The photo albums, and how you view it could not be worse. Its horrible.

1. You just keep the photo cover on the top, what's the point? If I could scroll through the pictures on the huge cover photo, then that makes sense. But no, its click after click after click. Very time consuming, and illogical.

2. You can order them in "likes" (this is pathetic, glad this is Facebook?) or views. I had some in specific orders, like the orders that I flew on the planes in. Disapointed to see the orders ruined in something I worked on for 5-7 years. Let the user decide the order the pictures come in, or give more options other than views, but lets be real, no one is going to use likes.

Lastly, those drag down adds at the top of the site, they are ruining Anet. The amount of lag and downloading for these things. I am happy to see a bit of a new theme that somewhat looks like the older and better site, but those top down dragging adds or really making me not visit.

Having an issue where anything time related will say "last year"

Link to pictures showing the issue

https://gyazo.com/4af3e4e4d77c8a456b53388d4f7b1de8

https://gyazo.com/21db3a10d7518ffa9c1b0365e59f0351

terrywade wrote:

It seems an awfully long winded way of checking where your images are in the queue. Will the old statistic type page be back again? I do hope so.
Did this not cross anyone's minds before the new site came online, that photographers who kindly upload to the site would like to know
where there photos are in the queue? It's been sometime now since the new site has been online, but what I can see is that not a great deal has
actually changed with the photo part of the site, this is my concern being a photographer!

Hi Terry,

I agree it's a bit of a workaround, but it's currently the only way to get an idea of when your photos will be screened. The old statistics page will return, although I don't know when.
As I'm a photographer first on the site, I would like to see it back sooner than later too. With the new forum implemented, focus will now shifts to the photos again.

DM wrote:

This post is to thank everyone who has helped to make the site look like it does now!

Cheers! Hope we can all look back and laugh about it in the future, when we have a wonderful site to work with.

Viscount724 wrote:

I've previously noticed (and mentioned it in one comment) that searching using the "Basic type", e.g. "707-..." doesn't work right. Selecting that entry should generate all 12,000+ photos for all 707 models, but for some reason it only results in 16 photos. Same thing if you use the "Generic type" box on the right with "707-..."
Searching was easier in the old site, but with a little effort I have been able to find all the photos. It mainly seems to be whatever the problem is with searching by the basic/generic type entries.

It would also help if there was a "reset" button to delete all the photo search entries so you can start over. Once you've entered something, for example in the aircraft type/model drop-down list, it seems difficult to get rid of it to change it to something else. In the old site you could start typing in the search box and it would jump to that place in the alphabet. It no longer seems to do that so you you have to scroll from the beginning, possibly through hundreds of entries.

And for some reason, scrolling in those drop-down lists only seems to work using the arrow keys but not the Page Up/Page Down keys (using Firefox and Windows 10 if it makes any difference).

- Basic/generic types: This is a known issue and has been mentioned in the issues FAQ ('issues solved' at the bottom of the first post).
- Reset button; Good idea, will pass it on. Thanks!
- Arrow keys/page up/down. Isn't that normal when it comes to dropdown menus?

flymia wrote:

1. You just keep the photo cover on the top, what's the point? If I could scroll through the pictures on the huge cover photo, then that makes sense. But no, its click after click after click. Very time consuming, and illogical.

2. You can order them in "likes" (this is pathetic, glad this is Facebook?) or views. I had some in specific orders, like the orders that I flew on the planes in. Disapointed to see the orders ruined in something I worked on for 5-7 years. Let the user decide the order the pictures come in, or give more options other than views, but lets be real, no one is going to use likes.

Lastly, those drag down adds at the top of the site, they are ruining Anet. The amount of lag and downloading for these things. I am happy to see a bit of a new theme that somewhat looks like the older and better site, but those top down dragging adds or really making me not visit.

