Chesscom's new Game review, what the heck happened?

Thanks for reverting my account, for now - the tab back and forth feature is just so nice, and takes relatively little physical space - PLEASE consider keeping it in the final rollout!

upvote if you like the old one

downvote if you like the new one

It's a nice thing that some of us have been moved to the older version, but I fail to understand the underlying logic. You are ready to accept that we are right yet you cling to the new version as if it's untouchable? This is a very clear case of shifting the goalpost - instead of actually working on fixing the problems, providing the option to choose or listening to criticism and reverting the change, you pander to members who have voiced criticism, even though you funnily claim that the change is imminent for everyone.

Chess.com is a company full to the brim with UI designers who need to justify their existence by implementing garbage changes in the name of "improved user interface"

Doesn't matter how hated every change the website makes, some people gotta keep pumping out new crap so they don't get let go.

There's a whole product team that decides on changes and overall UX. It's not some devs just trying to keep busy.

Eh, doubt you even believe what you just wrote - Chess.com is equally willing to keep paying the salaries of developers who don’t write new code each year as those that can point to new code? Everything about this project screams busy work / resume padding - as exactly no one from the company has yet been able to delineate what this improves or what their quantitative feedback metrics are before final implementation.

I know there's a full team behind updates, projects, and changes. They also use tools to check metrics on how site features are being used, how changes impact usage, etc. I'm not aware of any company that releases details on those types of internal metrics either.

Are you aware of companies that speak to what a major change being rolled out to their paying users is intended to improve? Because that still hasn’t happened here that I’m aware of, unless you’d like to point to a particular post.

I mean, that's fair, probably not, but his and the developer's choices to respond in this thread as well. This thread is a good place to vent for those that hate the changes. If they actually wished to respond with anything productive like 1) what these changes are intended to improve or 2) in what way user feedback is being assessed...then great. But as of now, when they don't have anything substantive to say, there's really no more utility to their posts than those that are venting.

Not sure why you think this is a contradiction of my statement. By "full to the brim" I mean the whole department is worthless and should be significantly downsized. All they do is make the user experience worse.

Chess.com has been uselessly shuffling around its UI design for years. But it will never fix opening explorer so that it actually has all your games in it. (which is why it's hiding in features instead of being listed under learn, they know its broken garbage and has been for years) or any of the other glaringly large flaws in their site accessibility.

You're claiming the designers are making changes for busy work, with the implication they're just doing it to make their job prospects better.

Major changes have planning and informed reasons behind them, either through metrics, future updates, or feedback (from both members and internal stakeholders), etc. Developers and designers have plenty to do without making changes for no reason.

What were those reasons again, for this major change? Such a simple question the stooges have yet to answer.

Historically, major new feature releases here often get an article and other changes may make it to the monthly update articles. That doesn't usually include the whys behind the changes, though occasionally can.

The closest thing I'm aware of being posted, was the initial release announcement in Beta: https://www.chess.com/announcements/view/game-review-gets-a-brand-new-design

For those that are on the new design, it is different than what was released to the beta initially, based on member feedback, and has received other changes since wider release, also based on feedback.

That's not something I can speak to, but there certainly are reasons

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? This isn’t a new stealth bomber and you don’t work for the CIA. Earlier, some guy who claimed to also be a developer (not for Chess.com) in one of these threads encouraged posters with complaints to keep it specific / productive / etc.

There have been many specific / productive complaints in these two threads. Met with a bunch of obfuscating BS by two staff members who cannot answer the simplest of questions.

if you cannot speak to it, and that third rate developer that stopped by for a few posts cannot speak to it, then maybe someone who can should be directed to this thread.

I'm not staff and can only answer questions that I have direct knowledge of that I also know is something that can be released. I don't have information on all the reasons that certain changes happen but do know it's not just random work because a designer/developer decided that's what they wanted to do.

I imagine it's also unlikely, in most cases, that any staff is going to release internal metrics or upcoming projects that can be involved in changes.

Right, cannot release too much, wouldn’t want Mozilla to steal the brilliant and ground-breaking web dev idea of:

having a different mechanism to switch from a tab on the left to a tab on the right (ie review —> analysis)

vs switching from a tab on the right to a tab on the left

thats brilliant stuff, gotta play it close to the vest

there’s a reason, I’m learning, that these developers work for Chess.com changing the font size of game review and the colors of pieces, rather than working for Apple / Microsoft / etc

Yeah, they like Chess a lot.

I don't think most reasons in not giving full explanations for changes/updates are competitive advantage related.