WARNING Private photos are NOT really private!

16 Dec 2005

Burtman :therethere:
Now stick your pics back on and give us some perves something to look at wink

16 Dec 2005

Is it us but there seems to be a lack of MODS, usually they would have at least have commented on this situation by now?

16 Dec 2005

Is it us but there seems to be a lack of MODS, usually they would have at least have commented on this situation by now?

17 Dec 2005

This site is going to die sad

Messsss is everywhere. They loosing control.
xxxx
P

17 Dec 2005

Cock shots in avatars is against the aup, and yes we missed that out of the mod tools, should be fixed on or before Monday.
We were also slow in getting the mod tools in place and working properly, we are working on it.
And the private galleries was something I only found out tonight, it will be sorted out and someone will get a smackbottom

17 Dec 2005

Quote by st3v3
the private galleries was something I only found out tonight, it will be sorted out and someone will get a

I hope you'll take this as a constructive suggestion for the future instead of a personal attack, but frankly, I'm flabbergasted by the lack of beta testing here.
The community here really wants SH to work, I'm sure if you asked for a team of literate, experienced beta testers willing to put thousands of man hours into testing the changes before they went live, we could have provided you with that quickly, efficiently and free of charge. You would have been saved all this panic patching up a live system, the arduous task of picking real bug reports out of the groundswill of ill-feeling, and the financial loss caused by people leaving because they find the bugs unacceptable.
Maybe this is a suggestion you could pass up the management chain?

17 Dec 2005

Quote by Shaz_n_Tony
Burtman guess what it's on the to do list - I put one as private and its had about 5x as many views as the normal ones
Steph

Funny thing here...
On the pictures of me there has been over 200 views on most of them but on the picture with just Tony on it has only been viewed 2 times and now i keep winding him up about it :lol: :lol:
Awwww poor fella, well one of them was my view :lol: as I thought I reconised him :shock: (In a nice way... before you get all paranoid ;-)) you reminded me of a couple i've seen a couple of times at a lush love event and as women tend to chance looks and styles and clothes and makeup... men tend to remain fairly consistant looking all the time, especially facially... unless they are TV's in which case I tend to end up seriously confused when i'm talking on the phone as I never know which persona i'm talking to!
My ex swing partner and I used to see the same thing on other sites however.... Also the ruder the thumbnail hinted at, the more clicks it used to get and I see it all the time with my galleries... oddly enough if a shot hints at genitals (male or femail) it gets more hits so if you assume the majority of internet users are male theres an awfull lot of blokes looking for any kind of sexual organ be it male or female.

17 Dec 2005

Quote by Bloke2005
BIG group hug

anytime... just you have to get you and your fella down to derby wink

:P

17 Dec 2005

Quote by Mister_Discreet
the private galleries was something I only found out tonight, it will be sorted out and someone will get a

I hope you'll take this as a constructive suggestion for the future instead of a personal attack, but frankly, I'm flabbergasted by the lack of beta testing here.
The community here really wants SH to work, I'm sure if you asked for a team of literate, experienced beta testers willing to put thousands of man hours into testing the changes before they went live, we could have provided you with that quickly, efficiently and free of charge. You would have been saved all this panic patching up a live system, the arduous task of picking real bug reports out of the groundswill of ill-feeling, and the financial loss caused by people leaving because they find the bugs unacceptable.
Maybe this is a suggestion you could pass up the management chain?
Like most things... its a question of cost....
Admittedly a new beta site name would have cost next to nothing... but i'm guessing they host the websites themselves on a commited server... so say 1-4K cost... and add onto that the staff that might be working on the site, so better to go live with the minimal of testing and let the users load test than have a beta site thats in development for 1 to 2 man years, as the prior visably costs say 25 to 90K and the latter 80 to 270K with no apparent return on investment.
I used to work in IT and the management ethos was... if it was rolled out it was paying its way (even with in-house) if it was still in development and testing then it was an expense...
The reality was that both equate to about the same cost over time... but one starts to see a ROI much earlier.