662410 Mon Oct 26 09:58:50 -0700 2009 65 30 Site Talk 0 5131757 Thank you for all of your valuable feedback about the new Restaurants section of the site. As you know, we have been fixing many things during the past month, and this week we will release a number of additional changes. The most significant change is that we are introducing auto-tagging and inline linking of restaurants within threads. So, for instance, if a user mentions “French Laundry” in a post, this text will link through to the French Laundry restaurant detail page. Users will be able to use the system choices, or else add/remove choices in a new “Manage Your Links” section (which will replace the current ‘Link to a Place’ tool. ), and users will still be able to ‘Mark as Review’ posts that are essentially reviews of a particular restaurant. There are several reasons we are making this change: 1. So maps and other information about restaurants being discussed are always available, not just when someone remembers to link to a place (currently very few people do this) 2. So that all the relevant threads are linked from the Restaurant page. 3. So that our 'Most Discussed' view of restaurants really knows which places are being discussed Additional changes will include: - New interface for ‘Mark as Duplicate’ - Fixes to restaurant data problems, including eliminating many franchises from the database - Search within map and expanded map in search - Better ordering of highest rated restaurants (that takes into account the number of reviews as well as the number of stars) Also, you will see new promotion units in the right column and at the bottom of the page- we are changing these in an effort to better introduce users to relevant content around the site. Thanks, The CHOW Team Mon Oct 26 09:58:51 -0700 2009 227280 CHOW HQ 1 5137786 When I use the "manage your links" section to add Place records to a thread then hit reply, it just spins and spins, nothing happens. Also, the two restaurants mentioned in the thread did not have in line linking, and one was an exact match to the name in the Place data. Edited to add: Interesting, when I posted the original version of this reply, "manage your links" was not an option, presumably because this is not a regional board. Now that I've tried to edit, it is offering me the choice to add a restaurant or bar. However, the field seems to be dead when I try to type something in. ETA: The other post I tried to make earlier is still spinning . . . already tried allowing various sources of scripts, but doesn't seem to make a difference. ETA: Third time's the charm. I refreshed and reposted, went through the third time. The inline link is to my new post but not the original post before the change. Is that the way this works? Wed Oct 28 11:53:50 -0700 2009 5131757 10039 Melanie Wong 2 5138660 Replying with any text that calls up inline links is still slow to nonexistent. Seems to get hung up with 'transferring data from maps.google.com". I'll have to figure out a way to discuss restaurants without ever mentioning the name of the spot. Wed Oct 28 16:24:46 -0700 2009 5137786 10039 Melanie Wong 1 5138070 I'm impressed by the feature's ability to tease out which location to include in the inline link when there are several branches with the same name in the region presumably by mention of city name somewhere in the post. However, it doesn't seem to recognize SF as an abbreviation for San Francisco, which should be added to the matching algorithm. Wed Oct 28 13:12:55 -0700 2009 5131757 10039 Melanie Wong 2 5138608 The in line linkage is nifty idea but the second one I look at linked a reference to semifreddi (a kind of pastry) to a place called Semifreddi in the East Bay. Oops. Wed Oct 28 16:07:06 -0700 2009 5138070 169233 grayelf 3 5138673 http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/663070#5138655 In this post, it linked to the words "my favorite". The cafe of that name has no porchetta nor is it part of any of the discussions the roll out on its place record. http://www.chow.com/restaurants/53200/my-favorite-cafe I guess the Chow restaurants in the Bay Area are going to have thousands of links. Edited to add: in that same post, the software chose the Hayward location of Roli Roti and not the Napa one. I tried to help it by mentioning Napa, but didn't work. Wed Oct 28 16:27:13 -0700 2009 5138608 10039 Melanie Wong 4 5138736 Thanks for the feedback, we're aware of the mis-linking problem and working on a fix, also tracking feedback on it in this discussion: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/663117 It's very helpful if you can report specific instances where you're seeing problems so that we can implement a fix both for ones that follow a pattern (i.e. common words like 'chow' and one off's, like 'my favorite