Will add all 3 to the list. The ad-thing is a bit down to finding a balance though, as they do pay for the site as well. I'll see what I can do.

ikolkyo wrote:

Having an issue where anything time related will say "last year"
Link to pictures showing the issue
https://gyazo.com/4af3e4e4d77c8a456b53388d4f7b1de8
https://gyazo.com/21db3a10d7518ffa9c1b0365e59f0351

Hmm, that's weird. I'll add those to the list as well. Thanks for the screenshots.

Also, I believe that the following issue has been fixed:
When you press submit, and someone has posted in the thread while you were writing your post, you see a preview of their post and you have to press submit again to post your text.

Can someone please confirm?

If possible, I think the photo information under each photo page should be more compact, so you can see all the info without scrolling down. Also, some of the information on there seems to repeat (Generic Type and Basic Type) or is just unnecessary.

NYPECO wrote:

If possible, I think the photo information under each photo page should be more compact, so you can see all the info without scrolling down. Also, some of the information on there seems to repeat (Generic Type and Basic Type) or is just unnecessary.

This will indeed get more compacted in the future, for the reasons you have mentioned.

I'm going over some things on the list that may be fixed with the new forum. I'd love some feedback on the following issues:


1) "Are you sure you want to leave this page. In this forum when I click on the thread I want to read I am asked, twice, if I want to leave this page. Sounds like a bug as choosing a thread to read in a forum is expected user behavior, not incomplete action needed confirmation of change."

2) When you press submit, and someone has posted in the thread while you were writing your post, you see a preview of their post and you have to press submit again to post your text.

airkas1 wrote:

Will add all 3 to the list. The ad-thing is a bit down to finding a balance though, as they do pay for the site as well. I'll see what I can do.

Right, I get that the adds pay for the site, but that banner add that comes down as a shadow and tries to follow the scrolling is really slow, and makes the added scrolling with the new site very lagging.

As for the photo album, I think it would be great if you could scroll through the photos through that cover page picture, that would make perfect sense, along with a way to edit the order.

Also, I do believe it has been discussed but are there any plans to fix the issue with clicking a picture and the picture no longer opening in a new window. Adds more clicks and scrolls to looking at pictures. More clicks and scrolling seems to be the common theme to the new site.

Yes this latest overhaul is great! Just what I had in mind when the first overhaul happened.
There was nothing wrong with the first design overall, but poor colour choices made it kind of bad. With the colour changes and some small design changes I can comfortably say this site looks fantastic. Plus no more huge title above every post

I am staggered that after a month portrait images are still not displayed properly, images are displayed cropped at the nose, tail, fin or wheels and yet there is a poll for what colour forum text should be, grey or off white.
Yes, the forums now look better (though only the forums) but there is an old saying in English about 'fiddling while Rome burns' (meaning getting priorities wrong)
The searches did not work properly for two days and images still do not display properly yet there seems to have been very little comment about that after all this time.
Mick Bajcar

airkas1 wrote:

Also, I believe that the following issue has been fixed:
When you press submit, and someone has posted in the thread while you were writing your post, you see a preview of their post and you have to press submit again to post your text.

Can someone please confirm?

I have not encountered this situation yet. I will pay attention to it now that you have mentioned it.

While the new website has had teething problems, it is still a vast improvement over the previous website especially for people who access it from cellphones and tablets. It is much faster, and I don't have to pan around each line of a page to read it on my cellphone.

Mick, I somewhat agree with you, but fire fighting where it burns hottest was the main priority, where 499 complaints of 500 was about the forum. As I wrote earlier, main site is next, but that doesn't stop minor tweaks being adressed in the forum

flymia wrote:

airkas1 wrote:

Will add all 3 to the list. The ad-thing is a bit down to finding a balance though, as they do pay for the site as well. I'll see what I can do.

Also, I do believe it has been discussed but are there any plans to fix the issue with clicking a picture and the picture no longer opening in a new window. Adds more clicks and scrolls to looking at pictures. More clicks and scrolling seems to be the common theme to the new site.

Until that's fixed, you can hold down the CTRL key while clicking an image to open in a new tab, and the Shift key to open in a new window.

That "new" photo index (0, 1, 2, ... 144) is atrocious. This is the bane of Web 2.0.

