c is underrated by most who use the web. It's ok to write incompatible websites if you only have to use Windows and can install the webbrowser you like, because you don't have a admin who does the job.

abut 3/4 of the machines i use for internet browsing don't work with that website.

2) (or to Sicy)
It's ok for me to get mails from the admins if it's about administrative stuff and not advertising / pr for your website.
I'd love to get a mail for example when you decided to swich from "all free website" to the "free/premium" model to discuss about that.
And i think the idea of the "From" field in e-mails is that i know who wants to write me a e-mail and "U2" should be reserved to the management of U2, even mercury (the german distributor for the CDs) or propaganda don't use U2, from my point of view that's a clear abuse of the from field.
(What would you think if i'd create a account here with the Name "E|vis" ?)

and finally 3)
It's not about the money (i pay with a friend for a 5u server with 50 Gigs data/month about 100$/Month, another friend finances his site with about 10.000 hits per day with a advert for his provider and i pay for our mailserver and our domains)

So again, it's not about the 10 bucks/year, I was really upset yesturday when i tried to find a old article of myself to qote it and the search engine didn't work anymore.
Charge for the stuff that makes traffic (think about charging for the graphic stuff like the thumbs or the smileys) but making nagware out of the forum might have the effect, that i swich to the official U2 forum http://forum.interference.com/showth...threadid=67107 [/B][/QUOTE]http://zootopia.u2.com/ it's not the icons, the url or the fancy forum engine which makes a forum worthwile reading - it's the members.

Klaus

p.s. I'm also missing the transperancy in your pay modell. i didn't find any statistics about the income (no. of premium members...) and the expenses (domain 25$/Year, Servertraffic and so on. Then a few months later i see that Elvis has the money to sponsor the entrence fee for a atu2/ hardrock cafe event for its members..
..well i guess that would fill another thread

I'm sure you are all nice guys who run this site, but just try to imagine how this looks like when s.o. like me dosn't know anyone of you personally.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 01:12 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 8,800
Local Time: 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryMullen's_POPAngel


Falling Star, people are entitled to their opinions.
Sure, I know that. That's why I did .
__________________
FallingStar is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 02:50 PM   #8
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Charge for the stuff that makes traffic
actually, stuff like searching does take up quite a bit of bandwidth. when someone searches for something, the server has to go through all of the posts (ever, or in a particular forum, depending on how you set the search) to find the post you were looking for. that can be pretty expensive if you have 2,000 people looking for something.

i would think having the premium one look like how it does now and the free one be kind of bare bones like you suggested would be a good idea, but would be very time consuming. i don't know a thing as to how to create a vbulletin forum, but i can only imagine it means at least creating new templates for each setting, and then adding people into either one.

and as for elvis fronting money for the enterance fee, i can only guess it's because it was something he felt like doing. i would imagine that came out of his pocket, because he wanted to do it. i can completely understand why he wouldn't want to keep paying the thousands a year it costs to run interference completely out of pocket.

as for the w3c thing, i can only go with what other administrators of other forums have told me, as i obviously have no experience in running and paying for a forum. the only thing i can guess is that older computers and older browsers may not work as well with interference. i can only imagine what it would look like with ie 2.0. i've browsed the forums on a mac, and i didn't notice anything that looked odd. i've also browsed it on a new pc with the latest software, and on a pc that's a bit older (running win98) with not so up-to-date software.

i'm not attacking you or anything, sorry if i come off as rude or anything.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 02:59 PM   #9
arw
Blue Crack Addict
 
arw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: walking around 10,000 lakes
Posts: 27,320
Local Time: 04:18 PM
I was pleasantly surprised to see that the premium membership was only $12.00 a year. When I decided to explore that option I thought it would be a lot more than it is.
__________________
arw is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 03:57 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:18 PM
What browser do you use? Are you running this on a PC / Mac / Unix / Linux?

Most web creation software is tailored for Internet Explorer, which is known to be forgiving for sloppy coding, so the software doesn't care if it isn't strict HTML 4 / W3C compliant. On web sites I test, I test on IE and Netscape 7.0, as Netscape is HTML 4 compliant. I'll probably add Mozilla 1.3 and Opera 7.0 in the rounds of testing for the future on my own projects....