cafe'). Thanks. Wed Oct 28 16:46:49 -0700 2009 5138673 227280 CHOW HQ 5 5138797 I like it!!!!! Wed Oct 28 17:09:56 -0700 2009 5138736 1095104 bushwickgirl 5 5140254 Is there any mileage in 'insisting' that restaurants names have an initial capital letter where appropriate - no capital letter then no autolink. This would catch some error links. Not all, but most. Thu Oct 29 09:29:36 -0700 2009 5138736 154622 Paulustrious 1 5139324 This is a horror in terms of respons time and errors. It is taking 3-5 minutes just to get to a board and 1-3 minutes to open posts. I really need to step away from Chowhound for a few days because I would really at this point say something I'd regret. Maybe then I can write a constructive post but response time is beyond awful. Maybe the second worse I've ever seen it on Chowhound. This installation should be called third times the charm because for almost everything ...opening posts ... replying ... creating a new topic ... it is taking three times before it goes through. Either there is an application error or a hang. Wed Oct 28 21:17:49 -0700 2009 5131757 10264 rworange 1 5139399 Am I seeing auto-generated inline links that link to restuarants in the database? It adds clutter to the postings. In one post, someone mentioned "black olives" and the system turned those words into a link to a "Black Olives Restaurant". This seems to undermine the poster's intent (ie she was not talking about that restaurant at all). (Here's the post http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/662818#5139383 ) Please rethink this if it is intentional. Wed Oct 28 22:40:29 -0700 2009 5131757 145820 fmed 2 5139698 Here's an example: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/370528#5139602 Thu Oct 29 06:20:51 -0700 2009 5139399 18512 Allstonian 2 5140036 I was just going to mention that post :-). It also linked to around the world as a resto rather than as a modifier... Thu Oct 29 08:21:31 -0700 2009 5139399 169233 grayelf 3 5140105 This one's fairly egregious, from the SFBA Board (you can't tell here but there "tacos al pastor" is linked to a resto of the same name in San Jose): I think it's usually hard to please a Torontonian, since food in TO is excellent (unless they know the right places). I would not recommend any places in Japan Centre for ramen, but would head further south. I used to like Santa Ramen in San Mateo, but haven't been there in a while (I've heard it's gotten worse). I do recommend El Farolito in the Mission district. The Tacos Al Pastor, lengua and carnitas are favourites amongst my friends. I think other chowhounders are better suited to comment on your other ideas! Permalink | Report | Reply conpoopee Oct 29, 2009 12:20AM Thu Oct 29 08:44:31 -0700 2009 5140036 169233 grayelf 4 5140137 Another post that resulted in misdirection: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/663136 (Conn_r Butl_r, the eponymously named restaurant, is closed - but the restaurant we were talking about - "Pearl on the Rock" - where C_nner B_tler used to cook was not turned into a link. Making this feature automatic seems problematic. Maybe allow the posters to select the name in their post to tag it and connect it to an entry in the database manually and deliberately? Or adopt some sort of coding scheme a la twitter? (eg @"Pearl on the Rock" )? Or better yet...turn it off. Thu Oct 29 08:55:07 -0700 2009 5140105 145820 fmed 5 5140268 I like the @ reference. Granted, new arrivals will not know the feature but all that means is that we would be missing a few links. Thu Oct 29 09:31:49 -0700 2009 5140137 154622 Paulustrious 6 5140350 I just noticed a new feature - you can now specify (and link) a restaurant name in your post - but only if you "Edit" your post. I stumbled upon the feature when I did a spelling correction. It works quite well, actually. Could this user interface be made available on New Posts and Replies? (Instead of just in Edit)? edit: I see it is available if you click on "Manage Your Links". OK...now I know how it all works. Still doesn't solve the auto-generated links issue, though. Thu Oct 29 09:55:04 -0700 2009 5140268 145820 fmed 6 5143441 The @ or something like this is a great idea. There could be a note at the top of a post indicating that for those who wanted to link. The way it is now is really a PITA. Not only do I no longer want to post, I no longer want to reply to anyone., It takes TOO much time to check links and this is from someone who doesn't mind screwing around and spending endless time on replies. Along the line of unintentional links I thought I was being clever and to avoiding links I said "that pizza place on Telegraph in Oakland: Damn if there isn't a place in Walnut Creek called "Pizza Place" If people weren''t using 'link this report'; how many do you