Thanks David, and that is half the story. The system was tested but nothing absolutely nothing will stress test a server like a mad horde of users and admins descending on a new toy. There is always a choice, and here it was one where RootsWeb/Ancestry were in a lose-lose situation, whatever we did we would be criticised for doing wrong. We could have 1) had the GC message boards closed for longer, allowing nothing to happen, while we ported over all the messages, rebuilt the hierarchy, result message boards closed for at least a week or two. Or 2) closed the message boards, ported the messages, reopened the boards while we built the hierarchy, then closed the boards, ported the new messages, opened the new boards and then the appended the new messages to the boards wherever we had put them (total ugh!). Or 3) done as we did. Closed the boards for the minimum time while we ported the messages, and got the new boards up and running on the new servers. The system had had data sets on it and been tested, but as I said there is nothing like fanatical RootsWeb users. Among staff, we know there is no better stress test then to turn our users out onto a server (or five). At the same time, we also wanted your opinion on the product and we have had much feedback and already the developers have made modifications. We have noted what people are doing and altering things to minimise time and maximise results. What we are trying to have is a product that you like and want to use, that you can use now, and can be used (with improvements) for years to come. We want you to be able to update your information and control your information. We also want a product that can be maintained easily, minimise the spam and UCE and allow quick and efficient use for all concerned. I do hope that helps explain that while it wasn't an easy few days, in the scope of things, it was a fairly minor hiccup for a live implementation of a converted product. Regards Andrew On 26 Jun 2001, at 13:06, W. David Samuelsen <dsam@sampubco.com> wrote: > the glitch is that if they test through the merger while still > have the old ones open, the new messages will be lost when testing > is over. Hence the glitch. > > David > > Don Arnoldus wrote: > > > > Dear David, > > > > > please be calm. There is a glitch in the gateway. It is on the > > > programmers' list to do. They are working 22 hours day to get > > > glitches fixed. Plus finishing moving boards into their own groups. > > > > Okay, we'll be calm, but... WHY is this whole system not extremely > > tested before? I don't feel sorry for a programmer who says his system > > is ready, and afterwards it turns out not to be so! > > > > And... WHY aren't we informed BEFORE this move was done? WHO is/are > > resposible for this? HOW were these decisions made up? > > > > I'm so sorry that I don't speak the English language very well, > > otherwise I was able much better to let you know my disappointed > > feelings in this matter. > > > > Anyway... I let you and all the folks struggle bravely on the system. > > I go on holiday now. I hope the system will be ready when I'm home > > again in a few weeks. > > > > Ciao, > > Don Arnoldus > > Board administrator Noord-Holland (Netherlands) > > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library > -- Andrew Billinghurst <billingh@rootsweb.com> Genealogy mailing lists: http://lists.rootsweb.com/ New Databases (check often): http://searches.rootsweb.com/ Data Submission Form: http://userdb.rootsweb.com/submit.html