Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SI Beta Site Launch - 7/01/99 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BryanB who wrote (1302)	8/4/1999 7:06:00 AM
From: kaydee	Respond to of 2340

<<<We are exploring an option that would essentially allow members to mimic the old SI user interface within the StockTalk area via a customization option. I might even be willing to call it the Classic SI StockTalk option. :) The underlying technology and functionality would all be working from the new SI platform, but we'd apply a different "wrapper" that looks and feels like the old SI. If we can pull this off correctly, the best part will be that when we add new features (like view 10 messages or ignore), they'll automatically appear in both variations - the Turbo SI and the Classic SI. (If I'm giving you "Classic", then you gotta let me have "Turbo" - <vbg>.)>>> Bryan, Thank you, an excellent idea. There is nothing to beat the classic SI navigation, simplicity, layout, font, color etc... <<<As I mentioned above - no promises yet, but we're working on it. In fact, I almost didn't write this post, but then I thought about all the PM's I'd get at the office in the morning, asking why I didn't address this issue. :) So, I decided to at least tell you this much >>> yes, this was THE issue, I (we) was waiting to hear from you... I will buy some GNET shares today <ggg> Thanks, DB

To: BryanB who wrote (1302)	8/4/1999 12:33:00 PM
From: Piotr Koziol	Respond to of 2340

BryanB, could you just keep the old SI site available WITHOUT changing anything? This way WITH TIME people will be making trade-offs whether or not THEY want to migrate to the new SI. I personally will stay with the OLD SI forever just because of it being supported by BrowseMaster. I'm perfectly happy with what the old SI offers otherwise... and don't see what could tempt me to give up the BrowseMaster. Thanks for considering to keep the OLD SI, /Piotr

To: BryanB who wrote (1302)	8/4/1999 1:55:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2340

BryanB, thank you for opening a dialog on this item. It is good to see these issues being addressed. I think that a "Real SI Simulator" operating inside the New SI would meet most people's needs. But it would be VERY important that it look and feel IDENTICAL to the Old SI - for paying members or grandfathered folk (like meeee) who have the Turn Off Ads option. Obviously until this is addressed I and my fellow Petitioneers cannot relax our vigilance. But on all our behalf I am pleased that we can talk about it. As a token of mutual understanding - could the statement on the log-in page be rephrased? Right now it implies that the Old SI will be available indefinitely. Replace it with language that is up-front about the temporary status of techstocks.com - and a commitment that the new SI will have a simple-to-use "Configure to Classic" feature. Thanks, Lather.Rinse.Repeat. Speaker for the Guardians of the Real SI

To: BryanB who wrote (1302)	8/4/1999 2:23:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2340

Bryan, thank you for offering a compromise on the new/old SI issue. Personally, I am still wuzzling over this one. But I would like to make a few preliminary comments. 1) You didn't mention what I would have expected to be your major reason for not wanting to keep up the old SI site, which is, that it does not accommodate advertising. I think it is a "reasonable" reason: you do need revenue, after all. But when I remember the uproar that was raised about the Datek banner (which I never even noticed), I wonder whether everyone will agree. I seem to recall that back at the beginning of the Beta Test, you wrote that paying members would have the option of turning off the advertising on the message boards (but not the rest of the site). Meanwhile, there is a rumor circulating that in the future, access to SI will be free (which would mean, of course, that there would be no category of "paying member" with "special privileges"). Could you please set the record straight on this one? 2) You did not address the special concerns of the BrowseMaster folks. I have never used BrowseMaster, so I cannot personally comment on assertions that (a) the BrowseMaster + Classic SI combination beats New SI hands down; and (b) the engineering team did not even try to integrate BrowseMaster with the New SI. But it seems to me that such assertions should not be ignored. 3) Once you do restore the "lost" features, and add improvements that I would like to see (extended search functions, for example), I personally will probably start using the New SI on a regular basis. But not before!!! :-) 4) This comment does not belong here, but I am putting it here because in another post, you speak of introducing an "improvement" to which I am absolutely, unequivocally opposed, so much so that I would drop my SI membership immediately if it were introduced. That is a feature -- which some SI members have actually proposed (it takes all kinds, I guess) -- that would rate threads, posts, and people in order of popularity. Well, the first is not necessary. The number of posts to a thread is the surest indicator of its "popularity." (And the best threads are not necessarily the most popular.) The second I don't like either, for a variety of reasons, although I would like to be able to rate the importance of posts in a thread for myself, according to my own standards, using a checkbox such as I already have in my Eudora e-mail system. The last one -- rating people -- is an outrageous idea, IMO. I did not join SI to enter into a popularity contest! Okay, you already have your list of 100 or 150 most bookmarked posters. You publish that list periodically on the Welcome thread, where folks who are interested in that sort of thing can go view it. But don't thrust it in the faces of those who don't give a damn about it (and which will probably only make them feel "inferior"). I have a confession to make: I was briefly addicted to playing online Hearts. The addiction (fortunately) lasted only about a month. I was cured of it, very rapidly, when the site started rating all the players, according to the number of games they won/lost. Even though I am a very good player (try me!), that spoiled all the fun for me, by introducing a thoroughly unwelcome competitive note. So I quit. I see an analogous situation developing here, if we have viewable popularity ratings. End of rant. jbe