Viscount724 wrote:

Just found that "jump to" box to change forums. It's very hard to see against the blue background. Suggest make it more visible (although the earlier suggestion to make the FORUM link at upper left a drop-down list of forums would be more intuitive).

One more readability issue -- when you quote another reply that also includes a quote, the oldest quote is in a white box. No problem with that but the text in that box seems very light and fuzzy and hard to read.

I just found that too, and agree, it is not obvious, but great to have this function (back).

Thank you for the explanation about the white boxed quotes, I can now see why and how this occurs. I agree, it needs some tweaking. To be able to highlight and quote, instead of getting the whole post, would be a good fix too.

My opinion of the site this week has gone from 2/10 to 8/10. The flags back in the profiles would be good - please. It just adds to the context of discussions.

I do like the update of 'Joined 15 years ago' rather than # ## 2001". Much better. Thanks for the work in making the site better this week going forward.

VapourTrails wrote:

I do like the update of 'Joined 15 years ago' rather than # ## 2001". Much better. Thanks for the work in making the site better this week going forward.

I don't but I think it makes the site a lot more vague. For example imagine you're at the airport and you look at the flight schedules boards with all of the arrivals and it shows:

"moments ago - Shannon - BA5887"
"moments ago - Hamburg - LH3395"
"moments ago - Frankfurt - LH919
"moments ago - Johannesburg - UA9843
"an hour ago - Manchester - SK9781"
"2 hours ago - Damascus DB947"

That's not bad but imagine if it showed:

"19:25 - Shannon - BA5887"
"19:25 - Hamburg - LH3395"
"20:00 - Frankfurt - LH919
"20:00 - Johannesburg - UA9843
"20:25 - Manchester - SK9781"
"20:50 - Damascus DB947"

That makes it way more precise and adds a nice aspect IMO of knowing when things happened rather than vague info like "moments ago". In an aviation forum "time" should be the exact time not rough estimates. Imagine we have an aviation incident and a particular topic gets tons of posts every minute or two and we have tons of "moments ago" as the time when users had posted!

DM wrote:

That makes it way more precise and adds a nice aspect IMO of knowing when things happened rather than vague info like "moments ago". In an aviation forum "time" should be the exact time not rough estimates. Imagine we have an aviation incident and a particular topic gets tons of posts every minute or two and we have tons of "moments ago" as the time when users had posted!

Oh yeah, I agree for posts, definitely. I meant for me e.g., it is Joined 17 or 18 August 2001. I don't think that is more relevant than 15 years ago and in the larger scheme of things I am not new member status, no need to be more specific than # years ago. I like the 15 years ago statement, aka because it doesn't remind me of 9/11.

With regard to the posts, the old site was way better. Because I have set my thread to latest first, it calls the thread #1 instead of the latest number, and there are no times and views on the actual threads, this needs enhancement IMHO.

P.S. Why do the edit statements need a yellow box, are they that important that they need to stand out that much? They are not even specific, just that an edit has taken place?

VapourTrails wrote:

DM wrote:

That makes it way more precise and adds a nice aspect IMO of knowing when things happened rather than vague info like "moments ago". In an aviation forum "time" should be the exact time not rough estimates. Imagine we have an aviation incident and a particular topic gets tons of posts every minute or two and we have tons of "moments ago" as the time when users had posted!

Oh yeah, I agree for posts, definitely. I meant for me e.g., it is Joined 17 or 18 August 2001. I don't think that is more relevant than 15 years ago and in the larger scheme of things I am not new member status, no need to be more specific than # years ago. I like the 15 years ago statement, aka because it doesn't remind me of 9/11.

