Gossamer Forum
Home : Gossamer Threads Inc. : Discussion :

Shame on you GT

Quote Reply
Shame on you GT
In May I was ready to build a links site so I searched for appropriate software to build it. I found the GT site among others and their Links SQL product looked good. It didn't do everything I need but according to the discussion forum there was a new version out soon and it will be much nicer. Alex posted on May 16 that he should be done by the end of May. I thought great I will just wait on that. Then on June 7 Alex posted that it won't be ready on time and that it will take until the first week in July. I thought well I really need it now but according to everyone at GT it will be worth the wait so I decided to wait. Then on July 17 Alex informs us that he doesn't even know when he will be ready with a beta but it going to be so good it will be worth the wait. So I waited a little more. Then on July 28 the post we've all been waiting for, a preview will be available next Friday and a final version a little later. I thought great, my wait is over and I can finally get to work. Then on August 4 Alex tells us he's ironing out a few issues and needs a couple more days. 11 days later he emails us and tells us he make available each week a snapshot of the code base which "will contain bugs (probably quite a few) and incomplete sections/functionality".

It sound to me like you guys are no where near finished with a beta much less a final version. How dare you string people like me along for this long of a time when you are not even close to a solution. I realize that unexpected things can pop up but you should have not opened your mouths about a new version until you at least had a beta version close to being done.

How could you have truly thought you would have been done in May?

I suggest everyone join me in typing www.hyperseek.com in my browsers window.

I would have liked to have purchased Links SQL. I think it will be a good program some day. But who knows when that day will be. I sorry for the long rude post but it has helped by blood pressure go down a few points.


Randall


Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
Please don't think me rude - I'm not intending to goade you - but couldn't you use Links SQL V1.11 stable? Its good, works well, and the upgrade will be free when it becomes available (sore point I know!).

I had been waiting for the much talked about upgrade, but since it'll be a while before its in a stable version anyway, I decided to go ahead and build using v1.11 stable, and its working out just fine, much better than my older (and overloaded) non-sql links V1 and I look forward to being able to upgrade later for free and add in all the sexy new functionallity that's been hinted at :)

If you simply cannot use Links SQL V1.11 in its current form and you have an urgent project that you must complete (or make a start on) then I don't think anyone would really blame you for chosing a competing product, after all, business is business and no-one would expect you to wait indefinately :)

I understand how you feel about the 'knock-backs' and seemingly empty promises (I'm sure Alex wishes things had gone smoother too!), I was pretty annoyed myself a while ago, but there's nothing any of us can do about it other than wait, or in your case, maybe use a different product.

I'm sure you'll agree that its a good product, and that it improves with every release, but I get the impression that the upgrade isn't just for Links SQL but for the entire GT Suite of products and THAT is a very major upgrade indeed and probably explains a little why its taking so long to complete !! :)

Ultimately the choice is yours, and who know's - maybe you might come back to GT again in a year or so and find Links SQL offers you even more than you've got and you can dive in and upgrade and get all the fancy features that'll be on offer then?

All the best
Shaun

Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
I gave a lot of thought about using the stable Links SQL but it will have to be modified some and I don't want to take the time for me and the other people that will be working on the site to learn a product and modify it only to have to learn a new product and re-modify it. I really don't mean to bash GT, I've given them the benefit of the doubt for a couple of months now and I wish their product was ready as I'm sure they wish also. I just have my doubts now as to how long it will be before a stable version is available. With internet sites if you wait a couple of months then someone else will do what you are planning on.

Randall


Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
Randall,

That's fair comment, you've every right to want to get going with your ideas. I can understand not wanting to go through effectively 'two' upgrades especially if you spend a lot of time getting the first version prepared only to have to re-do it all.

I'm lucky because I already had a solid site to model my upgrade on and a good deal of experience with Links V2.0 (which comes in handy when learning to mod the SQL version), and I've resigned myself to a further upgrade later in the year when the new version is stable and there's a few people who's brains I can pick about it :)

If you do decide to use a competing product, it might be worth talking to Alex before you buy, explaining that you can't wait for the upgrade and that its not personal, and asking if it would be possible for the GT staff to 'port' your site later if you decide to come back to GT and links?