To: BryanB who wrote (1302)	8/4/1999 2:50:00 PM
From: appro	Respond to of 2340

Excellent. You are highly rated. ; )

To: BryanB who wrote (1302)	8/6/1999 7:37:00 PM
From: WWS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2340

Bryan, I only use the new interface when forced to do so (by someone turning off my access to the classic interface). I find the new version colorless and confusing. I'm old, I don't adapt to change easily. Please, please carry through with plans to reconstruct the classic interface, even if it is just a hologram! Bill, a long-time member and contributor.

To: BryanB who wrote (1302)	8/7/1999 9:52:00 AM
From: bucko	Respond to of 2340

Sounds great as long as you give us our "Clubhouse"

To: BryanB who wrote (1302)	8/9/1999 3:32:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2340

So, even if we kept the old SI alongside the new, it would never change, never evolve, never grow. And, I don't think anyone wants that. I, at least, would be perfectly happy with that. I am no Luddite, but OTOH, I deplore the need always to be changing things that work. There is NOTHING in the "old" SI that I need -- or even badly want -- but don't have. All the other stuff you have put into the Beta I can easily get elsewhere -- all I need is another open browser window. There is genius in the old SI's simplicity and fitness to its intended purpose. You do NOT need to turn it into bloatware. Sometimes, good enough really is. Don't forget, cancer is simply growth out of hand. You don't need to destroy the essential functional simplicity of SI. (Take the example of WordPerfect which took the best word processor in the world, 5.2 for DOS, and "improved" it to the point where it is essentially impossible any more just to type and print a simple document without vast numbers of unnecessary steps and options.) So count me as one vote who would happily use the present SI forever with no changes, no "improvements", no cancerous growth. Just all my friends around me here, until death do us part.

To: BryanB who wrote (1302)	8/9/1999 6:13:00 PM
From: mgland	Respond to of 2340

BRYAN, If we are given the option I would like to use old site. I find it more user friendly, like the larger type and the ease to manuver about. Thanks Mark

To: BryanB who wrote (1302)	8/11/1999 11:36:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2340

So let me start with, I guess, the bad news. In short, we will not keep the old SI site available forever. There are a number of reasons for this, but a couple of key ones. First, it doesn't make economic sense... That's what Coke said/thought when they brought out new Coke and abandoned old Coke. Which, as we all know, was a HUGE mistake. The market forced them to bring back Coke Classic. If Coke can maintain two Cokes, you can maintain two SIs <g>. It's a matter of what the market demands, isn't it?? BTW, I have avoided using the new site after my first foray there. But people keep posting me references to posts on the new site. Two things. First: Now that I have seen more of it, I am even more adamantly convinced that it is a HUGE mistake. It is harder to navigate, much more cluttered, and, I'm sorry to say it, UGLY. Classic SI has simplicity, has the genius of form following function, not form being dictated by, I don't know what, but it doesn't appear to be function. UGH. Second: I can't reply to those messages without signing into the new SI. This is a hassle. (Is it intentional to force people into the new SI?) I have to go back to the old SI, find the message, and reply to it there. I am not normally a consipracy theorist. But you guys seem to be working hard to turn me into one! <bg>