The case against an edit button

[O.T.B.C 0]

Not too bothered about an edit button to be honest. I think it''s fine as it is.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="cityangel"]

[quote user="Alan_Grey"]Why is he "at last" talking sense? Would you like to point out any particular nonsense?[/quote]

 

Haven''t a few people in various threads suggested that it would cost a fortune to update this site and that we have to put up with it being a bit outdated without modern facilities like an edit button for example because its free?

[/quote]Oh for God''s sake.Do you think Pete and the rest of the web team work for nothing?Do you think that Archant would just install an upgraded version withouta) trialling the new version in a test environmentb) installing the new version in the production environmentc) migrating user accounts, passwords and old posts to the new versiond) decommissioning the old version?Even assuming all the software is free, people''s time costs money.  Archant will have a queue of projects on the go, and in priority terms this one will be low because the message board makes Archant very little money indeed.I''m afraid that selectively picking a user whose quotes you happen to agree with is not "talking sense", it''s actually talking bollocks.  Nobody said it would "cost a fortune".  Andy suggests that because he works in the web business, he knows Archant make money from this message board.  That''s simply not true, or sustainable as an argument.For the last time:Archant will upgrade the software when it is in their commercial interests to do so... and that may be never.

[Alan_Grey 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

[quote user="Alan_Grey"]Why is he "at last" talking sense? Would you like to point out any particular nonsense?[/quote]

 

Haven''t a few people in various threads suggested that it would cost a fortune to update this site and that we have to put up with it being a bit outdated without modern facilities like an edit button for example because its free?

[/quote]I personally haven''t seen anybody claim that it would cost a fortune, though I haven''t necessarily read every post on the subject.All I''ve been debating on is the issue of whether a change in forum software would be "free", as one poster claimed. Patently, it isn''t.Changing from this forum software to some other forum software would be, internal to Archant, a project. And that project would need to be planned, costed and have a business case. Any project costs money, because it takes time, whether or not it is performed by currently employed staff isn''t relevant. I have never claimed that the costs would be high, just that they are non-trivial. With that in mind, you need a rather more robust business case than "we need an edit button". It needs to be more like "if we don''t get an edit button, all our users will disappear and so will our revenue". And I don''t think that''s the case.I''m sure an update will come, I can think of other reasons to switch to a more mainstream forum suite, but it won''t be for the edit button reason.I suppose what I''m really trying to say is, we''re not stuck with this forum because the license is free... but because the cost of changing is too high. But as a caveat, "too high" doesn''t imply "absolutely high", just that the business reasons for changing aren''t robust.

[Alan_Grey 0]

Mister Chops, I like you, but you''re going to have to stop typing the same replies as me at the same time but using different words.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="AndyCanary"]Lmao there is a lot of d!ck waving going on here.I am qualified to say for 3 reasons:1) As Jas pointed out I work in the software and licensing industry. I have done for many years across many platforms. So I know how it works, and why it could work.2) I have also been involved in migrating forums across with a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher user rate than this forum. It cost nothing except the time to migrate the SQL database across. 3) I also own my own hosting company. To which I''ve helped loads of people set up forums all which were absolutely free. At least 10 of them have higher user rates than this forum.So all the mainframe b0ll0cks you talk of is just hot air coming from your mouth.As for the income the forum generates you''d have to be utterly daft to think that this forum is here for the good of Archants hearts. Yes they probably won''t make a forture from the Google Ads but I''m sure they make enough to make it worth while.And of course the obvious factor that Archant sell advertising space on their main web site. Advertising is a traffic/circulation driven industry. How many people go onto the Pinkun web site and go straight here to the forum? or how many (like me) have the forum saved as a favourite. Regardless every time you load the Pinkun it''s another hit for the web site and helps them justify their advertising costs to advertisers.If you think that text on a page uses a lot of bandwidth you''d be daft. Running a forum is cheap on resoruces and there is NO reason why Archant couldn''t upgrade their forum for little or no cost and see an improvement all around.[/quote]

