Originally Posted by
rylan
I did give the new website a chance... multiple actually. Some of the major deficiencies and broken features that I complained and reported got fixed also. However, it doesn't leave the fact that it should never have been released in the condition it was, and that it is a bandwidth hog. You shouldn't need to be sitting on a network backbone to get the site to load and respond.
This seems to be the norm these days with websites... make it flashy looking with lots of ads, do minimal testing, and require multiple clicks to perform the same navigation. Just shove it out there and let end users find the bugs and problems.
Won't argue the network backbone comment do, but its also a problem for places like sky clubs to offer substandard connectivity. The last sky club i checked was giving a download speed of about .5 MBPS, thats pathetic. Wifi at Hilton or Marriott hotels is often about the same.
On the rest i disagree - of course there were bugs on day one and on, but like it or not it is easier, quicker and a whole lot less expensive than spending months testing release candidates internally and still not finding the same number of issues that a big user base will find in the first 30 minutes of release.