91Èȱ¬ iD on blogs update
Post categories: 91Èȱ¬ iD
| 16:32 UK time, Thursday, 5 November 2009
Tom (whose team are leading the upgrading of 91Èȱ¬ blogs to 91Èȱ¬ iD) tells me there are no less than seven different systems involved. So it's not suprising that we've had one or two problems as some of you have commented.
However, broadly speaking we're happy. The vast majority of you have successfully switched over to 91Èȱ¬ iD and are using it to post comments on 91Èȱ¬ blogs.
And just to answer the Phazer, the bugs you identify are not in fact problems with the 91Èȱ¬ iD system itself. They're being worked on but they won't hold up the roll out of 91Èȱ¬ iD.
We've also increased our support for dealing with your membership queries. So if you're reading this but are still having problems logging in, email us at membership@bbc.co.uk. And don't forget the help pages for 91Èȱ¬ iD as you may find the answer you're looking for there.
Regular readers know that on the Internet blog we love charts and diagrams. The chart below shows new users registering for a 91Èȱ¬ iD over last weekend.
There's a spike that coincides with Strictly Come Dancing being on air and people going to the website to join in via Strictly Social, the online application.
The second chart shows the numbers of people logging into 91Èȱ¬ iD. It follows the pattern of the first chart but there's also a rise on Monday that's proportionally larger than the registration pattern in the first chart. This is following the switchover of the 91Èȱ¬'s blogs from the old membership service to 91Èȱ¬ iD that happened early on Monday morning as users wanting to comment upgraded their accounts.
Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive , 91Èȱ¬ Online
Comment number 1.
At 5th Nov 2009, Fred Hart wrote:I take it you mean "upgrading" and not "upgarding"!?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 5th Nov 2009, Briantist wrote:My maths teacher used to fail anyone who did a graph without both scales.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 5th Nov 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:Typo now corrected Fred. Apologies.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 5th Nov 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:Nick, not directly related to the iD log-in system but is there any progress with/possibility of user-side message filtering, it would be real handy to be able to filter out those more intent on making noise rather than a serious discussion at times.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 6th Nov 2009, The Phazer wrote:"And just to answer the Phazer, the bugs you identify are not in fact problems with the 91Èȱ¬ iD system itself."
I'm sorry, but they rather are, by definition - if you implement a new ID system that doesn't work with the existing software, most people would say it's the new system at fault, not that the existing software wasn't somehow able to predict shoddy future coding in advance.
And I see no way in which the intermittent endless 91Èȱ¬ ID login cycle of death, given there are reports of it on the blogs and the message boards, can't be a 91Èȱ¬ ID bug(s).
"They're being worked on but they won't hold up the roll out of 91Èȱ¬ iD."
Again, that seems hard to believe when they have been, frankly, willfully ignored for eight to ten months when the 91Èȱ¬ are quite aware that DNA and the ID system don't work together properly and never have.
Phazer
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 6th Nov 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:#5. At 12:37pm on 06 Nov 2009, The_Phazer wrote:
"And just to answer the Phazer, the bugs you identify are not in fact problems with the 91Èȱ¬ iD system itself."
I'm sorry, but they rather are, by definition - if you implement a new ID system that doesn't work with the existing software, most people would say it's the new system at fault, not that the existing software wasn't somehow able to predict shoddy future coding in advance.
So if I load Adobe Photoshop on a computer running Dos5.1, when Photoshop fails it is the fault of Photoshop is it?.... Duh!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 7th Nov 2009, EggOnAStilt wrote:You are just being obtuse there Boiler, the 91Èȱ¬ are saying that this system will work across the board on existing, i.e. that it is backwards compatable, when I can also vouch that it is not working correctly as Phazer has pointed out.
Your analogy about photoshop is spurious. It wouldn't have loaded in the first instance let alone run.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 7th Nov 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:#7. At 2:20pm on 07 Nov 2009, Egg On A Stilt wrote:
"Your analogy about photoshop is spurious. It wouldn't have loaded in the first instance let alone run.
