New Author Profiles BETA Feedback Request

[Priscilla_June]

It would be cool to have like a journal feed to share thoughts with followers?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

It would be cool to have like a journal feed to share thoughts with followers?

That had already been suggested in the past. And the same as with ALL the other suggestions from AH authors, and the same as with all the suggestions made in this thread, it has always been completely ignored. Without trying to sound particularly smart or funny, I believe there is a pattern of behavior emerging here.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

So the problem is that Lit isn't making sure their code works on a decade old, discontinued device that the manufacturer no longer supports? You don't think that's a little much to ask?

No. And I'll tell you why:

Because HTML5 and JS have been around for longer than a decade. If ElectricBlue came in here and complained that the new author page doesn't look right on their Internet Explorer 6, that came pre-installed on their Windows XP, THEN I would agree with you. But a kindle? No, sorry, not their problem.

If you create a web site that people frequent to READ STORIES, but it turns out that your visitors need to buy a new device to have the pages render properly... then, I'm sorry to say, you did something wrong. You shouldn't need to incorporate twelve megabytes of JS Frameworks to create a drop-down menu. And your site, which does nothing more than display data it fetched from a database, shouldn't push a user's browser to require two gigabytes of RAM.

 

[RejectReality]

No. And I'll tell you why:

Because HTML5 and JS have been around for longer than a decade. If ElectricBlue came in here and complained that the new author page doesn't look right on their Internet Explorer 6, that came pre-installed on their Windows XP, THEN I would agree with you. But a kindle? No, sorry, not their problem.

If you create a web site that people frequent to READ STORIES, but it turns out that your visitors need to buy a new device to have the pages render properly... then, I'm sorry to say, you did something wrong. You shouldn't need to incorporate twelve megabytes of JS Frameworks to create a drop-down menu. And your site, which does nothing more than display data it fetched from a database, shouldn't push a user's browser to require two gigabytes of RAM.

I'd be willing to bet that if you run HTML5 compliance on that browser that it doesn't score better than 25%.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

I'd be willing to bet that if you run HTML5 compliance on that browser that it doesn't score better than 25%.

That's a bet you would definitely win... but what does that have to do with Lit? I mean, it's not like Lit is using a canvas where the users' browsers render a 3D booklet with animated page turns.

There's A LOT of stuff in HTML5 that a Kindle browser wouldn't be able to utilize. But, on Lit, it shouldn't NEED to score better than 25%. Because, on Lit, all it needs to do is display raw text and a few icons.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

That's a bet you would definitely win... but what does that have to do with Lit? I mean, it's not like Lit is using a canvas where the users' browsers render a 3D booklet with animated page turns.

There's A LOT of stuff in HTML5 that a Kindle browser wouldn't be able to utilize. But, on Lit, it shouldn't NEED to score better than 25%. Because, on Lit, all it needs to do is display raw text and a few icons.

This. ^^

There is no excuse for this not to work for all but the most neanderthal of systems. It's text pulled from a database.

 

[RejectReality]

That's a bet you would definitely win... but what does that have to do with Lit? I mean, it's not like Lit is using a canvas where the users' browsers render a 3D booklet with animated page turns.

There's A LOT of stuff in HTML5 that a Kindle browser wouldn't be able to utilize. But, on Lit, it shouldn't NEED to score better than 25%. Because, on Lit, all it needs to do is display raw text and a few icons.

The luddite view overrepresented here in the AH isn't going to cut it going forward. Google's going to drop a deranking nuke on sites that don't deal with that reality sooner rather than later. Contrary to the beliefs expressed here, the changes being made aren't cosmetic at their root, they're moving toward that goal, because it's an absolute necessity of survival. Mobile browsing has to be the #1 priority, and that doesn't include worrying about a decade-old, discontinued device with a severely outdated, bare-bones browser, which was nothing more than the illusion of versatility to get a dedicated device on the shelf next to regular tablets.

And the reports of features not functioning outside that are almost certainly to do with whatever tweaks have been made to the device/browser. Those features function for the overwhelming majority of people on a wide array of devices and browsers. Accommodating outliers is something that happens much later in the process.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The luddite view overrepresented here in the AH isn't going to cut it going forward. Google's going to drop a deranking nuke on sites that don't deal with that reality sooner rather than later. Contrary to the beliefs expressed here, the changes being made aren't cosmetic at their root, they're moving toward that goal, because it's an absolute necessity of survival. Mobile browsing has to be the #1 priority, and that doesn't include worrying about a decade-old, discontinued device with a severely outdated, bare-bones browser, which was nothing more than the illusion of versatility to get a dedicated device on the shelf next to regular tablets.

And the reports of features not functioning outside that are almost certainly to do with whatever tweaks have been made to the device/browser. Those features function for the overwhelming majority of people on a wide array of devices and browsers. Accommodating outliers is something that happens much later in the process.