I know it would probably mean spending a bit more cash, but if GT could do that you would at least know you've got the option to upgrade back to links if you like the new version when it finally settles down.

Best of luck whichever way you decide to go :)

All the best
Shaun

Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
In Reply To:
I gave a lot of thought about using the stable Links SQL but it will have to be modified some and I don't want to take the time for me and the other people that will be working on the site to learn a product and modify it only to have to learn a new product and re-modify it.
Ok, I _REALLY_ need to clarify things here.

1) Back in June, I thought a new release was immenent, so I strongly suggested that people who had to make extensive modifications do so with 'caution' pending the new release.

2) Due to the long delays, I've changed that, to where setting up a site, getting the templates working, the look and feel, and doing mods to the basic .cgi files will not be "wasting" time.

3) What _would_ be something that has to be extensively redone in a new version, is the Users/permissions system, anything that made extensive use of the category build/stats system, and anything that was going to add in features similar to the new features coming, like the banners or integrated ratings/review. -- The reason is, that to strke off on your own, would mean most-likely incompatible code, re-inventing the wheel, and more difficulty upgrading to the new code than a "standard" site would have. Then, you'd (whomever) would be griping about "incompatibility" "importing data" etc. Things that are _not_ GT's fault, or responsibility at all.

4) I also said that programs that used the _DATABASE_ and hooked into the standard library routines would be un affected. What that means, is if you built a program like a newsletter, that added a few fields to the user database, made a few changes to the mailer program, and ran from a link in the admin (or was a callable subroutine from inside another module) would probably _STILL_ run after the next release! Why? Links SQL _DOESN'T_CARE_ about what a link record looks like, as long as the _required_ fields are there (ID, email, url, etc) so it can use them. If you have 200 extra fields, 35 extra tables, and 92 indexes, Links SQL will not care one iota!

So, rather than gripe, you _COULD_ be installing the 1.11 version, LEARNING the perl, SQL, and interactions of the database, designing your templates (the HARDEST PART of any site), and getting ready for an upgrade.

If you can't wait, then I'm sure Alex would agree with me -- PLEASE go look somewhere else. Install another, competing product, if you feel it will get you up and running now, _THEN_ 6 months down the road, come on back here, and drool over what you gave up, and the problems you have with each new upgrade, release, feature, hack, of the other programs.

While I might be putting Alex on the spot, there has been plenty of feedback from coders, designers and others on this forum (and in private email) about features, logic changes, code fixes, design suggestions, and more that are incorporated into the new links, to make upgrades, additions, mods, plugins, and anything you want to do -- easier.

By porting the logic of _all_ their programs into one central engine, and one unified inteface, the FRONT END start up time is lengthened, but the back end maintennance and upgrades are much, much shortened -- and easier!

If I had gone with one of the other products I'd be locked into a system that was not expandable, and one in which _I_ was the developer, designer, maintainer -- and that doesn't mean _job_security_ it means sluggish development, small problems becoming disasters, and no vacations for the next 20 years. Not a happy thought.

By going with a program that was in it's _FIRST_ 1.0 release, modular, cleanly designed, and obviously geared to maintainability and flexibility, I've ensured growth -- and retirement -- both.

You will not find a more involved, dedicated, and helpful user community, nor will you find over all a group of people who know as much about the program workings and perl/sql in one place. It's not any _ONE_ person, but a group effort -- a collective intelligence.

All that said, as soon as I get my hands on some beta code, I will have have a site up and running as well as possible. My server is not set up for "secure" access by anyone but me, so I probably won't be able to create a demo of all the features, but what can be exposed will, and I wll certainly comment on the code, and where changes will be -- and most importantly -- how to make new code that is compatible with the 1.11 version, and upgradeable to the next version. (Or, backwards compatible from the new version to 1.11 how ever you want to look at it.)