think are cleaning up these messed up links. I don't want to bother. All it does is discourage me from posting or even reading the site due to slow response. Fri Oct 30 11:47:53 -0700 2009 5140268 10264 rworange 7 5143493 completely agree. Just noticed this lovely new feature today when I posted a reply. When I commented that somewhere had "good food", it linked to some restaurant by that name! I had to go in and remove all the links that were auto-created. Royal pain in the patootie. I love chowhound, but please, please, please don't try to think for me. If I want to post a link, I will. If someone wants a link, they can either google it or ask the poster to provide it. sorry. Just not feeling the love on this one... Fri Oct 30 12:12:21 -0700 2009 5143441 141672 Scirocco 7 5143936 The Twitter style coding could work eg @"Joe's Cafe" or @[Joe's Cafe] etc. The system could read the pattern and turn it into a relevant link if it exists in the database or ignore it but remove the code when the poster clicks on the "Post My Reply" button. New members of Chowhound will probably not use it at first....but they will soon learn (eg like how many of them eventually learn that a Search function exists). Fri Oct 30 15:23:18 -0700 2009 5143441 145820 fmed 8 5150239 I have not read all the threads about this issue. This is such a pain it took me a few days to bother opening this thread. Why not just drop the linkage part at the buttom and change to the link to a review section at the top to allow multiple reviews? It is clear. It works better than the linkage section. It is editable for the two hours that the report is editable. There is no need to clutter up places with links because someone wants to give and address. What is that all about? If someone wants to find or give the restaurant info, get it from the restaurant database and paste it in the thread ... or better yet tell the poster to look there. At the top it is clear you want to include this as a review. No doubt. Either review the place or don't and stop all the useless garbage linkage. Mon Nov 02 14:38:07 -0800 2009 5143936 10264 rworange 1 5143492 The only way I can think that this could possibly work would be if you prompted the user to confirm or delete the auto-links. You should shut it off for now. It's crazy. Fri Oct 30 12:12:01 -0700 2009 5131757 11369 Robert Lauriston 1 5143606 Being a non-technical sort of person, my response to a new and unfamiliar page structure is simply to use what's in front of me as it looks like it should be used. Reading the comments in this thread has me wondering if I've gotten myself into a corner. I've been trying to post a review of a restaurant since last night, and clicked on the "Specific Restaurant" box. I also included a live link in my review. Did I do something fatal there? Because whenever I try to post my review, I either get the error page or else the little spinny doodad just churns away without the review's being sent anywhere. I removed the live link, I cleared my cache and cookies, I even followed a suggestion and posted a lead-in then tried to post the review as a response. No go nowhere. Fri Oct 30 13:00:10 -0700 2009 5131757 11478 Will Owen 2 5144025 Well, I initially said I like the changes but, after having posted for a few days and observing the auto-links, now I'm not sure. I do think the "confirm or delete auto-links" option is something to consider. Fri Oct 30 16:04:41 -0700 2009 5143606 1095104 bushwickgirl 1 5146721 It appears not to be working at all this morning. Sun Nov 01 08:39:31 -0800 2009 5131757 11234 toodie jane 1 5155103 Absolutely love the autolink. I noticed it for the first time today. Wed Nov 04 09:13:06 -0800 2009 5131757 26213 Pegmeister 2 5155144 LIve with it a while and see how much you love it. At first it seems like a good thing, but the endless bad links that have nothing to do with anything are a real drag. Wed Nov 04 09:23:30 -0800 2009 5155103 10264 rworange 1 5161947 Here's an update on some of the fixes Engineering is putting in place to try and correct the linking: Added “exclude from auto-linking” feature for admins in the edit restaurant page. So if there's a specific restaurant that's causing problems over and over again, we can omit it from ever being auto-linked. Only autolinking when the capitalization matches, so that turns of phrase that also happen to be restaurant names won't get listed. Excluding restaurants with the name matching cuisines, so mentioning going for Indian food won't get autolinked to any place with Indian in the name. Exclude restaurants where the name matches the city or neighborhood it is in. Improved UI to let users delete links in their post immediately after submit. Exclude restaurants matching dictionary words. Exclude restaurants with only 2 characters (eg TJ’s ) Exclude restaurants on a special blacklist which includes common terms and dish names. They're also working on additional fixes related to street names vs. restaurant names, the same phrase turning up different restaurants, and not linking phrases like 'Best Pizza' to restaurants. Fri Nov 06 14:18:12 -0800 2009 5131757 10021 Jacquilynne 2 5163470 Thanks for the update Jacquilynne. Sat Nov 07 11:29:01 -0800 2009 5161947 145820 fmed 2 5163687 My only concern would be them amount of processing power (and hence posting delay) required to do database lookups and dictionary searches on each word, but I guess you have already factored that in. Is there a way to deliberately include? So if we have "The Indian Cooking Shack" I am assuming that would be excluded. I realise how hard it is to set rules to match what we as human beings see automatically. An aside: Many, many years ago I wrote the UK Reader's Digest name and address analysis routines. Something like that took many thousands of lines Assembly code. So you have my empathy. Just as an aside, storing the names as Regular Expressions could give a lot more flexibility in the future. Sat Nov 07 13:26:09 -0800 2009 5161947 154622 Paulustrious 1 5167139 I have to say that I really think the auto-linking is more trouble than it is worth. The old system of looking up a place and inputting it seemed to work better (for some reason you can no longer do that). My post in this thread -- http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/665590 -- illustrates the problems. Although I named eight restaurants in that thread and the autolinking feature listed four restaurants, only one is a restaurant I named. One of the linked restaurants is a sports stadium, another has a street name in its name, and a third is a branch in an entirely different city. I tried to remove the bad links, but when I saved, the autolinking ran again and reinserted them. I also tried to add the correct places, but when I entered a name and hit return, it just saved the post as is. Mon Nov 09 09:27:33 -0800 2009 5131757 10568 Jwsel 2 5168832 We took a crack at trying to make at least some more links work, and remove the bad links, but it still seems flaky. Mon Nov 09 18:36:15 -0800 2009 5167139 2 The Chowhound Team 3 5172685 Auto linking is working well for me. (I thought you'd like to hear something positive for a change.) Wed Nov 11 08:42:16 -0800 2009 5168832 10162 Bob Martinez 4 5179434 It is definitely NOT working well for me. http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/666907 is the latest offender. I posted about Chongqing ("which is NOT Chung King") and it autolinked to Chung King. Then when I went to go remove the autotag, I couldn't do it -- as Jwsel said, it just ran the autolink again. Not to mention that I could not search (if you hit enter, it posts), and my restaurants were not in there despite being old and venerable and well-known in the city they're in (i.e., well-enough known to be in whatever database you acquired). I had an e-mail through my personal blog (which is linked in my Chowhound profile) that someone had tried to go to Mariscos Chente, which had been mis-autolinked in one of my posts. It sent them way the hell-and-gone out to the SGV and they missed a truly great meal. Please, just revert back to the non-autolink version, set up the autolink in a beta site and let people who want to play with it and report bugs and flakiness to you. While I don't like being the doomsayer, stop and think about how many misdirections it's going to take before Chowhound's reputation as the font of information is gone. Fri Nov 13 12:24:36 -0800 2009 5172685 10811 Das Ubergeek 5 5179918 Yes - I have seen this on numerous occasions. If there is a potential of a misdirection from an autolink, I obfuscate by deliberately misspelling the restaurant eg. I spell "Connor Butler" like "C_nner B_tler" - unpleasant but I don't want to waste people's time. Fri Nov 13 15:26:22 -0800 2009 5179434 145820 fmed 5 5182754 It seems we were able to remove that auto-link. Until Engineering can figure out all of the problems, please feel free to use "report" on your post and we'll remove the bad links. Sun Nov 15 05:56:24 -0800 2009 5179434 2 The Chowhound Team 6 5184197 Why can't this just be turned off until engineering figures it out? The database is getting more and more screwed up with deceptive links that will never be removed. For the handful of people who will use the 'report' to remove bad links, thousands will just ignore it. There's also a lag. So often you don't see the links until after the fact. As anal as I am about links, I just can';t be bothered anymore. It is too confusing and difficult for me to deal with. If I happen to catch something ... fine ... but most of it I'm probably not catching