Ok this one just smacks of clinging to a lost cause. It doesn't matter what device. This is simple html plugging text and a couple of icons from a database. Lit survives on traffic. If it wants to keep the traffic up it needs to work on as wide range of systems as possible. And there's no reason why it needs to be extra fancy or complex. In fact the page isn't fancy at all. It's a banner, a couple of icons and a bunch of text. Simple html is supported on any device. There is no excuse for it not to work, adblockers, or not.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

The luddite view overrepresented here in the AH isn't going to cut it going forward. Google's going to drop a deranking nuke on sites that don't deal with that reality sooner rather than later. Contrary to the beliefs expressed here, the changes being made aren't cosmetic at their root, they're moving toward that goal, because it's an absolute necessity of survival. Mobile browsing has to be the #1 priority, and that doesn't include worrying about a decade-old, discontinued device with a severely outdated, bare-bones browser, which was nothing more than the illusion of versatility to get a dedicated device on the shelf next to regular tablets.

And the reports of features not functioning outside that are almost certainly to do with whatever tweaks have been made to the device/browser. Those features function for the overwhelming majority of people on a wide array of devices and browsers. Accommodating outliers is something that happens much later in the process.

Three things:

1. What the hell does SEO have to do with this discussion? So, just because your site is ranked well, you no longer have to worry about your users being able to actually use it? Sorry, but that way of thinking is what just got Reddit posts to be the top search results. As far as I know, the most important SEO factor is still how many people click on your site after Google offered it, and then come back to click on something else because your site either didn't have what they were looking for or simply didn't work.

2. Worrying about your code working absolutely IS a major part in making your site mobile-friendly. Because, believe it or not, the new iPhone 14 Max won't like it either if your site causes the browser to take up 30% of its memory, and including JS frameworks left and right, as well as massive amounts of images, is eating away at people's data plans.

3. Features working for the "overwhelming majority of people on a wide array of devices and browsers" is a useless argument when it comes to designing web pages. The same can be said about making your site barrier-free. The vast majority of people aren't visually impaired nor are they missing limbs. Does that mean there's no need to offer alternative texts for images and tab functions for people who can't click a mouse button?

You, Sir, are what is commonly referred to as a "Hipster Programmer".

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Google's going to drop a deranking nuke on sites that don't deal with that reality sooner rather than later.

This is what I find problematic in your post. How exactly do you know this? Google has been deranking websites that aren't mobile-friendly for almost ten years now, yet Literotica was clearly doing fine even with the old design. Do you have some exclusive information that leads you to believe that the deranking resulting from mobile-unfriendliness is going to become significantly harsher? I haven't seen any such information, but of course, I can't say that I keep track of these things on a daily basis. So please provide your source of that information, otherwise you are just spreading panic in the form of hearsay.

Mobile browsing has to be the #1 priority,

https://backlinko.com/google-ranking-factors

Check out this quite fresh article. The author admits that some factors of Google ranking are speculative in nature but still, I want to point out that out of the eight most important factors listed, seven have nothing to do directly with mobile friendliness, and only one, the Technical SEO, features mobile-friendliness as a subfactor.

Contrary to the beliefs expressed here, the changes being made aren't cosmetic at their root, they're moving toward that goal, because it's an absolute necessity of survival.

You are once again speculating both by overstating the importance of mobile-friendliness (feel free to correct me with some proof of Google's intention to emphasize its priority), but also by stating that Lit going forward with this new design is them recognizing the importance and some impending change. Unless you are one of those members who chat with Laurel and Manu on a daily basis, I don't understand how you can possibly know this.

 

[RejectReality]

God, my head hurts.

Manu has stated numerous times on the open forum that the design changes are to enable ease-of-use for mobile devices. You don't need insider information.

Google has been warning for years that the time is coming. The demographics make it inevitable. They have a monopoly. You don't need insider information.

When the overwhelming majority of people using the same means to access the page have no issues, and a handful do, you can bet the handful have caused it by their own actions. Once enough of that handful have provided useful information, a fix can be looked into. That can't happen when the only information provided is "U sux0rz!" and no effort is made on the part of the user to determine why their experience is so far outside the norm. Metadata can only tell the developers so much.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Manu has stated numerous times on the open forum that the design changes are to enable ease-of-use for mobile devices. You don't need insider information.

Great, so it's because of the ease of use of Lit's readers then, not because there is an impending doom of severe deranking Laurel and Manu are rushing to prevent and "survive". I'm glad we have that cleared up.

Google has been warning for years that the time is coming. The demographics make it inevitable. They have a monopoly. You don't need insider information.

I'll file this under "Nostradamus". I chose that name totally at random, of course.

I completely agree about new solutions being about the majority, with outliers coming later. We don't really have the data about the percentage of users reporting problems but it is probably safe to say that for the majority (how big?), things are working as intended.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Manu has stated numerous times on the open forum that the design changes are to enable ease-of-use for mobile devices. You don't need insider information.

Google has been warning for years that the time is coming. The demographics make it inevitable. They have a monopoly. You don't need insider information.

That being said, the profile page is still losing it's functionality overall. Regardless of manu's motives, It is now worse than it was last week. One can easily make a webpage that works on both mobiles and traditional desktops. There is no excuse.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

God, my head hurts.

