h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Effers is right, the 'Who's Online' not working properly started at the same time as the 'Eyes' started not working properly. Which makes sense given that they are the same feature.

The who's online feature is equivalent to phone hacking, and giving false hope to grieving grandmothers?

I'm going back to bed. Today's started a little bit too crazy for me.

Effers, if you discover a problem with h2g2, would you mind reporting it at Feedback / Technical. That way, the technical people will see it. Just click on Feedback in your left margin, then select Technical and start a conversation.

Ask h2g2 is not the place to report problems with h2g2.

I don't think the loose screw is in h2g2...

Effers, I am really disappointed by your expectation that people can answer your questions at two, three and four o'clock in the morning.

This bug, which has had a lot of the technical team's attention is one of those intractable bugs that is going to require us waiting for a complete rebuild, as far as I could understand the situation. I will wait for Pastey to explain it to me again if I am wrong about that. But I do know that this is not just something he can fix, because he has tried to do just that.


Also, anhaga repeatedly states that this is the result of the move, I want to say again, that this was happening when we were part of the BBC, and they didn't fix it either. This 'bug' has been happening for the best part of a year.

Again, I ask, why start this sort of a demand for action in the middle of the night for the volunteers to respond to? It just gives us all a very miserable set of things to wake up to. Was that your intention? I am sure it was not, and indeed fervently hope it was not. Otherwise this whole thread could be seen as an attempt to stir up ill-feeling.

Please try to see things from a reasonable attitude. As Gnomon says if you have a query about a technical matter report it to feedback/technical.


(and swl that last comment of yours is just puerile.)

Dead people are still being shown online because there's a bug in the software. The bug is hard to fix. The site is run by volunteers. The bug is nobody's fault. And how many people are actually inconvenienced by it?

Effers: your incessant indignant whining is starting to grate.

You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood your relationship with this site.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that you're a customer, with rights and expectations and all that. Newsflash - you are NOT a customer here.

http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-youre-the-product

If you have a problem with the way the site works, you can
(a) report the problem as completely as you can to the tech support forum, and hope they eventually out of the goodness of their hearts in their own time for no money fix it for you or
(b) go and play on Facebook and see how they react to people whining about how they don't like the new interface (hint: they ignore you).

I have absolutely zero support for the way this issue has been brought up and the demands being shouted at the volunteers running the site, but there is the germ of a real issue here.

Would it be a difficult thing to temporarily relable 'Who's online' to 'Recently viewed homepages'?

I am utterly appalled that this bug can be compared to the phone hacking scandal. UTTERLY APPALLED. Have you really so little perspective?

I don't know the answer to the relabelling suggestion LLWaz, but all I know is that the buttons on the Front Page, things down the side bar etc and the buttons on all the skins ( which include the Who's Online) are not just simple fixes.

I appreciate your positive suggestion though, and I will ask the question on your behalf, although please feel free to ask it yourself via Feedback/technical

(re post 26) Do you work for BT, Hoo? Just wondered.

I've read this discussion, and I agree with Effers that the eyes shouldn't be appearing for those not online, and in the case of our friends who have passed on, this can appear to be a little startling.

The annoying thing is that the feature still partly works. It's probably more likely that you're online if the eyes are there, so people are still using it to some degree.

A while ago I remember the BBC removing the eyes for a few weeks. I don't know whether this is an option in the circumstances? Either way, I'd like this bug to be fixed soon.

>> For christ sakes it's not about individuals here working for nothing for Not Panicking Limited....it's about the damned company's responsibility.

The BBC broke it; the BBC should have fixed it. Long live the BBC.

Re: Post 1


Effers please get your facts straight. As far as any of us know, nobody has ever committed suicide among our friends.

They have all died of natural causes, or due to illnesses they already had.

To say otherwise is most DISREPECTFUL!

Just done that Lanza.

"I am utterly appalled that this bug can be compared to the phone hacking scandal."

Well, one's a deliberate and concerted attempt to steal information by morally bankrupt journalists, and the other's a light coming on when it shouldn't.

I can see how the two things are easily confused.

This is an issue across social media: I remember after a friend killed himself facebook started recommending that I 'reconnect with him' as it saw we hadn't chatted recently.

So I (reluctantly) defriend him and facebook starts recommending him as a friend, since we had a lot a friends in common. I ended up having to block him and it was all pretty upsetting. So I accept it is an issue.

However, as others have said, it's a complex issue that could potentially take the volunteers a long time to fix. If the Beeb weren't able to fix it, our chances of doing so quickly look remote. Attacking the volunteers and lying isn't likely to fix things quickly. But then it's not really about the issue, it's about Effers and her demands for attention

I know this has been an issue for a while, but I could not remember how long a while, so I started to look.

They were obviously broken and then repaired in 2008: F124705?thread=5125468&post=59668726#p59668726

So a problem some time between early 2008 and early 2011.

I carried on looking and then I found this: F64235?thread=8075087&post=106890612#p106890612



At that point I gave up.

you know? I agree this is an issue, but is it worth having another circular argument about? Who said what, when, and why it can't be suddenly 'fixed' is the sort of negative cycle that really drags this place down.

We've heard it all before, and quite honestly, I don't want to sit here all morning hearing it all again. Please move on, there is nothing to see, it's all over.


Please take a look at the new Front Page and comment on the new stuff that is happening. Our authors and artists deserve a bit of recognition and praise. They are the heart of this website as much if not more so than the angst some like to bleed all over the threads.

And have you all seen this Just think of something better than fighting, please? The good stuff on this site far outweighs this thread.

Lanzababy

I am sorry, I quite like this site and it's quirkiness, but there is no way in hell that I am going to stroll the many threads where-in one more bit of a 2legs post comes to life! or

The gazillions of will over-run the place soon, eating it out of house and home!

Aaaiiiiyyyyyeeeee !!!





>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How many people around here can imagine Pheloxi's delight at some of the new smiley's? I don't think any of his friends mind seeing his 'lights' on, nor those of the Zen, ... A reminder that people are still knowing and remembering them