Also I would just like to point out that Nick doesn't have to log Into his username to make improvments to the site, He as to log on to a completely user that no one knows about to make the Improved targets that members wished for.

We're lucky to have Nick and the team otherwise there would be no Funky Snooker and the Internet would be boring!!!!


Rick

Sorry didn't want my point being on other page with no one seeing it

admin

There ya go ricky

Pool got an update today, meaning Nick's been online. Yet he hasn't been on snooker? Getting annoyed at this now

What update did they get Lyle?

They got the new home page layout Ste.

Thanks mate. I don't like it....

Yeah I don't either, but its still an update.

Lyle, please try to understand that Nick doesn't need to log in on the site in order to work on it.

Also, most of the work he invests into funkypool is also invested in funkysnooker, because one site's upgrade usually follows the other's.

In this particular case, I can easily imagine he has been working a few weeks on the new funkypool's update, and will need at most a few days to apply it to funkysnooker. Fair enough isn't it?

I agree, I was just frustrated at that moment.

I cant see a difference on their homepage... :\

you have to log in u nugget lol

Mike, it's when you log in... you have a personalised home page....

Also, with that update, I think Nick said that it is placing more strain on the server (on pool).

Although it is coping ok, snooker's smaller server may not...? I'm not sure.

This is a good example of why sometimes one site gets things before another. Generating the personal homepages will obviously cause additional load, and therefore potential problems.

So although the update isn't on snooker yet, when it is, it will have been tied and tested so there is no chance of logging in to find the game has crashed, for example.

Therefore, in reality, which site is *actually* better off?



I think something else worth mentioning regarding updates is that, especially in-game ones, have to undergo extensive testing before going live.

You may think thats no big deal, but consider an average game lenght of 10 minutes. With 100 players online, thats 50 games in 10 minutes, and therefore 300 games an hour.

I think it would be safe to say that extraordinary things (weird shots, positions, fouls etc) regular players haven't seen happen, say, once a day?

Assuming that day consistes of only 3 hours play, that 900 games where a potential problem could occur.

Takes a long time to play 900 games in testing..

Sorry for the essay, but I'm sure you understand the reasons. And to reiterate what other have said - when Nick logs in to the game, he's a member just like te rest of us, so actually, the less he logs in, the more he's doing.

Good things come to those who..

Ever heard of beta testing?!

Micro$oft are the masters of getting their customers to test their software!!

Edited at 16:02 Wed 26/11/08 (GMT)

If you have a quick read of the forums you will see all new features here are tested extensively by the users when first implimented, before permanent stats are established.

But as you will be aware, by the time anything is at a level suitable for beta testing, 90 - 95% of the work already has to be done.

Lol I can't work out whether using Microsoft as an example is a case for or against beta testing considering how wonderful Vista is.

I'm sure this forum would be inundated with complaints if Nick were to rush through updates.

I've got vista and it sucks

Has normal billards been discussed? I find the concept of Carom too confusing. Give us 2 cue balls, 1 red and 6 pockets

Are we getting 15-red arcade, just curious.

Who knows... we never get a straight answer, lets face it, they don't want to bother