It’s a code change. CSS can’t fix it. My preference would be for it to be a user setting. Those who prefer it can use the new view. Others can have the traditional category view.
No functionality was removed – the data on display is just about identical.
The only material difference is that, instead of the ~3 most recent topics in each category – a grouping we found very difficult for people to understand, or process – you get the most recent topics across all categories.
Isn’t there a page that already does that?
How was it determined that “we found very difficult for people to understand, or process?” I don’t recall seeing a questionnaire or survey of the members of this forum asking that.
What is the point in having categories?
Was @tomchick consulted in this change, or is it another arbitrary @wumpus decision?
You can read at quite some length about our decision making process, here: https://meta.discourse.org/t/how-do-we-decide-what-goes-into-each-release-of-discourse/20870
The specific topic for this change: https://meta.discourse.org/t/redesigning-the-default-category-page/46783
Since none of those things says QT3, I’ll just assume you decided to cram a “Discourse uber alles” solution on this forum, users be damned.
It’s a global change that affects every Discourse instance in the world; we believe it’s a better, simpler, clearer default.
As to customizing the page per site, that’s certainly something that could be done in the future.
They were the first thing I went to when I used the categories list. It was very handy in a way that the latest list is no use to me whatsoever.
#nohissyfit
Also, aesthetically it’s a horror show. A HORROR SHOW I say!
For a …curmudgeonly board like this one the Discourse model of rolling out updates to everyone (especially major layout changes) doesn’t seem like a good fit.
This still bugs me more than the functionality, honestly. For a team that is so keen on aesthetics everywhere else, it kills me that they don’t just cringe at what it looks like.
Though, a little devil’s advocate on the other side of it: this change improves “Categories” for people who use “Latest”, and makes it worse for people who use “Categories”. Of course, the people for whom it’s improved… are already using “Latest”. Now people who use “Categories” have no way to see the top 3-5 topics by category, which they used to have. And people always get more annoyed by removing functionality that used to be there; recipe for a big reaction to a change.
I continue to be in awe of how you answer people and defend changes—whether good or bad.
It feels like every time someone mentions that something has changed and they like the way it was before, your first response is to recontextualize it as if they’re crazy for liking it the way it was, or even noticing it. All the conversations look like this:
Member: This thing has changed and I don’t like it, is there a way to revert it/fix it/was it intentional/did Tom sign off on this/etc.?
Wumpus: Oh nothing really changed, I was just making an improvement so that [subjective improvement stated as objective], and yeah I guess technically [literally the thing the member asked about] changed, but nothing changed!
Member: What the actual fuck.
A little empathy would go a long way man, but I’m just not seeing it.
Exactly. This and what Triggercut said above captured the issue for me, competely. The improved experience (for those whose use-case is improved) is that the Latest fans are saved exactly one click. In contrast, those who preferred the previous functionality have no ready replacement.
The cost-benefit is all skewed towards a marginal gain to those who are interested in consuming all content in the forum at the cost of a signficant detriment to those who tended to be selective consumers. Perhaps the first group so vastly outnumbers the second that its justified. But I’d be surprised if that was the case.
It’s not commercial software, so they don’t have focus groups or ask anyone before making changes or really give a second thought about what individual sites want.
They make changes they personally feel are best. That’s part of the bargain you make when you use open-source software-- don’t like it? Fork it and begone.
That sounds harsh but really it is the reality.
It’s constantly changing. I’ve never seen a board that changes as often as this one has… and we’ve been on it for what, just weeks now.
This is why I say the feedback loop is pretty poor on this. [quote=“stusser, post:251, topic:119992”]
That sounds harsh but really it is the reality.
[/quote]
I’ve done work for free myself. I am sure a lot of people have here. I don’t think dismissing concerns, ideas and questions this way is okay simply because we’re not dealing with Oracle or MS or some other big blob that’s proprietary.
I didn’t say it was OK, I said it was reality.
True. I’ll give you that.
Let me put it this way. When this project / idea first came to light I really couldn’t understand the push back against it. It sounded like in the ballpark of 80% improvement 20% or less as a step back, mostly minor annoyances. It’s clearer to me now why some were concerned.
Tough love, QT3 edition
It’s always seemed pretty evident to me that the way wumpus & the other Discourse devs want people to use forums is not the way that I or a lot of other people on this site use forums and I didn’t feel that the admittedly fresher technology was a meaningful enough counterbalance to that “our way is best” mentality to be worth it. But here we are. And, for what it’s worth, I’m not experiencing dramatically more friction now that I’m used to it than I was under vBulletin. I just don’t really use any of the new features, either.
The decision was about more than the software. It also was about the Qt3 finances and and the perception that the site may have some advantages, moving forward, through adoption of software developed with more modern standards. Tom’s hope always has been that people would adapt to the change and accept some growing pains that support a brighter future.
It’s just that constant large changes to Discourse keep jarring people as they learn to adapt to the new system.
Except it keeps changing capriciously, unannounced, unasked for, and not to our advantage. And if you dare question, see WhollySchmidt’s post.