Forum "Who's Online" is broken

[#1]

@Townman Totally agree with your last comment - in fact I am sure one or both of us has commented on their (khorus) total disregard of standard practice in this field

[#2]

@NickBS - screen shots...

Count = 7 Avatars = 10

Count = 8 Avatars = 8 and my "Invisible" cloak is visibly broken!

@Baldrick1  - Have you set any privacy settings which might match my experience and that of @Dan_the_Van ?

[#3]

@NickBS 

For total transparency ... other than being listed visibly with an "Invisible" label (and appearing in the summary) whilst having Privacy - Show on Line set to "None" ... the issue of avatars of users on line NOT being shown, might not be entirely related to inverting the privacy status theory as the above tests seem to affirm.

I ALWAYS have at least one device logged into the service and NEVER log out EXPLICITY.  To do the testing I EXPLICITLY logged out on one of my always logged on devices.  [On double checking, I discovered that the other ALWAYS logged in device was in fact stuck in a major windows update activity ... so it was not connected.]

Given that I am now appearing in the on-line status list (ignoring the privacy setting) I would now turn attention to the product's inconsistent view of a user's logged on status as mentioned previously.  It is evident that long sessions (with stayed logged in) are being ignored by the "who is on line" functionality.  That said, such does not explain the inability to count the displayed avatars correctly.

[#4]

The avatars and number matches but with one major omission - me!

[#5]

And me - I was here for about an hour (according to the 'online' display), then inexplicitly disappeared, even though I was logged in - and replying to posts.

Khorus have seriously fouled up somewhere, but they'll never admit it.

[#6]

---

@Townman wrote:

@Baldrick1  - Have you set any privacy settings which might match my experience and that of @Dan_the_Van ?

---

Nope, sometimes my Avatar is shown and sometimes it's not. I don't know if it's relevant but sometimes I'm logged in on more than one device.

[#7]

Ok - all interesting feedback and hopefully very helping for the ticket and diagnosis of the issue in Khoros. 

As I learn more, I get the sense that Khoros struggle to support platform issues due to heavy layer of customisation we've applied on top of their out of the box product. But will see how things progress and keep you updated. 

[#8]

@NickBS I suspect, because until fairly recently we haven't had this issue to any noticeable degree, that Khorus are making core changes without adequate change control//testing of the effects on users platforms - this is not the first time they have fouled the PN forum up, but there used to be a Plusnet staff/admin - Jack ? who developed this new forum, and kept Lithium/khorus under control.  Sadly, he appears to have gone and no-one has been put in his place, with the result that Khorus just do what they want, with inpunity.

[#9]

The question has to be who is responsible for it being broken?

Logic says to me that if it originally worked then it’s the responsibility of Plusnet, not Khorus to ensure that the Khorus software issue used by Plusnet is frozen and not updated until their customisation is fully tested out by Plusnet and shown to be compatible.

[#10]

I would agree, @Baldrick1 , but as I have said above, the guy at PN who knew the forum software/customisations and could do the necessary is no longer with us, and no-one has taken over control.

[#11]

@jab1 

I accept that. My point is that if both the Khorus and Plusnet modifications had been frozen then it would still be working. Presumably one or the other has been changed without the compatibility being tested out. Is the control/installation of upgrades to software used by Plusnet under Plusnet's control, regardless of whether it is licensed from a third party or developed in house? Or is this software one size has to fit all code used by the rest of the world/BT group?

It's the suggestion that it's a Khorus support failure that I'm questioning. Are they really responsible for supporting Plusnet's modifications and sorting compatibility problems after an update?

Maybe I should have replied to @NickBS rather than your post as I think that you an I are on the same page.

[#12]

@Baldrick1 I understand your point, but  - as I understand it - the forum was developed from the core Lithium/Khorus platform, as are numerous others around the world, and if Khorus modify the core, then they should have a change control system in place which should enable them to investigate which of those core changes have adversely affected their customers system.

I know when our system was installed at my ex-employers, the core system was used by other clients, and if changes were made to that core - for whatever reason - and it adversely affected one companies bespoke system, then the people at the 'base station' would be informed and they could identify what changes had been made, and why those changes had 'broken' a single customers system, often within hours.

[#13]

There used to be a 'staging' site where changes could be checked and issues reported before going live. Whatever happened to that as I appeared to have lost my links/passwords.

[#14]

Thought there was, @Mav , pity you've lost the links. Whatever happened to Jack?

[#15]

@jaread83 is the guru who turned the raw limited functional product in to something useful.  He left and returned but essentially has been barred from keeping this place smelling sweet by being focussed on other activities.

I would somewhat disagree with a number of things posted here recently:

1. It would be unreasonable to expect Plusnet (or another user) to need to freeze a platform such as this at a historic build level - such would rapidly result in the service being unsupportable
2. On the basis that Plusnet's customisation has been implemented to the product's published APIs then it is incumbent upon the product vendor to ensure that any "upgrade" ensures that there is no regression inflicted on customisation code using the published APIs

If however if Jack poked into the internals and used backdoor methods, then indeed all of the responsibility would fall on Plusnet to ensure that such customisations are not blighted by changes from the vendor.  Knowing how ultra professional Jack is in this area (he received several accolades from the product vendor) I would suspect that the customisations use the published APIs ... and that the vendor is attempting to duck and dive under the broad claim (with no proof) that this issues are all caused by the local customisation.  Throughout their ability to support the service has been quite lacklustre!