since opening posts with 'new' replies I often see junk in my response that didn't pop up when I originally posted. Not to mention that all the solid linking done over the years is just gone now. Sun Nov 15 18:02:48 -0800 2009 5182754 10264 rworange 7 5184315 For whatever reason, Engineering is not turning it off. All we (the moderation team) can do is help with fixing links. Sun Nov 15 18:57:20 -0800 2009 5184197 2 The Chowhound Team 8 5184337 >Not to mention that all the solid linking done over the years is just gone now. Excellent point. Those links represent uncounted hours put in gratis by users to improve Chow. That time is wasted unless the site can fix this screw-up. So when will those links be restored? >For whatever reason, Engineering is not turning it off. All we (the moderation team) can do is help with fixing links. The message that sends site visitors is that Engineering, for whatever reason, doesn't care how lame these bugs make Chow.com look. Does Engineering answer to anyone at Chow.com who does care? Sun Nov 15 19:06:27 -0800 2009 5184315 10496 squid kun 9 5185086 Our apologies if our message gave the impression that Engineering doesn't care about bugs. That wasn't our intention. Our understanding is that Engineering is working on solving the auto-linking problems... and, indeed, we are seeing much fewer accidental auto-links than we saw when the feature was initially launched. Mon Nov 16 07:07:07 -0800 2009 5184337 2 The Chowhound Team 10 5185503 Ok, I am not meaning to shoot the messenger but just emphasize the problem. It seems that whoever makes some of these decisions uses the option only casually and really doesn't care much about how the Restaurant and Bar section interfaces with the board ... that is especially true of that lost linking which no one has addressed whether it is on anyone's agenda to correct. Yes, the autolinking is ... 'better' Instead of a billion annoying links it is only down to a hundred million annoying links ... I exaggerate slightly Of those maybe a 1/4 link to the wrong places and that is really hard to catch without focusing. Did it link to that restaurant in SF or Berkely or San Jose? As much as I would like to, I can't keep up with that. I just don't notice the city often when posting ... and I try somewhat ... how many posters notice ... few And for what purpose? This adds absolutely nothing to getting to helpful info on the restaurant database. It is in fact worse than people using linking only for the address Now every single casual mention hooks up knocking out legimate reports. I know Chowhound. I am at best a casual user on other sites. When I come across sites that have junk or bogus info, I just never acess them when they come up in Google. I know I can't trust them. I am sure this will happen with casual users of Chow/Chowhound when someone looking for info gets ... junk. Mon Nov 16 09:19:14 -0800 2009 5185086 10264 rworange 11 5185583 >I know Chowhound. I am at best a casual user on other sites. When I come across sites that have junk or bogus info, I just never access them when they come up in Google. I know I can't trust them. I am sure this will happen with casual users of Chow/Chowhound when someone looking for info gets ... junk. Exactly! I take the same approach to unfamiliar sites. I'm sure many others do the same. That's what the decision makers at Chow don't seem to get: the steep long-term cost - in credibility and traffic - of letting this sort of bugginess remain on the site for days, weeks, months. Mon Nov 16 09:40:56 -0800 2009 5185503 10496 squid kun 12 5185663 This stuff has has no effect on the chowhound.com boards. It might make the listings on chow.com less useful, but they've never been all that great anyway. Mon Nov 16 10:03:40 -0800 2009 5185583 11369 Robert Lauriston 13 5185710 They've also never really been in people's faces the way they are now. Information that is correct but inconsistently available is more reliable than information that is available but inconsistently correct. You're not, I don't think, correct in saying this won't have an impact on the boards; while it probably won't stifle the level of the discussion, it will misdirect people who are new and looking for restaurants. Once misdirected, they are, I think, less likely to return to join the discussion. Mon Nov 16 10:16:46 -0800 2009 5185663 10811 Das Ubergeek 13 5185853 Since the incorrect links appear on the top of the page for Chowhound discussions, as well as incorporated into the text, I do think it does affect them. A poster who doesn't know this site will see these links, assume they were intentional, and, I can imagine, be both misdirected and have a lower opinion of the poster who they think misdirected them. I think anytime you try to have a computer emulate a human, you're