g

Gómezeow's Profile

Title Last Reply

OK, *Why* has CNET take a step backwards?

It is elegant and I suppose it does look nice. I don't disagree about the old Chowhound. I guess I thought that functionality would be more important. All the complaints I've seen would already be fixed, so there would be no concern about "others timetables".

I disagree about private messaging. If you were familiar with its use on other sites, you would probably see your concern is unwarranted.

It is true, some message boards go overboard with Avatars and smilies and blinking lights. But, I know certain software allows you to limit this as much as you want. At any rate, I guess I sort of have an answer to my question, so thank you.

Sep 07, 2006
Gómezeow in Site Talk

OK, *Why* has CNET take a step backwards?

As has been discussed endlessly in other threads, there are various surprising "shortfalls" in the new Chowhound format. So that leads to the question: Why is the message board software chosen for Chowhound so behind the times? There has to be a reason. It simply has not been communicated.

I don't mean to take away from the incredible effort it must have been to transfer all the historical posts to a new board, or the finally much-improved search capability.

But, could this not have been done on superior message boards software? Pick a complaint: URLs, formatting text, private messaging, search results for first time users--all of these would already have been "fixed" before they even made the switch.

Now, I have a lot of respect for CNET. I think they "got" the internet well before almost anyone. So, that is why I'm thinking, there *HAS* to be a reason for using this overly-simplistic format. I just want to know what it is! What is the reason, CNET??

Sep 07, 2006
Gómezeow in Site Talk

I want to be Pate' again + how do you post a picture?

I just registered under this name with no problem. (Note the accent mark). So, I guess it's fixed.

Jun 29, 2006
Gómezeow in Site Talk