We've upgraded! Important notices ...

[Robin Garr]

As you can see, we're on the new software upgrade. Enjoy! And thanks to the Forum Admin for his hard work that made it all possible.

A couple of very important notes:

1. Yes, it's slow this morning. Sorry. We're re-indexing the entire search engine, a task that takes hours and puts a serious load on the system. It'll be worth it when it's over, but please don't worry that the new forum is going to be S L O W. It will be okay.

2. For the same reason, SEARCH is currently disabled. We can't index the forum and search it at the same time. Search will return when the indexing is complete, which may be an hour or several.

3. You'll find some little bugs and issues. Most significantly, the new forum does not support HTML as the old one did, so links and images in the old posts may look like hell. Sadly, "My Life in Pictures" is a train wreck. Learn to use the new system of uploading photos as attachments - it's actually more flexible than the old - and all will be well.

Feel free to report bugs and ask for help. We'll try to provide help graciously. But please do be aware that this is a work in progress ... it's almost soup, but it's not soup yet ... and a kind, helpful attitude will get you more mileage with me than angry accusations and flaming. I'm just sayin' ...

[James Roscoe]

Ah, so that's why so many pictures are not showing up? I thought it was me. Why did you choose a platform that did not support HTML? Security? I am sorry about some of those pictures to be honest. Is there any way we can get them back?

Robin it felt like Christmas when I clicked on my favorite website just now. Great job! Congrats to the whole team. Just getting it to this stage had to be a lot of work. Many thanks!

I am sorry about some of those pictures to be honest. Is there any way we can get them back?

If people go in and edit their posts to re-load them, yes. I did that overnight to a couple of mine to see how things worked.

One thing I found that may be easier/better than attaching photos is to upload them to an image hosting site like Flickr or Photobucket (or your own website) and then use the IMG button to insert the URL of the photo when you post them. (Of course, this is a bandwidth issue as well and could cause some photos to load more slowly.) This eliminates the scroll bar that attaching them is causing on some of them. That's what I ultimately did to some of mine.

If I get time later, I'll put together a little tutorial in F&F about how to accomplish this.

[Robin Garr]

Ah, so that's why so many pictures are not showing up? I thought it was me. Why did you choose a platform that did not support HTML? Security? I am sorry about some of those pictures to be honest. Is there any way we can get them back?

Okay, I thought I answered this, but I must not know how to use the new software yet. Maybe I previewed but forgot to post?

Anyway, what Cynthia said is right. A little collateral damage, but it'll be fine going forward. Meanwhile, if you just see a line of code where a picture should be, you CAN copy the actual image link (just the part beginning with "http://" and NOT the stuff between angle brackets) and paste it into your browser's address line to see the original photo.

OK, I see we have registered user with names like google [bot], yahoo [bot]. I have no idea what a bot is, but think Robin should start enforcing his real name policy
Redwinger

[James Roscoe]

Ah, so that's why so many pictures are not showing up? I thought it was me. Why did you choose a platform that did not support HTML? Security? I am sorry about some of those pictures to be honest. Is there any way we can get them back?

Okay, I thought I answered this, but I must not know how to use the new software yet. Maybe I previewed but forgot to post?

Anyway, what Cynthia said is right. A little collateral damage, but it'll be fine going forward. Meanwhile, if you just see a line of code where a picture should be, you CAN copy the actual image link (just the part beginning with "http://" and NOT the stuff between angle brackets) and paste it into your browser's address line to see the original photo.

Do you think we read stuff that isn't directed at us? Geez, how niave! (or is it nieve? I still don't have a spelcheck on this thing!)

Real names such as "Redwinger", eh?

I suspect "google[bot]" and "yahoo[bot]" are there to allow their respective search engines to index WLDG pages. "Bot" is short for "robot" and means an automated program set up to perform a particular task on the Internet. The "spider" applications that collect indexing information for Google et. al. by visiting websites and following links are examples of bots.

BTW, Robin, lookin' good so far.

-Paul W.

Robin, in case some of us missed it, could you reiterate what improvements this new system represents over the old set-up?

[Robin Garr]

Robin, in case some of us missed it, could you reiterate what improvements this new system represents over the old set-up?

From the owner's standpoint, it's more robust and more secure. That's very important.

From the user's standpoint, it should be faster.

From everyone's standpoint, it has lots of new bells and whistles (but loses a few of the older ones). Whether these are bugs or features is very much in the eye of the beholder.

But basically, we've chosen to operate the forum on the phpBB software because it's open source and a quality product, robust and generally user-friendly. This is a generational upgrade, and we needed to do it.

I understand that some folks dislike change, while others embrace it. There is some change here, and we all need to address it in our own way. On balance, though, we think this will be better, or we wouldn't have done it. And really, the changes in user and functionality are relatively minor. Learn where the new buttons are, and if you could use the old forum, you can use the new one.

And, all together now ...

It's not Netscape!

Thank you Robin and ForumAdmin -- lots of effort, and recent and not so recent events prove that robustness is important for users as well as for management.