Daft? Really? To my knowledge, none of the text/threads is/are ever archived, so text certainly does account for a lot of bandwidth where this site is concerned.The problems this site often gets also suggests the database might be too large for the size recommended by the hosting provider?Then there''s the question of how many other sites this message board shares the server with - quite a few I would imagine and that makes a huge difference regarding usage of space.If the powers that be are reluctant to buy a dedicated server, I''d suggest a cull of the numerous old threads that are currently not being archived - especially the reams of pure crap in the ''It''s Not Just Football'' forum that are running into nigh on a thousand pages [:@]

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="AndyCanary"]Lmao there is a lot of d!ck waving going on here.I am qualified to say for 3 reasons:1) As Jas pointed out I work in the software and licensing industry. I have done for many years across many platforms. So I know how it works, and why it could work.[/quote]Do you often let Jas wave your dick for you?

[AndyCanary 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="AndyCanary"]Lmao there is a lot of d!ck waving going on here.I am qualified to say for 3 reasons:1) As Jas pointed out I work in the software and licensing industry. I have done for many years across many platforms. So I know how it works, and why it could work.2) I have also been involved in migrating forums across with a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher user rate than this forum. It cost nothing except the time to migrate the SQL database across. 3) I also own my own hosting company. To which I''ve helped loads of people set up forums all which were absolutely free. At least 10 of them have higher user rates than this forum.So all the mainframe b0ll0cks you talk of is just hot air coming from your mouth.As for the income the forum generates you''d have to be utterly daft to think that this forum is here for the good of Archants hearts. Yes they probably won''t make a forture from the Google Ads but I''m sure they make enough to make it worth while.And of course the obvious factor that Archant sell advertising space on their main web site. Advertising is a traffic/circulation driven industry. How many people go onto the Pinkun web site and go straight here to the forum? or how many (like me) have the forum saved as a favourite. Regardless every time you load the Pinkun it''s another hit for the web site and helps them justify their advertising costs to advertisers.If you think that text on a page uses a lot of bandwidth you''d be daft. Running a forum is cheap on resoruces and there is NO reason why Archant couldn''t upgrade their forum for little or no cost and see an improvement all around.[/quote]

Daft? Really? To my knowledge, none of the text/threads is/are ever archived, so text certainly does account for a lot of bandwidth where this site is concerned.The problems this site often gets also suggests the database might be too large for the size recommended by the hosting provider?Then there''s the question of how many other sites this message board shares the server with - quite a few I would imagine and that makes a huge difference regarding usage of space.If the powers that be are reluctant to buy a dedicated server, I''d suggest a cull of the numerous old threads that are currently not being archived - especially the reams of pure crap in the ''It''s Not Just Football'' forum that are running into nigh on a thousand pages [:@][/quote]

I think you''ve missed the point. The point is about comparing the current forum to a new one. Quite how that changes the amount of memory used by the forum I don''t know. You could have a million kazzilion threads all unarchived but they''d not use a single mb of bandwidth until someone logs onto the forum.And Bandwidth and memory are two different things. But then of course you knew that...

[Yellow Rose of Texas 0]

Yes, it matters...

[BroadstairsR 0]

Everybody strives for the best and so should the perveyors of Pinkun.co.. I contribute to a lot of forums, although no other concerned with football.

This is the only one devoid of an edit facility, which I have found irritating and off-putting.

Being prone to "typos," I have often felt that little mistakes in this have undermined my contribution.

I also usually need to add something after my initial brainwave.

This is nothing to do with cost, time or implementation but more that this, otherwise highly admirable site,  is quite simply behind most others in this respect. This laxity probably deters usage.

It is a bit antiquated really, which is inappropriate considering the enormous amount of users. Threads run into thousands. "Tractorboys" is excellent in its'' structure, yet gets a fraction of the attention that this site gets.

No edit button. Come on!

[ron obvious 1,501]

I wonder if Pink''un have considered using Disqus? It works very well on the Indy site. They''re very coy about cost though - the base version is apparently free, but they don''t say how much the VIP option is, & they don''t say how big your organisation can be before you''re obliged to use it.