Forums

Game review changes are horrible

Sort:
pawnjarts

I deleted my last comment because I now see the problem. The DETAILS tab is missing this week, so I can't enter any info about the game or the players.

Khnemu_Nehep

Yup. They don't care. They'll stick with this intern made hellish review instead of listening to their PAYING customers. Chess.com is done.

Martin_Stahl
pawnjarts wrote:

I deleted my last comment because I now see the problem. The DETAILS tab is missing this week, so I can't enter any info about the game or the players.

Details section is on the main analysis page now. You can click the Edit option to add the same information that was on the previous tab

pawnjarts

Thanks @Martin_Stahl

Martin_Stahl
EwingKlipspringer wrote:

then you have fifty mods with only one doing all the work

Mods are active in different ways and may focus on different parts of the site at different times. 60%+ mod activity is with things you may never see.

Martin_Stahl
EwingKlipspringer wrote:

then you hire an army of dEvElOpers to make things worse on a constant and consistent basis instead of once and for all upgrading the servers

The site does upgrade, a lot

xtreme2020
#51 do you know why chess.com isn’t going back to the old game review when the feedback is literally 100% negative?
Martin_Stahl
xtreme2020 wrote:
#51 do you know why chess.com isn’t going back to the old game review when the feedback is literally 100% negative?

It's not 100% negative. Some of the design change is related to additional features coming I believe.

Martin_Stahl
EwingKlipspringer wrote:

First move to balance some books is charge the freeloading Titled

Having titled players here draws other members to the site.

Martin_Stahl
EwingKlipspringer wrote:

if you don't pay, you don't play

if you don't pay, you don't comment

enough of the free model

...

That's never going to happen

xtreme2020
#55 ok, 99% negative. If they end up introducing all the features that worked as well as the old one it’ll end up ok, but then why did the spend that much time and resources making a new one, and give us a couple months with a terrible game review?
robosapiens42

@Martin: This design really does not make sense. How do two out of three tabs look and feel like tabs, and the third one ("Review") gets you to a completely different look-and-feel, which is a flip-screen (effectively for most users that is, even though the visual 'language' suggest a sequence) of two things that used to be accessible at once without switching, from neither of which the other two tabs are directly accessible. I hope this mere act of describing the UI shows how self-contradictory and unaccessible it is.

The community reaction is a direct result of this. Please listen to design principles, and the community, chess.com!

Martin_Stahl
xtreme2020 wrote:
#55 ok, 99% negative. If they end up introducing all the features that worked as well as the old one it’ll end up ok, but then why did the spend that much time and resources making a new one, and give us a couple months with a terrible game review?

If all you see are the topics here, it certainly can look like 99%. I don't see everything but don't think it's nearly so drastic.

Previous site changes have looked similar in the forums (v2 to v3, Game Report to Game Review, etc)

Kaeldorn

This all is one hint, one more example of why mankind is doomed.

Money makers do pay a staff that is supposed to produce improvements. In order not to lose their jobs, that staff will keep proposing changes, that are supposed to be improvements, even if it'll ruin a perfect thing. Then, the deciders also need to prove their usefulness so they'll keep their jobs, hence will approve every now and then, changes that are no improvements at all. Cos it'll hide their uselessness once the product is so good it barely needs any changes.

And all that population of employees and workers care not about what it does to us, it cares only about keeping their jobs and maybe get promoted.

And so, the people that should hear our complaints, because they are those who could do something about it, have our complaints never reach their ears, cos well, them staff, under various excuses, won't let these complaints reach the ears of them deciders...

Them deciders could try yo see if something's wrong somewhere, but won't do so as long the flow of income is satisfying enough.

It's a system that does not have for a priority our content nor our satisfaction. Or only so in case it's directly linked to the flow of income.

xtreme2020
#65 so because before people have stopped complaining about getting a terrible you just think it’s perfectly fine to give them one? Yes eventually people will stop complaining, but only when they’ve given up completely hope in getting a change back, doesn’t mean it’s good if people stop complaining after a few months.
xtreme2020
Also if you have no concrete poll except for the forums, then the forums are your only source and you have to accept the percentage in the forums as true.
xtreme2020
Even though chess.com has probably worked for a good amount of time on this, if it’s just straight up worse it’s not worth replacing the old one no matter how long you spent on it
xtreme2020
I’m sorry that all of our negative reviews have to go towards the mods as they probably had no part in deciding this, but the fact that you’re going to back it and the fact that you’re the only one we have to give our feedback to makes the mods our only chance to maybe get heard by someone at chess.com
xtreme2020
#75 I don’t really, he’s trying to support it, I’m just acknowledging that he wasn’t the one who decided to put in this new game review
xtreme2020
I’m not going to be completely unfair by blaming it all on him