going to have issues. I mean, fine, we're not at "Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?" status, but I think we are seeing a lot of problems without commensurately positive advantages. Mon Nov 16 11:03:51 -0800 2009 5185663 10027 Chris VR 14 5185889 Irrelevant autolinks on the board pages are usually pretty obvious, and there should be many fewer now that they appear immediately with "remove" buttons after you post. Mon Nov 16 11:15:32 -0800 2009 5185853 11369 Robert Lauriston 1 5179459 I think the new twist where the links appear under your post with "Remove" buttons makes this much more usable. Fri Nov 13 12:33:44 -0800 2009 5131757 11369 Robert Lauriston 2 5179499 But the Remove doesn't work (at least not in FF 3.5.5). As soon as you save it, the autolink reruns. Fri Nov 13 12:46:49 -0800 2009 5179459 10811 Das Ubergeek 3 5179541 It has been working for me. There's nothing to save, after I save a post, there are remove buttons next to the links. Click one and the link disappears from the post and the list at the upper right. Fri Nov 13 13:02:58 -0800 2009 5179499 11369 Robert Lauriston 4 5179878 Yes, that doesn't happen for me. See my link above for what it looks like after I've gone through and tried. Fri Nov 13 15:10:27 -0800 2009 5179541 10811 Das Ubergeek 5 5179974 Works for me in Firefox 3.5.5 on XP SP3. I don't know how long the window is, but I can remove links while composing the post, immediately after posting, and I guess so long as the post remains editable. Fri Nov 13 16:00:38 -0800 2009 5179878 11369 Robert Lauriston 5 5181449 Have you cleared your cache? Sat Nov 14 11:35:29 -0800 2009 5179878 11369 Robert Lauriston 6 5182450 My cache auto-clears after each shutdown so it certainly has been cleared. Sat Nov 14 21:13:18 -0800 2009 5181449 10811 Das Ubergeek 7 5183121 That's odd given that we're using the same browser. Sun Nov 15 09:44:25 -0800 2009 5182450 11369 Robert Lauriston 1 5185533 One thing that would might help here would be if you also gave us users who have the privileges to mark entries as duplicates the ability to delete links. Mon Nov 16 09:28:20 -0800 2009 5131757 11369 Robert Lauriston 2 5185789 This seemed like a good idea, but thinking about it ... I'd rather have the incorrect links. I leave stuff on the database records that it kills me to see ... things I don't think belong there but out of respect for whoever put it there, I leave it. If I had the ability to remove links I'd have that similar conflict as well as - I'd be ticked if someone removed a link I wanted to be there - I'd be suspecting software glitches rather than user interferance for missing links. If it was a software bug it would be harder to identify. Recently there was the case of the disappearing and reappearing links. It was clear it was a software bug ... or a possible HQ decision ... still the responsibility was on Chow There are many links you add Robert that I disagree with since my own opinion is that a hard link should only be for a review and not to give an address. My fingers would be itching to remove those. I wouldn't ... but I'd be really, really tempted. Mon Nov 16 10:44:55 -0800 2009 5185533 10264 rworange 3 5185908 "... a hard link should only be for a review ..." CBS Interactive obviously wants all mentions to create links, and they added that new "specific restaurant" feature to distinguish reviews from autolinks, so I'd say you've lost that argument. Though personally I do remove autolinks to places that I mention in passing only for comparison or the like. If you can't trust people not to stick to removing obvious autolink errors without editorializing, then they shouldn't have remove permission. Mon Nov 16 11:21:02 -0800 2009 5185789 11369 Robert Lauriston 4 5185931 >>> CBS Interactive obviously wants all mentions to create links Like I said before, decisions seem to be made by people who only marginally use the site. It sounds like a good idea in theory. In reality it will make this site less credible. At this point, despite being really familiar with the restaurant database, I've stopped using links to the boards from there and stopped referring people there. It is hinky and useless. I already know you disagree with the many Chowhounds who have posted about this on the site, so I don't think any further comments will change that personal opinions. Mon Nov 16 11:31:16 -0800 2009 5185908 10264 rworange 5 5186107 I've actually added place links to threads containing the barest amount of info, if the place was new, sparsely discussed or didn't have much of an online trail. You never know when someone will chime in on an existing thread and add a substantial report. That said, I'm with you on around 99 percent of this conversation. Mon Nov 16 12:29:41 -0800 2009 5185931 10496 squid kun 5 