Recent resubmissions by admin

Case number:671076-984974
Opened by:xiando
Opened on:Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 17:59
Last modified:Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 18:19

Recently, you have been resubmitting, presumably moving, issues from the old forums to feedback tracker. I understand the purpose of moving the content from the old system to the new.

However, you're posting them as though they were actually new suggestions, bugs, etc. , often making commentary to that effect (and what seems to be often inaccurately: see as an example ) and it is making it quite difficult to see which are actually new content and which are old (much of the time "old" being a synonym for "already' been handled one way or another")

The problem with your method is that it unnecessarily clutters and disorganizes the feedback tracker content with much material that has been addressed, dismissed, or superceded. It would be much better to post them back dated, without the admin's "set" comment (as that really has little purpose or qualifying information externally aside from changing date information on  the posts) so that a player can sort by date and ignore out-of-date content such as much of what you've  *chosen* to submit from the body of old posts.

If feedback tracker is, on the other hand, meant as an internal, rather than extenal database, then I'm not sure why we're even seeing this stuff, aside from blank windows in which to place suggestions and bug reports. after all, it's rare that the questions are even addresed "noted" in time to matter to their respective submitters

But if it's meant to be addressable externally, then this method is messy at best, and misleading at worst.

I am interested in understanding (officially) the project's purpose in doing this work in that  disorganized manner, as on the surface it leads to only one conclusion, another purposeful obfuscation.

and that requires a response from appropriate autorities, rather than gateway support personel.

(Thu, 02/12/2009 - 17:59  |  1 comment)

admin's picture
User offline. Last seen 40 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/10/2007
Groups: vi users
Topic: Biochem » Server
Status: Open » Closed
Type: Suggestion » Question

"another purposeful obfuscation."

I take great exception to this. We do not have any purposeful obfuscations.

On that topic, who are the gateway support personnel you are referring to? We don't have support personnel, let alone gateway support personnel.

This whole issue is spurious and as such I'm closing it. Those who open feedback tracker entries will receive email when the matter is updated or resolved; others can still see the work, but it is of no importance that the issues be available to them in any sort of order. There are already quite a few ways to see the issues with any filters and sorting users might wish and a change to the default view would decrease its usefulness.


Developed by: UW Center for Game Science, UW Institute for Protein Design, Northeastern University, Vanderbilt University Meiler Lab, UC Davis
Supported by: DARPA, NSF, NIH, HHMI, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Boehringer Ingelheim, RosettaCommons