Unnresolved and summarily dismissed issue

Case number:671076-984983
Opened by:xiando
Opened on:Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 19:16
Last modified:Friday, February 13, 2009 - 20:03

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 http://fold.it/portal/node/220489
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")

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been addressed, dismissed, or superceded.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date and ignore out-of-date content such as much of what you've 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.

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

Spurious issue


Project: Biochem » Server
Status: Open » Resolved
Assigned: Anonymous » admin
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.

the answer is, in part you.

As shown in this latest post...you summarily dismissed it

Address the point...why are you flooding the feedback tracker with issues that have been addressed, that have bene3n dismissed anor that have been superceded by subsequent developement of the program? as though they were new.

And you do obfuscate matters...routinely.

(Thu, 02/12/2009 - 19:16  |  1 comment)

admin's picture
User offline. Last seen 40 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/10/2007
Groups: vi users
Topic: Biochem » Server
Status: Open » Closed
Type: Suggestion » Question

I have already closed and addressed this yesterday. Please fill out the fields like "Project" and "Type" to your best knowledge in future; this for example is not a biochemistry-related suggestion but a server-related question.

As you have said, you understand the need for the old suggestions and questions to be merged into the feedback tracker. A few topics have also been moved that have been resolved. This is my oversight, and they were promptly closed when you posted to them. I typically only move one of every 10 or 15 old forum topics to the feedback tracker; the rest I have closed quietly.


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