I actually liked seeing the specific date when a user had joined as I had at least the month and the year to go by and it would allow me to recall the events of that time like what I might have possibly been doing aviation related. It was Aug 2006 when I joined which reminds me of my summer vacation in 2006 and where I had gone with my parents at the time, whereas "10 years ago" in the grand scheme of things is like something you see on a computer hardware forum. Also seeing members from 2001 reminds me (fondly but not pleasantly) of 9/11 but also of all of the changes in aviation since that incident which was a terrible one but still makes the beauty of aviation stand out more IMO. Seeing members who joined around 2005-2006-2007 reminds me of when I joined and the time when Johan still ran the site and then seeing members who joined from 2008 onwards reminds me of when Demand Media took over and did the first "botch up" of the site. Seeing the specific dates is nice as "10 years ago" 10 years ago would have been 1996 and that vagueness of the dates takes a small something away from the aviation feel that this forum used to have and which I really miss!

NYPECO wrote:

Until that's fixed, you can hold down the CTRL key while clicking an image to open in a new tab, and the Shift key to open in a new window.

In addition, right-clicking the link will also offer you the option of opening it in a new tab/window. Either way, this item is on the list (asked to open links in a new tab by default).

VapourTrails wrote:

Thank you for the explanation about the white boxed quotes, I can now see why and how this occurs. I agree, it needs some tweaking. To be able to highlight and quote, instead of getting the whole post, would be a good fix too.

On the list (with the suggestion by me to change the white into blue).

VapourTrails wrote:

P.S. Why do the edit statements need a yellow box, are they that important that they need to stand out that much? They are not even specific, just that an edit has taken place?

We have the below entry on the list, with the second line being my remark to the developers:
""Last edited by" beneath posts displays in a yellow box which should be transparent and in a smaller font."
I fully agree that the 'last edited' box is quite a distraction. Perhaps we can change the yellow into blue?

VapourTrails wrote:

Because I have set my thread to latest first, it calls the thread #1 instead of the latest number, and there are no times and views on the actual threads, this needs enhancement IMHO.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with this.

DM wrote:

That makes it way more precise and adds a nice aspect IMO of knowing when things happened rather than vague info like "moments ago". In an aviation forum "time" should be the exact time not rough estimates. Imagine we have an aviation incident and a particular topic gets tons of posts every minute or two and we have tons of "moments ago" as the time when users had posted!

I've put your suggestion on the list, but I'll also be honest in saying that it might receive low priority in the light of all other issues.

I don't know if this issue has been raised (it's a sprawling thread, it may have been raised), but there is a bug or alternately possibly an easy fix or change (something that could be enabled with a checkbox in the back end software)...

The issue pertains to timestamps on posts within threads. When a thread first loads, the actual time and date of the posting will display briefly in the format of "June 3, 2016", and the actual time it was posted is also included. The page then automatically updates to a very useless "One month ago" approximation. Unfortunately, June 3, 2016 is significantly more than a month ago, but less than 2 months...

Is there any reason why the date and time of the original posting can't be displayed, or at least chosen as an option within our individual control panels? Aviation nerds like myself tend to be somewhat detail oriented, and this is largely a site that is discussing current events and events that unfold in real time. "One hour ago" isn't nearly as useful as being able to glance and see it was posted 47 minutes ago, not "One hour ago"...

This extends to virtually every mention of time on the forum - this has to be fixed... even when I check my profile - it says I joined "10 years ago"... well, no, I joined 9 years and 11 months ago. Please development team - you've done a stellar job so far with fixing the issues raised by the community, and I want you to know that we appreciate it.

But, please please please fix this! These arbitrary timestamp approximations make it very hard to follow and date posts on things like aviation incidents, news, and so on...

Aside from that, Bravo to the developers - thank you for fixing the color scheme! It's readable again!

It has been raised on another thread on site related. Look under "all messages time stamped last year." You can still see when the message was sent, hover your mouse pointer over the time will do the job for now.

Is it possible to change the colours for the quote within a quote box from being brilliant white with light grey writing to something more.... sensible?

Likewise the message compose box looks really stupid being brilliant white and is completely out of place against the blue background shades.

RobK wrote:

Is it possible to change the colours for the quote within a quote box from being brilliant white with light grey writing to something more.... sensible?
Likewise the message compose box looks really stupid being brilliant white and is completely out of place against the blue background shades.

