All right. Who broke the site?

[LaRascasse]

All right. Who broke the site today?

Pages render awkwardly. Email feedbacks fail. Multiple non-specific server error messages when going to different pages.

I can imagine Manu on his thirtieth cup of coffee, hunched over a server admin console somewhere, tearing his hair out.

Oh well... I guess I'll wait.

 

[SimonDoom]

"Broke" doesn't seem like the right word.

This Site is and always has been a Mom and Pop operation. Two people basically doing everything. I can't even imagine how that's possible.

I think the number of stories contributed has grown, which obviously taxes the resources.

They're making changes to the Site as well, and there are always glitches as changes get made.

I've been reading stories at this Site since . . . I don't even remember. 2005 or earlier. Maybe as early as 2000. I don't remember. I've been publishing stories and contributing to this forum since December 2016.

The Site is not worse than it used to be. It's better. There are more stories, and the functionality and features of the Site have improved, although there's still plenty of work to be done.

I'm not seeing the problems you cite to any greater degree now than I was four years ago. The one controversial change that's affected author experience is comment screening, which delays the receipt and delivery of comments but may be necessary because of spam problems (I don't claim to know enough about this problem to substitute my judgment for that of others).

 

[LaRascasse]

"Broke" doesn't seem like the right word.

This Site is and always has been a Mom and Pop operation. Two people basically doing everything. I can't even imagine how that's possible.

I think the number of stories contributed has grown, which obviously taxes the resources.

They're making changes to the Site as well, and there are always glitches as changes get made.

I've been reading stories at this Site since . . . I don't even remember. 2005 or earlier. Maybe as early as 2000. I don't remember. I've been publishing stories and contributing to this forum since December 2016.

The Site is not worse than it used to be. It's better. There are more stories, and the functionality and features of the Site have improved, although there's still plenty of work to be done.

I'm not seeing the problems you cite to any greater degree now than I was four years ago. The one controversial change that's affected author experience is comment screening, which delays the receipt and delivery of comments but may be necessary because of spam problems (I don't claim to know enough about this problem to substitute my judgment for that of others).

Oh no! I'm fairly happy with how the site usually operates. I'm referring to today specifically where there seems to be a server issue which is causing unexpected errors everywhere. It's not something unusual. Even the best and most popular sites have downtimes.

I expect we'll be back to BAU within a few hours.

 

[SimonDoom]

Oh no! I'm fairly happy with how the site usually operates. I'm referring to today specifically where there seems to be a server issue which is causing unexpected errors everywhere. It's not something unusual. Even the best and most popular sites have downtimes.

I expect we'll be back to BAU within a few hours.

OK! I misunderstood you. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[LaRascasse]

The site pages are loading better now. However, the email to editor function is still failing

 

[Emirus]

The one controversial change that's affected author experience is comment screening, which delays the receipt and delivery of comments but may be necessary because of spam problems (I don't claim to know enough about this problem to substitute my judgment for that of others).

I never had a problem with the spam. I just deleted it which wasn’t difficult. I occasionally, as I’m sure others do, receive spam private messages and I just delete them. It’s not a problem. I assume the delay was introduced because someone, or maybe more than one, complained. So Laurel/Manu gave themselves unnecessary extra work.

 

[NotWise]

I never had a problem with the spam. I just deleted it which wasn’t difficult. I occasionally, as I’m sure others do, receive spam private messages and I just delete them. It’s not a problem. I assume the delay was introduced because someone, or maybe more than one, complained. So Laurel/Manu gave themselves unnecessary extra work.

I think it's more likely because there's a half million stories on the site, and every one of them became a vehicle for spam. Not such a problem for those stories where the author was paying attention and taking care of it, but that's probably a minority fraction of the half million stories.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I never had a problem with the spam. I just deleted it which wasn’t difficult. I occasionally, as I’m sure others do, receive spam private messages and I just delete them. It’s not a problem. I assume the delay was introduced because someone, or maybe more than one, complained. So Laurel/Manu gave themselves unnecessary extra work.

The process was put in place because the website almost ground to a halt - it was inundated with spam. It was the equivalent of a deliberate malware attack which swamped the systems. It was a significant problem and had to be stopped by a systems approach, just as any other responsible site addresses spam. Deleting it wasn't enough, the site had to stop it getting in.

 

[RejectReality]

The process was put in place because the website almost ground to a halt - it was inundated with spam. It was the equivalent of a deliberate malware attack which swamped the systems. It was a significant problem and had to be stopped by a systems approach, just as any other responsible site addresses spam. Deleting it wasn't enough, the site had to stop it getting in.

Excessive spam comments can also cause Google to derank or even delist a page.

The comment queue is an absolute necessity on a number of fronts.