Why are my profile details monopolised by the dot com version
the feedback button on dot org jumps to dot com (the monetised one)
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
the feedback button on dot org jumps to dot com (the monetised one)
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
Where is that button?
By practically universal popular request back when musescore.com was first introduced, the same login works for both.
In reply to By practically universal… by Marc Sabatella
He's right. It's dodgy. It intensifies, not mitigates, the mysteries of an already difficult situation (even though I, understanding it as much as I do, find it useful).
In reply to He's right. It's dodgy. It… by [DELETED] 1831606
Why does the Feedback button on the application go to the .com site? He's right.
In reply to Why does the Feedback button… by [DELETED] 1831606
Why does it matter which site it goes to? What exactly is the "difficulty" of the "situation"? I honestly don't understand why people are perceiving any sort of problem in this. Why should anyone care how some company chooses to manage its servers?
In reply to Why does it matter which… by Marc Sabatella
I'm joining the resistance (go ohm!). If it's one company, one website, and I don't care how you manage it, and it's unreasonable to expect those who have to deal with it to have to know which of two websites is appropriate for what. Now that you've made it clear that it's one company (in "Persons" Two), it deserves ONE WEBSITE (although much of the problem is the dual feedback system).
In reply to I'm joining the resistance … by [DELETED] 1831606
Sorry, I just don't get why you'd imagine that. Does anyone get upset over Microsoft for having separate sites for Office vs Xbox? At Google for having different sites for YouTube versus Google Docs? At Pepsi or whatever their current subsidiary is called for having separate sites for KFC vs Taco Bell? Sometimes it just makes practical sense. I don't see any reason why this isn't one of those situations. The design criteria and use models for a score sharing website are different than those for a software support website. How does it serve either community to be forced to use a website whose design is compromised by an attempt to meets the needs of the other? Just as it wouldn't make sense to try to use a one-size-fit-neither design for both Google Docs and YouTube, it doesn't make sense to try that here. In my opinion, anyhow.
That said, it just so happens that I am in the process of helping propose some redesign of some of the help / support pages, and there are open questions about how things should best be organized for clarity. So I certainly welcome constructive and concrete suggestions about how to solve actual problems. E.g., with specific references to specific pages and suggestions for how the wording of the text on those pages could be improved. I can't really do anything with vague insistence about one company only deserving (according to what, some international treaty you are proposing?) to manage one website.
In reply to Sorry, I just don't get why… by Marc Sabatella
No one would confuse KFC with Pepsi (except maybe, well, let's leave that alone), or Xbox with Office. Yet, EVERY DAY (caps lock off) people confuse "your" application and "your" website. Maybe you should be arguing with them? Why is "improving MuseScore.com" called that instead of "improving our web service"?
In reply to No one would confuse KFC… by [DELETED] 1831606
Good, now we're taking very specific things, the wording of specific text on specific pages, not vague "profile details are monopolised" conspiracy theories. Let's keep it to those specifics then, OK?
No one is denying it would help to have a better path to get help with the MuseScore score editor while one is visitng the score sharing website. I very much want to help solve that problem. That is doable without any need to reference corporate structure, copyright details, or obsessing over details of which pages happen to live on which server. So again, please, let's focus on the actual real world problems, and not further discussion of these irrelevancies. Best to start a new thread if you have specific suggestions, again, to keep it to real world specifics and avoid confusing the issue.
In reply to Good, now we're taking very… by Marc Sabatella
That's 123 about "monopolised" conspiracies (In my country, it's "monopolized"), not me. But I do want to understand the corporate structure, because I do find myself in the position of explaining it every time a lost sailor gets stranded in the "improve ms.com" forum. As you saw, I thought I understood it, but did not, and it is more subtle than I imagined.
In reply to That's 123 about … by [DELETED] 1831606
(del)
In reply to I'll put "Improving our… by [DELETED] 1831606
"IMPROVING OUR SCORE WEBSITE"
For problems and suggestions concerning our music-editor software [ click here ].
In reply to "IMPROVING OUR SCORE WEBSITE… by [DELETED] 1831606
I'll go you one further. The use of the "group" machinery for what is the de-facto support page for the site (ms.com) is no longer appropriate. The page ought be carefully designed with some of the signposts and directions we have been discussing., and perhaps employ the forum formality internally.
In reply to I'll go you one further. … by [DELETED] 1831606
It all points to an unnecessary dogs breakfast and no amount of verbiage will get away from that fact. Imagine the effect on Amazonz business if it kept sliding you over to dot com while you think you are in dot.co.uk
just change the background colour on one site , make the heading say musescore.org (or com) - not rocket science - one line of code