5186141 I don't disagree on principle so much as that having worked for many publishers (including CNET) I don't waste time arguing about top-down editorial strategy decisions. Mon Nov 16 12:39:07 -0800 2009 5185931 11369 Robert Lauriston 6 5186239 I have similar experience and decisions like stars aren't anything that can be changed. However, IMO, it is a service to Chow to know the problems this decision is making and how it impacts the users of the site in a negative way and might impact revenue by losing visitors to this site. Not to mention the cost of IT supporting this and being diverted from other site enhancements. Mon Nov 16 13:08:50 -0800 2009 5186141 10264 rworange 7 5186269 The rollout was rough, but they've fixed most of the worst problems. CBSI is surely most interested in enhancements that they think will lead to higher revenues, and from that perspective, the more links from Chowhound to Chow, the better. Mon Nov 16 13:17:39 -0800 2009 5186239 11369 Robert Lauriston 8 5186383 >>s> they've fixed most of the worst problems Again, the majority of posters in this thread are not of that opinion. Having spent decades working in in Fortune 500 companies I can only hope their attention is called to the problems with enhancements. Mon Nov 16 13:51:25 -0800 2009 5186269 10264 rworange 9 5186416 If it doesn't cut page views, I don't see that it would look like a problem for CBSI. From a technical point of view, the worst bugs have been fixed, as discussed above: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/662410#5161947 There's still more work left to do, but I can see this becoming workable. It's like they released an alpha and now we''ve upgraded to beta 1. Mon Nov 16 13:58:42 -0800 2009 5186383 11369 Robert Lauriston 10 5188411 Robert, yours as mentioned a number of times is an opposing view. Maybe you just don't work with the Restaurant database as much as some of us who are seeing the damage. Yes, I realize it may not immediately decrease page views and having worked as much in large corporations as I have I am well aware of statistical evaluation and it can prove anything anyone wants to. The question is ... and it is retorical, I don't want an answer ... have page views increased? Will they increase? I'm not really sure what Chow thinks this has accomplished. It falsely makes the place records on casual glance look like a great deal of info is being compiled about a restaurant. But most of it is junk data. If you really are trying to find out info about a restaurant and follow those links you have to work really hard to find relevent helpful info. You really underestimate how bad data turns people off to a site. And what is happening now in the restaurant database is bad data. And the really annoying thing is that with a few tweaks this could be fixed. But is seems Chow remains unaware of the bad data being compiled For me it is such a lost task at this point to get meaningful information anymore. It is such a rotton hassle, I just don't bother any more. And how many long time posters is this turning off. You have to know since we are on the same board, my love of Chowhound. The rotten software installations have me using less and less of the site. I long ago gave up hot posts and keep up less and less with the site. I'm down to mainly reading the digest and whatever catches my eye in the bottom or side of the page. With this installation I;ve stopped following the SF board and reading everything. I catch what is interesting on the front page but I have about 10 pages now of unopened posts. Will I go away completly? No. Chowhound still has unique info I can't get elsewhere. But the thrill is gone. I no longer recommend Chowhound to people I meet who have an interest in good food. I'd be embarrassed to send them here. For me this latest installation has made it too confusing and too much work for me to use this site. I'm tired of janitor duty and I hate seeing the junk pile up on this site. It is no fun for me any more. And yes, I know CBS doesn't give a damn about that. Tue Nov 17 08:37:44 -0800 2009 5186416 10264 rworange 11 5188784 For general searching of chowhound.com I use Google as the Chow search is broken (as it has been more often than not since day one). I use the Places search only to find topics on a particular restaurant. That's all I've ever found it good for. The profound design flaws of the original Places database schema made it clear to me that there was no reason to waste time adding data that would be lost in the eventual overhaul. They've now fixed the fundamental schema problems and I think it has the potential to become a very good listings resource, despite the high level of corrupted garbage created by the overhaul and so on. Tue Nov 17 10:21:40 -0800 2009 5188411 11369 Robert Lauriston