Well done.

Regards, Bob

A small low-priority request, but would it be possible to redirect the link on the Wine Lover's Page logo on the upper left of the screen? Right now it sends one to the WLDG forum index (index.php)--it would be more intuitive if it sent one to the WineLoversPage front (http://www.wineloverspage.com/).

Or is there another obvious link to the WineLoversPage front that I am missing?

yes, thanks. It's very nice.

I have a question, not of an urgent nature. I am using the prosilver skin.
I don't seem to see anywhere to click on "read new posts" - that was a very useful function on the old s/w and maybe I'm just not seeing it.
Did it go away?

[Robin Garr]

A small low-priority request, but would it be possible to redirect the link on the Wine Lover's Page logo on the upper left of the screen? Right now it sends one to the WLDG forum index (index.php)--it would be more intuitive if it sent one to the WineLoversPage front (http://www.wineloverspage.com/).

Or is there another obvious link to the WineLoversPage front that I am missing?

No, I'd like that, too. I'm still trying to figure out where to re-set it, but it is on my list.

[Robin Garr]

yes, thanks. It's very nice.

I have a question, not of an urgent nature. I am using the prosilver skin.
I don't seem to see anywhere to click on "read new posts" - that was a very useful function on the old s/w and maybe I'm just not seeing it.
Did it go away?

John, to be honest, I didn't notice that one personally because I rarely used it. I generally just click on the forums that show the icon (red circle in the new edition) for having new messages in them.

It's a useful tool, though. Does anybody see it? I wonder if it could possibly be just currently suppressed while Search is turned off.

So it looks now like threads with new posts don't rise to the top, as they did in the previous forum, but instead have the rolling text icon on the left. Is that correct? If so, I'm not so sure I like that personally, because if I miss a few days or more and reply to a thread three pages back, it won't be read unless someone happens back to that old page. Am I missing something? (Answer: probably.)

Also, I haven't had a chance to play with any of the new features. Any of you care to list your favorite? Very glad it's better from security standpoint, in any case. Thanks, as always, to all who've put in the work.

[Robin Garr]

So it looks now like threads with new posts don't rise to the top, as they did in the previous forum, but instead have the rolling text icon on the left. Is that correct?

Threads with new posts DO rise to the top. Just remember that the block of "announcements" at the very top are like the old "stickies." They stay on the peak of the mountain (but we won't over-use them, and won't leave them there long.

Among the regular posts, the newest should definitely be at the top. Take another look, and see if that isn't so.

Among the regular posts, the newest should definitely be at the top. Take another look, and see if that isn't so.

Yep, I see it now. Thanks!

Something we noticed during the testing phase was that links seem to always open in the same window, navigating you away from the Forum. To avoid this, RIGHT CLICK on links and choose "Open in a New Tab" (or Window if using really old versions of IE). It will become second nature to you in no time at all. I promise.

Ah, so that's why so many pictures are not showing up? I thought it was me. Why did you choose a platform that did not support HTML? Security? I am sorry about some of those pictures to be honest. Is there any way we can get them back?

Okay, I thought I answered this, but I must not know how to use the new software yet. Maybe I previewed but forgot to post?

Anyway, what Cynthia said is right. A little collateral damage, but it'll be fine going forward. Meanwhile, if you just see a line of code where a picture should be, you CAN copy the actual image link (just the part beginning with "http://" and NOT the stuff between angle brackets) and paste it into your browser's address line to see the original photo.

It is quite easy to get them back again, and now there are two options.

1. Load the picture as an attachment. This means that you have a link to click on to see the photo. Good for those (still) on dial-up.
2. Upload the image to a host somewhere, then click "Img" and paste the URL of your image. The image can only be a maximum of 580 pixels wide (and probably high as well) and be less than 500MB in size. Use an image editor to resize you pictures first.

Again, it is probably a good idea to keep the image size a lot less than 500mb for the dial-uppers.

Congrats on the upgrade... I think this is an excellent improvement. It will take time to understand the new features, etc., but Im sure it will be well worth it !!!!

Robin,

At least from here, response is MUCH faster than it used to be. Very nice.

-Paul W.

Ah, so that's why so many pictures are not showing up? I thought it was me. Why did you choose a platform that did not support HTML? Security? I am sorry about some of those pictures to be honest. Is there any way we can get them back?

Okay, I thought I answered this, but I must not know how to use the new software yet. Maybe I previewed but forgot to post?

Anyway, what Cynthia said is right. A little collateral damage, but it'll be fine going forward. Meanwhile, if you just see a line of code where a picture should be, you CAN copy the actual image link (just the part beginning with "http://" and NOT the stuff between angle brackets) and paste it into your browser's address line to see the original photo.

No line of code on my end, Robin. Just the word "image" where a pic used to be. Ah well, such is life. Otherwise, forum looks great !!

Celia

OK, everyone is talking about "new features". Perhaps we could go through them for those of us not computer savvy. Thanks