By posting weekly snapshots, GT has now involved the user community, and the feedback will help the program grow WITH us, not through us.

And to clarify -- everyone has said this is a _NEW_ product. It will not simply drop over the old version -- no matter how much time GT spends trying to make it do that. We all have too many mods on our sites. Even the changes to the database and categories will probably require _some_ downtime to implement (although I'd be pleasantly surprised if the new version created new tables out of the old data, or altered the old tables, and slipped right in....)

What _WILL_ happen, is you can set up the new program along side the old, get it working, set up all your new features, then late one night do a re-import of all your 1.11 data, rename a few subdirectories and you'll be live with the new site.

Painless? Probably not .... but We have all chosen GT programs in the past for a reason. With the new knowledge, the freedom to use DBI/SQL and some of the neat things they've learned over the past year, there is no reason to expect to be anything but totally impressed.

Are we all frustrated? Yes. But the Web is a new thing. I've always been hoping to have some code up and running by the end of September -- to catch the holiday traffic.

But, if your business depends on "timing" and you can really say you can chose a lesser product just to "time" your site, then you probably don't have an idea with the staying power necessary to survive in the new .COM world. If 1 or 2 months means "death" then you need to investigate your business plan more carefully.

I would have loved the code in June, a new release every month, and a stable, working suite of programs in place by September. But, my business will not live or die on a few months one way or the other -- if it did, I'd be in trouble all my life -- essentially living pay check to pay check, always at the whim of some "glitch" in the software, the net or the economy. No thanks!

Give me stable, long term, well thought out ANY DAY over the quick fix.

=~~ flame off.








http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
In Reply To:
How could you have truly thought you would have been done in May?
I really sympathize with your situation, and am sorry about the position you've been put in. My best way to explain the delay is that the scope of changes changed dramatically from when we started.

When we started with the update it was going to be a minor revision building off of the work done to get the ODBC version going for MS SQL 7 people. We were going to clean it up, add a few new features and release it.

We found out that the code base we had was not what we wanted for a long term project, and so the work on the new SQL engine began. This took a lot longer then I hoped, but has been worth the wait. We will now be able to create multi-platform, multi-database application easily and quickly, and will only benefit everyone in the long run. The same code will work on Mysql, Oracle, ODBC, etc. This was very important to us.

With the new power of the engine, we have redesigned Links SQL to work better with a relational database. We will now be able to manage relations between tables much easier and handle parallel management.

The other aspect is making Links SQL more modular, and more extensible. A new plugin system was needed, and a better user system. Both of these meant redoing a large section of Links SQL.

I completely understand your frustration and I really don't like how things have developed.

That said, we have always maintained that:

1. The upgrade to the new Links SQL would be free for all users.
2. You would be able to keep your templates and all data.

I know a lot of people wanted to do custom work and didn't want to have to do it twice.

All I can say really is that the new version will be worth it when it is done, but if you have a project that needs to get going, please don't wait for it. Use 1.11, or another product. When the new one comes out, you can switch or upgrade then.

Cheers,

Alex

--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
It doesn't bother me how long it is taking for the new version what bothers me is being misled about the time table. I agree that new Links will be the better solution but right now hyperseek (for me) is a better solution than links SQL 1.11 and I need to get started now. As for the money this is a voluteer effort for a non-profit group and I'm not making anything on it.

I'm not flaming GT, I'm just mad for not being told the truth. They have a good product and will soon have a great product. I wish them luck in getting the new Links ready and I will keep an eye on its development. One day I may be back.

Randall


Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
I just took another look at the HyperSeek site, and I think they are priced way out of the market.

Perhaps for a well funded, commercial project, it might make sense. But, many of the mods and add ons they have for purchase are or will be available for links in the forums.

Just eyeballing their forums, GT gets more traffic in one day, than they have had in toto.