...but I digress. I have checked this page on Netscape 7.0 and I get no problems. Perhaps it is up to your admin to update some of the software?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 04:05 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Actually, the "validator" is being too picky. Some of the tags it didn't like are necessary for different browsers. W3C might not like it, but big deal: it won't mess up your viewing experience. The rest generally have to deal with syntax with the U2 items ad and the PayPal / Amazon donate buttons, but those are the URLs that PayPal / Amazon have created: they shouldn't be messing up your browsing experience either.

In other words, I think that if your browser is too old, it isn't recognizing HTML 4 correctly. This site is using HTML 4.01 transitional. Again, your admin would have to update the software.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 05:38 PM   #12
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:18 PM
KhanadaRhodes:
Searching takes some cpu cycles.. but bandwith? You only send a small html-form to the server and get back a regular page. (And cpu shouldn't be a issue on servers you can buy today when you only run a forum.)
I never worked with that software, it would be easy with some solutions (Notes for example, where you store the content and the view in different parts, but it might be impossible with other sollutions, which are less flexible coded.
Browser -> comment to melon

arw9797: as i said before, it's not the 12 $, it's more a principle

melon:
Different browsers on different operatingsystems (different 32 bit Windows, different Linuxes, HPUX, AIX, OS/2, MacOS), IE (Windows/Mac/Solaris) worked ok (i guess that's the tested browser) Browsers with the Gecko engine (Mozilla, Netscape 7, Phoenix, ...) no problem either.
xlinks/pmlinks worked to - all other browsers were problematic (most famous Netscape 2.x 3.x 4.x)

Since i have different environments dependend on where i am (University, Work, Home) i can't allways choose the browser and Operatingsystem i'd like to use

the w3c standard is a brilliant idea, (almost=) every browser can display w3c validated pages.
There validator isn't too picky - "HTML 4.01 transitional is allready the "soft" version of 4.01 strict. if the webpage can't pass the test it isn't html 4.01 .

In some companies most of the modern browsers are forbidden because of security problems - lots of them stil use Netscape 4.6x (Banks for example). In one bank it's policy just to use software which wokred 1 year without bugs in a testing environment (i guess that's why they don't install windows there *gg*)

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 06:04 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Unfortunately, why should there continue to be support for obsolete browsers? Netscape 2.x, 3.x, 4.x are not W3C or HTML 4 compliant. In fact, these versions of Netscape have their own proprietary tags, and, considering this site does not have these proprietary tags in the source code, it is likely why you are having problems. Netscape 6 is the first "strict" Netscape browser. In fact, Netscape was where IE got the bright idea to make up its own tags to begin with.

Also, with these companies, that is terribly flawed logic. Using older browsers does not make them "more secure." In fact, they are riddled with security holes that are not being patched, because they are likely no longer being supported "support-wise." Often, these new programs merely inherit the security holes from the previous versions.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 06:27 PM   #14
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:18 PM
melon:

i agree with you that netscape 2-4 don't care much about standards - and html 4.x pages won't be shown with "full beauty". On the other hand it's not important that they have some tags which aren't used anymore..
Html 4.01 was designed to be viewable on old browsers (old browsers should simply ignore tags where they don't know how to display) I just tried an old Netscape build it just has problems with the navigation inside a thread (dosn't work) and with posting.. i'd have to take a closer look if this is netscapes fault or the fault of this webpage.
pmlinks (fully w3c html 4.x compatible) f**s up lots of images (mostly adds) so it wasn't runing perfect as i thought, but nothing important was missing.
Other Browsers (lynx, some unix browsers (kde built in) which claim to be html 4.x comp. failed to present the page..
it just rendered a blank screen.

Klaus

p.s. yes... it was a bad idea to present netscape as an example ;-)
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 06:34 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:18 PM
You should probably check if those browsers are DHTML / CSS-compatible. Something tells me this site is using style sheets.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com