- Changing of the color of the quote-in-quote- box is on the list.
- I'll put that on it.

^^ I hope the numbers will go up again now that quite a number of issues has been solved. Especially now that our beloved blue is back. And the new site also has many better functions or the same, but different working functions back in operation again.

EPA001 wrote:

^^ I hope the numbers will go up again now that quite a number of issues has been solved. Especially now that our beloved blue is back. And the new site also has many better functions or the same, but different working functions back in operation again.

^ this. The above image shows traffic during the worst period of the transition, hopefully next time we can see a careful incline.

airkas1 wrote:

EPA001 wrote:

^^ I hope the numbers will go up again now that quite a number of issues has been solved. Especially now that our beloved blue is back. And the new site also has many better functions or the same, but different working functions back in operation again.

^ this. The above image shows traffic during the worst period of the transition, hopefully next time we can see a careful incline.

lol

Until the images are displayed properly I can only see further decline. Kulverstukas link to Alexa is already out of date with yet another decline since then.

Page views are down by almost 20%, up by a similar percentage at the best known competitor, time on the site up a mere 68% at Planepictures.

The forums do certainly look better now, different though not better than before this 'upgrade' IMHO but the rest of the site remains a mess.

I think people are still visiting in the hope that there are improvements but my patience is wearing very thin indeed and surely I am not alone? I despair at surfing so I have virtually stopped doing so.

If I could work out how to post an image from my computer I would show a screengrab of eight images, three of which are displayed properly but five are cropped at the nose, tail or both. These were the last straw for me as for an aviation website that prided itself on quality that really is unacceptable, and after 4 weeks.........

Mick Bajcar

dendrobatid wrote:

If I could work out how to post an image from my computer I would show a screengrab of eight images, three of which are displayed properly but five are cropped at the nose, tail or both.

Mick, I think this is because the 'thumbnails' are forced to be 3:2 ratio, so any picture that's 4:3 or 16:9 gets butchered (4:3 less noticeable than 16:9).

Typical 16:9 'thumbnail'


Portrait images are even worse!

Needless to add to that inability to solve in a month A.net banner issue for photos uploaded after Anexit, which force lot of photographers to put ugly watermarks on photos.

Shocked how unfriendly the site appears - far too big on graffix - not a lot of detail - not an improvement in my opinion

I will try to push the thumbnail issue once the developers are done with the upcoming big update (should be released early next week).

I've been on this site since it first started back in the 90's, I have seen the changes, be it from the basic setup to the owners, but this new layout is horrible! who's idea was it to have images chopped off in such a way? the forum is even more difficult to navigate. The homepage is really a mess...there is no focal point so you just end up looking everywhere.

also, I've uploaded a jpg to have as my profile pic and it won't save!

as you can see..the sidebar ads cut off half the script.

Is there a problem with the Photos/Search link? When I click on it (or any other links under PHOTOS), nothing happens.

Viscount724 wrote:

Is there a problem with the Photos/Search link? When I click on it (or any other links under PHOTOS), nothing happens.

Works fine for me.

The search function doesn't work for me either. Also, som of my most recently accepted photos are now missing.

johnr wrote:

The search function doesn't work for me either. Also, som of my most recently accepted photos are now missing.

Hi John, we're aware of this and screening has been affected too. We're currently trying to get in touch with the developers so they can investigate but the timing is unfortunate being a Sunday night in SoCal. We're sorry for the inconvenience and hopefully the developers will come online and resolve the issues soon.

Thanks and regards

Paul

airkas1 wrote:

NYPECO wrote:

Until that's fixed, you can hold down the CTRL key while clicking an image to open in a new tab, and the Shift key to open in a new window.

In addition, right-clicking the link will also offer you the option of opening it in a new tab/window. Either way, this item is on the list (asked to open links in a new tab by default).

VapourTrails wrote:

Thank you for the explanation about the white boxed quotes, I can now see why and how this occurs. I agree, it needs some tweaking. To be able to highlight and quote, instead of getting the whole post, would be a good fix too.

On the list (with the suggestion by me to change the white into blue).

