View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
01-13-2012, 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuatela
sorry rswfire, but he's not incompetent, he's right. For the record, I use chrome, and STO's site works fine for me. If you're having problems at this point, they're on your end, not Cryptic's.

You may have been programming for 25 years, but I make a living troubleshooting computers. One of the most common problems with browsers is exactly what he mentioned. You may want to consider trying his advice before you start insulting him again.
I'm not having any problems. I know what the issue was. They re-used the same naming conventions for cached content, resulting in any one who has visited the site in the past seeing what appeared to be a "broken website." Yes, technically the site is not broken, but it appears broken until you clear your cache. And that is incompetence because it should never have happened.

It is possible to completely re-create a website from scratch and never encounter a problem like this -- it's as simple as using proper naming conventions. To avoid this caching issue, they could have simply appended a date to the end of their CSS and JS files and no one would have seen the appearance of a broken site.

It's just the simple truth. This was so easily avoided that I just can't wrap my brain around the fact that this was actually released the way that it was. And now we get elaborate responses on how to "fix the problem" that include explanations about anti-virus programs and ad blockers. It just comes across as so insulting because the issue rests on their end.

They could fix this in mere minutes (or perhaps a few hours, depending upon how they've structured the site, but I honestly believe about 15 minutes would do it) but instead for the next week these threads will keep popping up, and a lot of people will just leave because they don't visit the forums and they'll just see the appearance of a broken website.