EwingKlipspringer wrote:
then you hire an army of dEvElOpers to make things worse on a constant and consistent basis instead of once and for all upgrading the servers
The site does upgrade, a lot
Game review changes are horrible
Sort:
Aug 16, 2024
0
#43
#51 do you know why chess.com isn’t going back to the old game review when the feedback is literally 100% negative?
Aug 16, 2024
0
#44
xtreme2020 wrote:
#51 do you know why chess.com isn’t going back to the old game review when the feedback is literally 100% negative?
It's not 100% negative. Some of the design change is related to additional features coming I believe.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#45
EwingKlipspringer wrote:
First move to balance some books is charge the freeloading Titled
Having titled players here draws other members to the site.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#46
EwingKlipspringer wrote:
if you don't pay, you don't play
if you don't pay, you don't comment
enough of the free model
...
That's never going to happen
Aug 16, 2024
0
#47
#55 ok, 99% negative. If they end up introducing all the features that worked as well as the old one it’ll end up ok, but then why did the spend that much time and resources making a new one, and give us a couple months with a terrible game review?
Aug 16, 2024
0
#48
@Martin: This design really does not make sense. How do two out of three tabs look and feel like tabs, and the third one ("Review") gets you to a completely different look-and-feel, which is a flip-screen (effectively for most users that is, even though the visual 'language' suggest a sequence) of two things that used to be accessible at once without switching, from neither of which the other two tabs are directly accessible. I hope this mere act of describing the UI shows how self-contradictory and unaccessible it is.
The community reaction is a direct result of this. Please listen to design principles, and the community, chess.com!
Aug 16, 2024
0
#49
xtreme2020 wrote:
#55 ok, 99% negative. If they end up introducing all the features that worked as well as the old one it’ll end up ok, but then why did the spend that much time and resources making a new one, and give us a couple months with a terrible game review?
If all you see are the topics here, it certainly can look like 99%. I don't see everything but don't think it's nearly so drastic.
Previous site changes have looked similar in the forums (v2 to v3, Game Report to Game Review, etc)
This all is one hint, one more example of why mankind is doomed.
Money makers do pay a staff that is supposed to produce improvements. In order not to lose their jobs, that staff will keep proposing changes, that are supposed to be improvements, even if it'll ruin a perfect thing. Then, the deciders also need to prove their usefulness so they'll keep their jobs, hence will approve every now and then, changes that are no improvements at all. Cos it'll hide their uselessness once the product is so good it barely needs any changes.
And all that population of employees and workers care not about what it does to us, it cares only about keeping their jobs and maybe get promoted.
And so, the people that should hear our complaints, because they are those who could do something about it, have our complaints never reach their ears, cos well, them staff, under various excuses, won't let these complaints reach the ears of them deciders...
Them deciders could try yo see if something's wrong somewhere, but won't do so as long the flow of income is satisfying enough.
It's a system that does not have for a priority our content nor our satisfaction. Or only so in case it's directly linked to the flow of income.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#51
#65 so because before people have stopped complaining about getting a terrible you just think it’s perfectly fine to give them one? Yes eventually people will stop complaining, but only when they’ve given up completely hope in getting a change back, doesn’t mean it’s good if people stop complaining after a few months.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#52
Also if you have no concrete poll except for the forums, then the forums are your only source and you have to accept the percentage in the forums as true.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#53
Even though chess.com has probably worked for a good amount of time on this, if it’s just straight up worse it’s not worth replacing the old one no matter how long you spent on it
Aug 16, 2024
0
#54
I’m sorry that all of our negative reviews have to go towards the mods as they probably had no part in deciding this, but the fact that you’re going to back it and the fact that you’re the only one we have to give our feedback to makes the mods our only chance to maybe get heard by someone at chess.com
Aug 16, 2024
0
#55
#75 I don’t really, he’s trying to support it, I’m just acknowledging that he wasn’t the one who decided to put in this new game review
He wonders.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#58
Kaeldorn wrote:
...
Money makers do pay a staff that is supposed to produce improvements. In order not to lose their jobs, that staff will keep proposing changes, that are supposed to be improvements, even if it'll ruin a perfect thing. Then, the deciders also need to prove their usefulness so they'll keep their jobs, hence will approve every now and then, changes that are no improvements at all. Cos it'll hide their uselessness once the product is so good it barely needs any changes.
And all that population of employees and workers care not about what it does to us, it cares only about keeping their jobs and maybe get promoted.
And so, the people that should hear our complaints, because they are those who could do something about it, have our complaints never reach their ears, cos well, them staff, under various excuses, won't let these complaints reach the ears of them deciders...
Them deciders could try yo see if something's wrong somewhere, but won't do so as long the flow of income is satisfying enough.
It's a system that does not have for a priority our content nor our satisfaction. Or only so in case it's directly linked to the flow of income.
It was discussed briefly on the last State of Chess.com broadcast by Danny. Upper level staff are certainly aware that not everyone like the changes but they are also aware a lot of other site level usage and feedback channels that are not publicly available.
Individual staff aren't making major changes that aren't also being approved by top level staff. @erik is also a user of the site and is very involved in site decisions and updates.
Well, it's only good if I was actually wrong. Not sure it changes anything tho. Somehow, somewhere, something is wrong in the inbuilt of it all, since bricks keep falling on our head like rain in September and fixes are very slow or never happen.
Aug 16, 2024
0
#60
EwingKlipspringer wrote:
Imagine defending something not cos it's actually any good or because you have an actual opinion but because you have to suck up. It's insincere and disingenuous and that's sad.
I don't have to do anything. When I dislike a change or design, I provide that feedback and have posted about such situations in the post. Not everyone is going to like all changes and the site has to decide how to handle feedback and how to move forward and they can't always satisfy everyone
then you have fifty mods with only one doing all the work
Mods are active in different ways and may focus on different parts of the site at different times. 60%+ mod activity is with things you may never see.