VapourTrails wrote:

P.S. Why do the edit statements need a yellow box, are they that important that they need to stand out that much? They are not even specific, just that an edit has taken place?

We have the below entry on the list, with the second line being my remark to the developers:
""Last edited by" beneath posts displays in a yellow box which should be transparent and in a smaller font."
I fully agree that the 'last edited' box is quite a distraction. Perhaps we can change the yellow into blue?

VapourTrails wrote:

Because I have set my thread to latest first, it calls the thread #1 instead of the latest number, and there are no times and views on the actual threads, this needs enhancement IMHO.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with this.

Thanks for your replies. With regard to the last one, because I have set my posts in viewing a thread to descending order, the latest thread always appears as #1, when in fact, it may be post #88. It would be nice if it always showed the latest thread as the latest number, regardless of how you have set your customised viewing of the threads? With the old site, the time and date and post views were visible in each post, not just on the index page?

DM wrote:

I actually liked seeing the specific date when a user had joined as I had at least the month and the year to go by and it would allow me to recall the events of that time like what I might have possibly been doing aviation related. It was Aug 2006 when I joined which reminds me of my summer vacation in 2006 and where I had gone with my parents at the time, whereas "10 years ago" in the grand scheme of things is like something you see on a computer hardware forum. Also seeing members from 2001 reminds me (fondly but not pleasantly) of 9/11 but also of all of the changes in aviation since that incident which was a terrible one but still makes the beauty of aviation stand out more IMO. Seeing members who joined around 2005-2006-2007 reminds me of when I joined and the time when Johan still ran the site and then seeing members who joined from 2008 onwards reminds me of when Demand Media took over and did the first "botch up" of the site. Seeing the specific dates is nice as "10 years ago" 10 years ago would have been 1996 and that vagueness of the dates takes a small something away from the aviation feel that this forum used to have and which I really miss!

Thanks for that insight. I hadn't actually thought about it like that before.

I agree, the old site's detail was one of its best assets.

I'm having a new problem signing in. After entering my username and password and clicking "Login", there's a very long wait (about 1 minute) when nothing happens and the message at the bottom of the screen (Firefox, and similar in IE11) says "Waiting for www.airliners.net". After a minute or so that message changes to "Waiting for bam.nr-data.net". Then after another 30 seconds or so, a white screen appears with the following error message:

Oops! An Error Occurred
The server returned a "500 Internal Server Error".
Something is broken. Please let us know what you were doing when this error occurred. We will fix it as soon as possible. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.


However, I have discovered that if I then reopen airliners.net and go to "Forums" that I am in fact signed in. So there seems to be some problem with the login screen that no longer seems to generate the former screen with the bar near the top telling you that you are logged in, and the very long wait to get that "Oops...500 server error etc." error message. It's only after that appears that the Forums page shows me as logged in.

Logging out appears to be normal.

The site has also been freezing up occasionally and I have to reopen the page to continue. Until today the new site has at least been very fast and reliable. Not today (late Sunday night, early Monday morning).

The forums appears to be very slow today, taking a long time to load.

I'm experiencing exactly the same login issue as Viscount724.

Same login issues as noted just above, came back again and found I was logged in. Ok....baby steps I suppose.

I had refrained from joining since the revamp of the site, and decided after the blue came back, I may as well put my feet up for a spell.

The original roll out was horrible, and now we can see things beginning to take shape after all the howling and knashing of teeth. I took part in the knashing too, but with my inside voice off forum.

I'd read all the postings here (avoiding the rest of the forum due to eye strain) and really have to hand it to the Crew...you all handled things rather professionally. So I was really happy to see things taking a good turn now.

Something I'd like to add - way way down the list, of course. On the old site was a rather pointed 'warning' issued to all who came to visit the non-aviation related forum. Although we're all adults here, I kinda sorta miss seing that, if you know what I mean. Almost like seeing "abondon all hope ye who enter here" wording.....though that might be like ringing the dinner bell to some.