Yeah, it happens, I bet.

When the overwhelming majority of people using the same means to access the page have no issues, and a handful do, you can bet the handful have caused it by their own actions. Once enough of that handful have provided useful information, a fix can be looked into. That can't happen when the only information provided is "U sux0rz!" and no effort is made on the part of the user to determine why their experience is so far outside the norm. Metadata can only tell the developers so much.

Well... here's the thing, though: How do you know that the overwhelming majority of people don't have issues with the new design?

AFAIK, the overwhelming majority of Lit users don't even use the forum. I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Lit users are the anonymous crowd that doesn't even have an account. So, all you really have to go by are the replies in this thread. And, I hate to tell you this, but I just clicked through the pages, and I see something different than you do, apparently.

Out of the massive amount of 43 people who replied in this thread so far, 5 didn't leave any feedback. They just asked for features they're missing.
Another 13 replied by solely complimenting how the new design looks.
And then there are the 25 people (that's more than half, by the way) who gave actual feedback about the new design being a chore to use, data being labeled wrong, data shown that's supposed to be hidden, and functions that are supposed to be there not showing/not working.

This means that, so far, for the majority of people, it is NOT working. But, I guess, it's all good as long as Lit gets a good SEO rating?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Here's another issue. I can't see anyone's favorites nor any of their followers. I click the link, the page is there and there's an empty list. Every time. It's not working.

 

[RejectReality]

Here's another issue. I can't see anyone's favorites nor any of their followers. I click the link, the page is there and there's an empty list. Every time. It's not working.

Here's one I dug out of my followers who is only following 10. Does this one load? https://www.literotica.com/authors/Mikespeakr/

Large follower lists proved to be a problem with the control panel, and that had to be looked into, so a similar issue may be cropping up again. If a short list loads, that's a useful data point. The view changing to a blank page is actually a useful data point as well.

How about accessing the followers directly, without clicking from the base link? https://www.literotica.com/authors/Mikespeakr/following

Does it load when you do that?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Yes, those links load, but several other authors' lists don't, and their lists aren't long, single digits.

 

[RejectReality]

Yes, those links load, but several other authors' lists don't, and their lists aren't long, single digits.

If you were able to click the followers from the first link and have it load, that's not what I was expecting. The second link I fully expected to load, because I'm working from the premise that the issue is how your setup is handling the scripts generating the links and buttons.

So just to confirm, you can click that first link, then click the followers, and it loads the list as intended?

You might try adding /followers to the base link of a member whose list won't load when clicked normally and see if that generates the list as intended. Also, see if you can actually click on any of the followers from a list and get to that person's page.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

If you were able to click the followers from the first link and have it load, that's not what I was expecting. The second link I fully expected to load, because I'm working from the premise that the issue is how your setup is handling the scripts generating the links and buttons.

So just to confirm, you can click that first link, then click the followers, and it loads the list as intended?

You might try adding /followers to the base link of a member whose list won't load when clicked normally and see if that generates the list as intended. Also, see if you can actually click on any of the followers from a list and get to that person's page.

I shouldn't have to do any of that. I should just click on it and it show work. Do you not agree with that?

 

[RejectReality]

I shouldn't have to do any of that. I should just click on it and it show work. Do you not agree with that?

Yes, but this is a BETA, and the point of that is tracking down issues so they can be fixed before it becomes standard. That's what I'm trying to do. I'm narrowing down the point of failure you're experiencing so it can be looked into for a resolution that will provide you the expected experience.

 

[RejectReality]

While I'm at it, can anyone get this profile to load? https://www.literotica.com/authors/PAPATOAD

Someone brought it up in another thread, and that member will not open in the new page for me. It's not an all-caps name issue, because WFEATHER will load up. https://www.literotica.com/authors/WFEATHER

And the profile is still there. https://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=493470&page=submissions

 

[AwkwardlySet]

While I'm at it, can anyone get this profile to load? https://www.literotica.com/authors/PAPATOAD

Someone brought it up in another thread, and that member will not open in the new page for me. It's not an all-caps name issue, because WFEATHER will load up. https://www.literotica.com/authors/WFEATHER

And the profile is still there. https://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=493470&page=submissions

I get the same result.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

This is from one user's favorite list. I tried to figure out why is there "Works" "Work" and "Stories" used for these authors.

I realized that "Stories" is used for authors who have only stories published, "Works" is used for those who have both stories and poems/artwork, and the odd one, "Work" is used for authors who can actually have many stories published, but just one poem or artwork among them. Is this working as intended or not?

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Well, just tried to look at another’s data and, maybe I’m missing something, but it seems incomplete. It shows how many people are following, how many the are following, etc, but I cannot drill down any further than than, say to find out what stories thy have favorited. Not a step forward. Growing pains, no doubt.

 

[mildlyaroused]

I see the profiles have started linking to the new look.

After seeing it again, I can't help but feel it does take up too much space. It does look nice, don't get me wrong, but it's a lot harder to gauge an author's catalogue at a glance. Maybe a compressed option is something to work towards (I know these things a lot of take time and effort).