So the installation program is not, err, software?! Duh!...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 7th Nov 2009, EggOnAStilt wrote:Oh guess what, I've just had to go through the log in merry go round to post again.
You don't half bark up the wrong path boiler. Duh back at ya.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 7th Nov 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:#9. At 4:54pm on 07 Nov 2009, Egg On A Stilt wrote:
"You don't half bark up the wrong path boiler. Duh back at ya."
No that is you, software is software is software. Are you seriously suggesting that all new software has to be backwards compatible to the lowest common, talk about 'back to the future', never mind hello "Windows 7" it would be hello "Dos1.x.x", if not "Basic"...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 7th Nov 2009, EggOnAStilt wrote:They are saying it's backwards compatible to what they are using, your nonsense about photoshop is just not relevant.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 7th Nov 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:11. At 6:20pm on 07 Nov 2009, Egg On A Stilt wrote:
"They are saying it's backwards compatible to what they are using, your nonsense about photoshop is just not relevant."
So is Photoshop - if you update the older OS!...
But then bashing the the 91Èȱ¬ is easier than finding a clue obviously, how do you know that earlier software has not been (or is not in the process of being) patched to work with the new iD log-in software, I well remember having to patch Windows98 (first edition) [1] so that we could install Firewire cards, according to you and "The_Phazer" the fault wasn't missing code within Win98 but the new Firewire cards!. Sorry but it's you who doesn't seem to be able to get your head around the issues here, but why doesn't that surprise me. :-(
[1] corrected by MS in the Win98 second edition release.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 8th Nov 2009, EggOnAStilt wrote:"But then bashing the the 91Èȱ¬ is easier than finding a clue obviously"
We've been using the "new" log in system and boards over on the iPlayer site for months, it has never worked properly, we have made posts commenting on it since its inception.
We are still making posts commenting on it, in response to the board host's request asking for bugs to be reported.
Hardly 91Èȱ¬ bashing.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 8th Nov 2009, EggOnAStilt wrote:When I say months, it's closer to a year.
/dna/h2g2/brunel/F8035762?thread=6488365
/dna/h2g2/brunel/F8035762?thread=6553287
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 13th Nov 2009, Dave wrote:I like this new system, appears to be a big improvement on the old haphazard one.
Does this 91Èȱ¬ iD log in give us access to all the 91Èȱ¬ blog services, I have noticed "Have Your Say" requires a separate log in ?, will this be changed.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 13th Nov 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:15. At 11:55am on 13 Nov 2009, englads2fan wrote:
"Does this 91Èȱ¬ iD log in give us access to all the 91Èȱ¬ blog services, I have noticed "Have Your Say" requires a separate log in ?, will this be changed."
Oh, I do hope NOT...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 13th Nov 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:Have Your Say runs on a different system at the moment.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 1st Dec 2009, Rosie wrote:Why does the "Strictly" site refuse to accept my password when I upgraded correctly when this was first announced?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 1st Dec 2009, Rosie wrote:Another question please. When I posted message 18 it actually had my posting name on it.
Now it just says "you". Is there any reason for that please?
Thank you.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 1st Dec 2009, EggOnAStilt wrote:I see today's roll out of the new ID system across all the boards is going according to plan...........NOT. They have just posted on the Archers Bull board it is going to be suspended until Thursday.
/dna/mbarchers/F2693943?thread=7119800&skip=80&show=20
Message 96.
Now where did I see someone say it will all end in tears?
We did try telling you it was still bugged.
Anyway hope you get it sorted soon so we can get back to normal service.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 1st Dec 2009, Michael Alexander Kearsley wrote:Screenshots of how it would look would have been helpful I feel. Indeed would still be helpful to those seeking to make the transition.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 2nd Dec 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:Rosie IV - can you send your question about password to the Membership email address please (membership@bbc.co.uk.)
Egg on a Stilt - the delay has got nothing to do with bugs. It's to do with matters that I can't discuss at the moment.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 2nd Dec 2009, Spartacus wrote:Nick, re: "It's to do with matters that I can't discuss at the moment.", does this mean you've finally sacked the developers?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 2nd Dec 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:Peet - no.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 27th Mar 2010, U14390976 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)