Anyways, kudos to those who have stuck around for not giving up, and for those who's pointed suggestions got through to the upper types....the trademark feel to this little happy piece of the world is coming back and if not for those who stuck to their guns, it might not have happened. Thanks from all of us who loitered outside the doors looking in for years.

Stay safe and clear skies!

We did experience some bugs last night, but everything should be solved now. If you experience any other abnormal things (besides the known issues of course), please let us know.

VapourTrails wrote:

Thanks for your replies. With regard to the last one, because I have set my posts in viewing a thread to descending order, the latest thread always appears as #1, when in fact, it may be post #88. It would be nice if it always showed the latest thread as the latest number, regardless of how you have set your customised viewing of the threads? With the old site, the time and date and post views were visible in each post, not just on the index page?

I will add it to the list to see if it's possible.

Whilst Kas has clearly been doing a great job keeping everyone updated it is deplorable that he is having to try to get the portrait image issue brought to the attention of the Developers after a month.

Surely a Screener should not be having to do that ?

I have been unable to work out how to put an image on here from my computer but I have put one on FlickR, a screengrab of some of my own images but it is easy to find similar examples displayed on what was until recently the best aviation photography website.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/?

Mick Bajcar

Question re the Advanced photo search screen: What's the difference between "MANUFACTURER" and "BUILDER" which have separate drop-down lists. Those terms sound the same to me. Could you give an example of when you would use one and not the other (or both)?

In the section ”AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL DATA & SPECIFICATIONS” I think it is about time to do a BIG UDPATE on Bombardier, not only the (absent) C Series but CRJ Series and the Q Series.
http://www.bombardier.com/en/aerospace/ ... craft.html

I totally get the need for advertising revenue. However, when the use of adverts totally distracts from the actual data the visitor came to the site for then somebody has lost the plot.

2 examples:

1.) On more than one occasion I've have an advert towards the top right of the forum that, when I scroll down, expands vertically onto the forum area and covers the text area. Each time this kind of ad appears, I just close the site and come back again when my patience has returned - if of course it does return.

2.) On opening EVERY forum post I scroll down to try and find the last post I read (because of course the improved site can't do this for me any more). I can do this reasonably fast. So fast infact that the page then scroll me away from my chosen location twice. Once for each of the 2 horizontal adverts that appear towards the top of the page. So then I end up reading something I wasn't expecting, or clicking on a button that wasn't there just a second before. It can't be hard to insert a placeholder in the HTML that is the same size as the banner ads, so that page layout is fixed as soon as the initial HTML is rendered. This is 101 web design.

Stop reading now if you're bored of rants.

How the hell can an organisation buy a leading community based website and screw it up so royally on the production servers? I just don't get it. So many contributors would have beta tested the hell out of a new propsed version and provided the majority of this feedback without the need for DM to display its "competence" so publicly. To call such a screw up an "improved, updated" site is just insulting. We're not talking about the odd rarely used, superfluous feature that is a little bit buggy, but rather major functionality that is the very fibre of the site itself. I've used this site for the forum and for photos. The forum, IMHO, compared to the old one is now amost worthless for 2 reasons.... it is terrible to read and to navigate compared to the old one, and the quality of the content posted would appear to have dropped dramatically. I've not even tried to look at photos, but from what I read they are often cropped within an inch of their lives or don't actually exist any more because they cannot be screened.

I actually come here now purely for this thread, armed with a bucket of popcorn. It's so cringeworth seeing A.net self destruct that it has entertainment value that I would even consider paying for. Perhaps DM have more grey matter than all of us combined.

Viscount724 wrote:

Question re the Advanced photo search screen: What's the difference between "MANUFACTURER" and "BUILDER" which have separate drop-down lists. Those terms sound the same to me. Could you give an example of when you would use one and not the other (or both)?

Hi if I understand you correctly the difference is a follows. Manufacturer is the one who designed and made the model of the aircraft. For example General Dynamics made the F-16 but Dutch Air Force F-16s would be Builder as Fokker because they assembled them. Hope that helps.

Regards

Paul