Sorry I missed this the first time around. I guess you posted this as I was composing.

But to address this one narrow issue, I don't think it's much of a surprise that people wouldn't have criticized the forum software given the fact that the issue was never specifically raised.

As I recall, the only question that even came close related to forum usage. People had to volunteer comments about the forum software and clearly that wasn't any more a priority for the people who composed the questionnaire than it seems to be for you or anyone else at WCG.

So can you really be surprised by the fact that it was never a 'common theme.' In other words, your argument is disingenuous at best and all of us would appreciate not being treated like children by being expected to buy such lame excuses.

Johnie-uk - thanks for that information and for your input.

Thank you, jhindo for forwarding that information. Just to re-confirm: my suspicion was right and I did receive a couple of notification emails right around 9PM local time (GMT+2) so by now I am sure that this is not the regular job that runs as soon as there is an update, but rather a scheduled run. Hope we'll get the real fix soon.

Cheers!

@ widdershins

A thoughtful post which makes a number of pertininent points.

No one has ever suggested building a successful, vibrant community would easy but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and for that a modern functional forum software package with messaging facilities is a prerequisite.

WCG at the basic level is "install and forget" and is essentially a solitary activity. A strong community based on providing support and enccoragement (and, yes, an element of competition) for individual members would have untold benefits for the projects which WCG supports.

WCG's relatively small development team can't possibly provide encouragement and support to individual members in the way that the community at large can if at has the tools to do so.

You certainly can't force people to get excited about WCG but don't you think you at least need to remove the obvious roadblocks for those who are so inclined?

I don't doubt that this forum was originally conceived as merely a support forum. But even if that's all you see this place as being, the fact of the matter is that it doesn't even serve that purpose very well if it's too difficult to use.

People who have been here for a while will think that's a stupid comment to make but the problem is that the software is so unlike anything else in wide use today that new people could easily be at a loss trying to navigate the site's "features" for the first time.

When people join a forum it shouldn't be like trying to learn a new OS. They expect things to work a certain way and have certain features. If they have no idea how things work and are forced to try to learn, they will simply give up and go away.

For an ISP support forum, people have a personal interest in trying to figure things out so that they can get an answer. For a charity project, they simply don't. That distinction alone makes your example inapposite - something I'd have hoped you would have considered before trying to draw a direct comparison.

Furthermore, and ISP doesn't need people to get excited about their site. It's there mainly to facilitate the user experience and I have no doubt this was the main concern in revamping the site. The fact that it didn't lead to an increase in traffic is hardly surprising.

WCG however is different. It was always meant to something different. And if we want to continue to grow, we need to do everything possible to encourage and engage. You don't do that with antiquated software that not only requires a learning curve of the user but doesn't even have most of the features people accustomed to using forums expect.

As for the security issue, if you're that concerned about cybersecurity, then you shouldn't even be using a computer - but obviously you do.

And what type of breaches exactly are we concerned with? That someone might get you email address? I have mine displayed on every post I make here - assuming you know what the little icons mean.

It's not like this is a banking website where there is any danger of anything important being stolen. Not only that, commercially supported software will at least be more likely to spot and fix security holes quickly. Here, nothing ever gets done quickly.

Finally the idea of security through obscurity is pretty antiquated.

The bottom line is that however secure and comfortable you and others may be with the forum just the way it is, we need to think about the new members coming in and what their expectations are. To try to rationalize that issue away simply so a few people here can continue to feel 'comfortable' is pure folly and clearly demonstrates a desire to keep this as yet another internet backwater.

If that's what you want, fine. But that is not what WCG was envisioned as and I think we have a duty to that original vision. That duty is not served by creating roadblocks for new users and this software is beyond any doubt, such a roadblock.

That seems like an odd reaction given the fact that I found your post dismissive as well. Not only that, I didn't consider it particularly well thought out either as all you managed to do was give an analogy which was hardly comparable to the situation we have here.

I'm happy to respond to any argument you can make but if that's the best you can do, certainly I understand your wanting to pretend that what you actually object to is my "attitude."

I have made a very solid case for upgrading the software here, especially when one considers the nominal costs that would be involved. How much time and effort has already been expended on trying to patch this piece of cr*p when probably only a fraction of that effort would have been involved in migrating to other software with a full and robust feature set? Heck, I'm willing to buy the software license myself and DONATE it to WCG. I'll even kick in a contribution to help with the migration - since that seems to be such a big ticket item for IBM.

It is sheer stupidity to continue to try to upgrade and patch MVN when for a couple of hundred bucks and a little effort we could have truly state of the art forum software. If you and the people in charge of WCG can't see that purely on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis then there is something very, very wrong.