Is road.cc hungover on Belgian beer or something?

No problem at my end. Bit slow but so are others tonight. 

Back to normal now.
Though they do have a lot of scripts linking to external sites.

Bugger, I didn't realise I'd resurrected *this* thread.

I'll second that.

One of the worst pieces of website design I've seen in a while.

Paid subscriber?

Yes. Appears to be a link to an article that if I were interested in, I would click on instead of having to repeatedly click the close icon to make it go away. I hate this kind of browser hijacking crap.

Not you, like your comments. Wonder whether the trolls are paying subscribers.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Not you, like your comments. Wonder whether the trolls are paying subscribers.

You're a subscriber, so we know at least one of them is.

Oh superb! Thank heavens I'm wearing my stoutest corsets or I swear my sides would split. I'm going to guess you're not a paying subscriber then, despite clearly using the site numerous times a day - in which case you've got a right cheek to complain about web design problems, if more people paid perhaps the guys could afford to hire some more help.

The site is funded by advertising, affiliate links etc and subscribers.

As I do not use ad block I am helping to fund this site by visiting.

I would have been happy to subscribe but the staff have made it clear that they think I'm a "RWNJ" or "Scum" or just plain "Stupid".

I took out a Velo Club subscription instead.

Together with a Rouleur subscription I feel I'm doing my bit to support the cycling media and particularly those parts of the cycling media that are trying to increase coverage of women's cycling.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Well said. I note that he says you have "a right cheek to complain about web design problems", but a better way of describing it would be that you take the time to provide helpful, objective feedback to improve the site's User Experience (UX). Something which should be valued rather than sneered at.

Your soulmate Rich's (beginning to wonder if you're actually the same person?) entire post read :

I'll second that.

One of the worst pieces of website design I've seen in a while.

That comes under the heading of helpful objective feedback, does it?

Yes, quite clearly it's helpful feedback.

It lets road.cc know that the new site design is causing problems on many android phones.

It also lets them know that said new design is very negatively impacting the user experience.

If I were a web designer these are things I would want to know.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It is disappointing that personal abuse from paying subscribers seems to be tolerated, however, as has happened on this thread.

 Rich CB : "You're an obsessive hypocrite."

Seems personal abuse from non-paying visitors is quite well tolerated too, doesn't it?

You need to look up what personal abuse actually is Rendel.

I've accused you of being "Obsessive".

That is not a personal insult.

I've accused you of being a "hypocrite".

That is not personal abuse.

I noticed that you accused yet another forum member of trolling today so I think the accusation above is entirely well founded.

Rich_cb wrote:

You need to look up what personal abuse actually is Rendel. I've accused you of being "Obsessive". That is not a personal insult. I've accused you of being a "hypocrite". That is not personal abuse. I noticed that you accused yet another forum member of trolling today so I think the accusation above is entirely well founded.

Calling someone "an obsessive hypocrite" is not personal abuse? You want to start taking some water with it old son.

Personal abuse is abuse directed at a personal characteristic.

Tory Scum is an example. Someone votes Conservative so they can be described as a Tory. Adding "scum" makes it personal abuse.

If you have been hypocritical, as you have, then calling you a hypocrite is an accurate description of your behaviour.

If you have been obsessive about a topic (trolling) then calling you obsessive is an accurate description of your behaviour.

If you behave like a obsessive hypocrite then being described as such is a consequence of your own actions.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with your personal characteristics.

Oh dear.  So if a person decides someone is something and then calls them that, it's not abuse? So if I decide that you are an ignorant (which you are) pompous (which you definitely are) and very rude (which you demonstrably are) person, it's not abuse to call you those things? Cool. Now go away to one of the sites you allegedly pay for and stop stinking up this one.

Your very problematic personality traits have been on full display in this thread.

I've been on this site far longer than you Rendel.

You don't police it.

So you get the site for free and clearly, from the regularity of your commenting, visit it many times a day, but bitch about its quality not being good enough and its staff being against you...I'd never have guessed you're a Tory...

If there was no feedback when design changes have clearly gone awry then how would road.cc know what worked and what was putting visitors off?

By giving my opinion on this, very poor, update I'm actually trying to help the site.

As I explained in my previous post, I pay for the site by viewing adverts. You choose to pay in a different way.

Never heard of rwnj before.

I agree that there is a level of bias and lack of even handedness but I think that is true of nearly all forums.

hirsute wrote:

Never heard of rwnj before. I agree that there is a level of bias and lack of even handedness but I think that is true of nearly all forums.

Right wing nut job

He is is a big fan of the Australian government's policy of paying people traffickers to try to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers.

I never understand people who lie on forums.

Link to the post where I stated I was a fan of paying people traffickers please?

I'll wait.

To be fair to Rich, he never claimed he was a fan of the Australian government's policy of paying people traffickers to try to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers. He said he was a fan of it as he incorrectly claimed it prevented drownings. So even when you provide the multiple links where he has heralded the Australian model, he will still  be able to plausibly deny the exact wording of your sentence. 

markieteeee wrote:

To be fair to Rich, he never claimed he was a fan of the Australian government's policy of paying people traffickers to try to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers. He said he was a fan of it as he incorrectly claimed it prevented drownings. So even when you provide the multiple links where he has heralded the Australian model, he will still  be able to plausibly deny the exact wording of your sentence. 

That thread/discussion just carried on and on for long enough that no-one could physically read all of it - Rich_cb could have said anything at all on there. More seriously though, he strikes me as being compassionate (as well as argumentative at times) so it doesn't ring true that he knowingly supports anything that leads to increasing deaths.

I seem to remember providing links which provided detailed objective analysis of the Australian policy and which concluded that the policies had indeed reduced drownings.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trying to deliberately mislead people and have merely forgotten that crucial part of the discussion.

Here's the link again to refresh your memory.

The pertinent quote:
"By stopping the boats from reaching Australia, the policy correlates with a drastic reduction in deaths by drowning en route to this country."

The link:
https://theconversation.com/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detenti...

Hope that helps refresh your memory.