My input after keeping away for a number of days, then briefly popping on a few times in last two.....I naively/incorrectly wrote to someone last week that I doubted we'd notice any difference with the change!
Credits:-
1) Broken links (that I knew of) have gone.
2) A member of staff is available for feedback, is responding, and has both the patience of a saint and is between a rock and a hard place.
Debits:-
1) Architecture. It was flagged well over a decade ago that the home page format doesn't work. It still doesn't. Webcam commentary and ospreys have proved popular, but need one entry to link off........not a free for all of filling most recent entries every Spring-Autumn.
2) UAT - unless and until it is used, I can only keep repeating, rollouts/upgrades will be a mess. Implementers testing their own work doesn't work....there is a reason why UAT was introduced and taken up across the globe.
There are 3) onwards but they pale into complete irrelevance compared to 1) and 2) and time should be spent entirely on those before, let's be honest, messing about with 3) onwards commences.
Any other organisation would have 'backed out' the change. A lot quicker and easier......assuming the prep was done correctly prior to the rollout.
Not withstanding any 'improvements' that have happened since I last posted, I still believe this 'upgrade' should be backed out.
Totally with you there but we know it won't happen sadlyy. It must be costing more in trying to troubleshoot than it would have done to have had it properly tested before roll out, given that the stated aim was only to provide stability and better SPAM prevention. I cannot believe that no one saw that what they were giving us was totally different to what we had been using - exactly the same problem as 5 years ago. If they backed it off they could give more time to the architecture too and get it right for everyone.
All agreed. UAT should have been done, and that involves 'users' testing, not implementers testing what they themselves are doing.