Closed Bug 310700 Opened 19 years ago Closed 19 years ago

Spreadfirefox is wasting its downtime

Categories

(Marketing :: General, task)

Product:
Marketing
Component:
General
Type:
task
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED WORKSFORME

People

(Reporter: andraskonya, Assigned: cbeard)

References

(
URL
)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Alternative temp page
7.46 KB, patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review 
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 Firefox/1.0.6
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 Firefox/1.0.6

Spreadfirefox.com is currently contentless apart from the notice that says it'll
reopen around October 15th.

While my advice is never taken seriously by anyone (making Cassandra of Troy
seem like an amateur), I find it slightly odd how a site visited by thousands is
wasting its improvement downtime with what amounts to the man/shovel animated
"Under Contruction LOL!! tell your friends though!!!!!!" image. (For comparison,
Google says that SFX has 15,000 inbound links while popular homestarrunner.com
has only around 2,000 inbound links. Even more: spreadfirefox.com as a text
search yields 753K results; homestarrunner.com, 246K, *the* nyt.com, only 38K...)

Wouldn't it be better to at least offer barebones functionality of the original
site by putting a sentence or two about why Firefox needs to be spread and a few
banners people could slap on their sites?

Oops, there I go again with my radical thoughts about not wasting the almost
million mentions of SFX around the web by building a single page using a
computer language consisting of about a dozen "commands" using such
undecipherable symbols like "b" for bold and "p" for paragraph.

As in "Sir Gawain and The Green Knight" I ask: "Where is the captain of this crowd?"

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Go to spreadfirefox.com.
2. Stare at the screen in disbelief that such a high-traffic site is unused.
3. Put up a bit of information, links, banners, code in textarea, etc.

Actual Results:  
Nothing, since anything Andkon says is ignored. That's an axiom.

Expected Results:  
A page with barebones functionality should be made.
I'm part of the team thats been working on serious upgrades to SFx for the past
6 weeks with many others.  This has been a lot of work, and the new site will be
10x better, no exaggeration.  I found out about the downtime a day or 2 later
than others and am not a hugely technical person in this area.  The problems
were spotted and dealt with quickly and promptly.  A better banner or info for
the downtime site was quickly brought up and suggestions made to which I was
apart of.  

I totally understand your annoyance, and points, they are very valid.  This
should however be an enhancement marked bug or something if anything.  I will
however speak to others whether it is possible, or to do some of what you say,
not forgetting that theyre are many factors as to why it not be, or not be a
good idea.  

May I say that  SFx is going through many changes, none of which have affected
the site or resulted in any downtime, so a week, with a security problem too, is
not that bad, considering all the substantial changes and upgrades going on.  

The software itself has some flaws, so its not as easy as to just dump some
content immediately back, and I trust this is a good, cautius, sensible measure
not to, at least for the time being, or until a full new site is launched.  As
the site and notice also says, and here, it may well be before the 15th of
October, that we hope is the latest date.  All those whom already have banners
will continue to work, credits being counted, etc.  If you would like to put
some buttons or stuff up on a site, there is lots of other stuff available at
Mozilla.org, mozilla.wikicities.com  and many many sites on the web in general,
google brings up a lot! So its not as if thats stops.  However, they will not
count towards the SFx affiliation system.  I will pass this on and try to get
some more key ones noted if applicable.

So as said, comments taken on board, action being taken now, lots of it believe
it or not, and I will take further action in light of your comments, and report
back!  
(In reply to comment #1)
> will continue to work, credits being counted, etc.  If you would like to put
> some buttons or stuff up on a site, there is lots of other stuff available at
> Mozilla.org, mozilla.wikicities.com  and many many sites on the web in
> google brings up a lot! So its not as if thats stops.  However, they will not
> count towards the SFx affiliation system.

Well, the whole point of SFX would be to have a central place for all of that. I
mean how does someone clicking from Help --> Promote Firefox know that there's
other resources? I mean hell, if no one wants to do any work on a static page
for now, just *redirect* SFX to wikicities or whatever is deemed better than
nothing.

>I will take further action in light of your comments, and report
>back!  

That'd be a first for me to get anyone to reply back. I'm looking forward to it
though :-)

(In reply to comment #1)
> However, they will not count towards the SFx affiliation system.