What does this mean? Well, it is like going to the software store and buying a product for Windows off the shelf. You take what it offers, one-size-fits-all and if you need anything done to it, most likely you'll have to do it yourself -- if possible. You don't get the flexibility you have with GT products.

They also do not offer technical support on modified copies of the program -- which would be the _BIGGEST_ drawback of all, IMHO.

But, you need more than one horse to have a horse race. If you think HyperSeek is better for you, go for it.

Again, I think I made the right choice, and waiting is frustrating, but will pay off in the end.

http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
all i can say...

alex.. this version of links sql better be 100% working.. in links sql v1.11.. there was quite a few things in dbsql.pm that needed fixing.. many things didn't work.. links sql v1.11 seemed more of a beta version than a final release..

spend all the time you need to complete this new version.. i don't really mind.. i just hope the finishing product will show the work you put into it..

Jerry Su
Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
Jerry you wrote:
this version of links sql better be 100% working.. in links sql v1.11.. there was quite a few things in dbsql.pm that needed fixing.. many things didn't work..

What had to be fixed and what didn't work?
I now have to make my project in v1.11 because the new will not be on time for my so i have to use the STABLE (?) version.

Allready thanks.


Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
Well, I aplaud those who replied so kindly to Stokesweb. I don't know if I could have replied so gently because coming here a griping like that is just plain rude!

Get real Stokesweb, it happens. Programming delays are inevitable. GT does not owe you anything.

That goes for you too jerrysu:
In Reply To:
alex.. this version of links sql better be 100% working..
I tell ya, kids these days think the the whole world owes them everything.
You should thank God everyday for your health and the fact that you even have a computer.

Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
Gee Pugdog, why are you worried about the price of hyperseek I thought you made enough money to just sit idle for 3 months ;) Anyway, hyperseek gives a discount for non-profit groups so the actual difference is only $150. Also, I don't know which forum you looked at but the hyperseek support forum at http://www.iwebsupport.com/ has many more posts than the Links SQL forum and most posts are from the tech dept. As for mod's hyperseek will do all I need it to out of the box.

Randall


Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
I appologize if I've been rude, I didn't mean to be, but I did mean for this post to cause a stir. Maybe in the future GT will think twice about posting an unrealistic timeline. Had GT been more realistic in May I could have chosen another solution and been done by now instead of just starting and for that I believed GT owed me and everyone else an apology. As I have stated I believe GT is a good company with a good product and I have not ruled out buying their product in the future. I've not 100% ruled out Links SQL 1.11 either.

Randall


Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
I'm not worried about the cost of a product, if it does what I need, and can save me _TIME_ and frustration. but you obviously are.

Also, $3,000 for an add-on is somewhat absurd.

All that is is adding an auction ranking to the keyword searches, and a few fields to the database.

The hardest part would be a billing system, but again, that is just a variation of the banner/advertising system. Rather than debiting an affiliate or banner account, you just debit the advertiser account, and return the links based on bid-price rather than "relavency" (a strange concept in "searching" anyway).

Several people here have looked into the 'go-to' type of bidding for placement. Some may have done it. I'm just ethically against that sort of thing, such as paid reviews. I much prefer the standard of adding a logo, and putting those links first. It's paying for a featured placement, rather than masquerading as a set of valid "hits", and within the 'featured' and 'regular' areas, the links are returned as "relevancy scored" not bid-price scored.

But, to each his own, pick a favorite, and that's what makes a horse race.

http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Shame on you GT In reply to
Hi Randall

No offence meant, but it does sound to me as if you are blaming GT for something that isn't their problem.

Timelines? In the real world timelines are set but as everyone knows they are predictions based on current knowledge.

I don't believe you are taking GT to task on timelines. How come your website is so dependant on a future product?

I also run a volunteer website for non-profit groups and make nothing myself.

Amongst others I have WW2 vets thanking me for my website.

Maybe I could have done things another way but what I've produced is down to what Alex and the GT team have created.

I'm very grateful to GT and I don't really understand your problem.

George