Yes they will.  We're keeping the logs from the server that's currently handling
them, and they'll get added up and added back into the database once the real
tracker is back online.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Yes they will.  We're keeping the logs from the server that's currently handling
> them, and they'll get added up and added back into the database once the real
> tracker is back online.

You people might want to consider an affiliate system that doesn't just benefit
about five sites.


Dave, I meant the buttons available at other sites on the web, such as on
Mozilla Community wiki, Mozilla.org, and the many others, they will will not
credit SFx users!?

Andkon, this will be improved too, don't you worry.
(In reply to comment #1)
> I'm part of the team thats been working on serious upgrades to SFx for the past
> 6 weeks with many others.  This has been a lot of work, and the new site will be
> 10x better, no exaggeration.  I found out about the downtime a day or 2 later
> than others and am not a hugely technical person in this area.  The problems
> were spotted and dealt with quickly and promptly.  A better banner or info for
> the downtime site was quickly brought up and suggestions made to which I was
> apart of.  
> 
> I totally understand your annoyance, and points, they are very valid.  This
> should however be an enhancement marked bug or something if anything.  I will
> however speak to others whether it is possible, or to do some of what you say,
> not forgetting that theyre are many factors as to why it not be, or not be a
> good idea.  
> 
> May I say that  SFx is going through many changes, none of which have affected
> the site or resulted in any downtime, so a week, with a security problem too, is
> not that bad, considering all the substantial changes and upgrades going on.  
> 
> The software itself has some flaws, so its not as easy as to just dump some
> content immediately back, and I trust this is a good, cautius, sensible measure
> not to, at least for the time being, or until a full new site is launched.  As
> the site and notice also says, and here, it may well be before the 15th of
> October, that we hope is the latest date.  All those whom already have banners
> will continue to work, credits being counted, etc.  If you would like to put
> some buttons or stuff up on a site, there is lots of other stuff available at
> Mozilla.org, mozilla.wikicities.com  and many many sites on the web in general,
> google brings up a lot! So its not as if thats stops.  However, they will not
> count towards the SFx affiliation system.  I will pass this on and try to get
> some more key ones noted if applicable.
> 
> So as said, comments taken on board, action being taken now, lots of it believe
> it or not, and I will take further action in light of your comments, and report
> back!  




I forgave them the first time they were hacked, but I'm dumbfounded as to how
they could allow this to happen again. The web admin should be sent packing.
This is a huge embarassment to me, who practically shoves Firefox down
everyone's throat.

I can only imagine how embarassing it is to Mozilla.  Between this and the fact
that we hopped up to Firefox 1.0.7 in a few months time is going to make Firefox
that much harder to sell to the masses.  I'm going to suggest they start
promoting features and functionality, rather than security.  No software is
totally secure anyway.

Back to SFX...

The placeholder page is insane. A barebones site would be more appropriate. This
is not going to help Firefox at all.

PHP is very vunerable to hacking. Any web admin who doesn't know this, shouldn't
be a web admin.

http://www.plone.org

A highly improved version of SFX is being planned and developed as we speak. I
have been part of this project and I can tell you that many things will change
sginificantly.
This bug is a very important suggestion and it will definitely be taken into
consideration.  The service so far hasn't been the best, I totally agree, but
what matters most is that the community responds with constructive criticism
(such as this) instead of abandoning the whole project.
All I ask for is some patience.
I just made a fix: http://andkon.com/xtra/sfx.html

When will this be implemented?


Not to be rude, but do I have to hand deliver this to Mountain View?
If you're really posing that as a solution, you should add it to the bug as an
attachment so that it can be reviewed/approved, should you not?  Assuming
spreadfirefox uses bugzilla the same way the devs do, of course.  

I'd also like to point out that as long as www.getfirefox.com is up people can
still learn about and get firefox.  With the current growth and market share,
among other things, nothing disastrous will happen with spreadfirefox being
down, especially when far more places refer to getfirefox than to spreadfirefox.
Don't most people find spreadfirefox via the mozilla.org site either directly or
through the browser which they had to get there?

While I love a good classical reference, I highly doubt mozilla.org will crumble
and fall if your advice isn't taken.  Please stop talking to people like they're
idiots just because they don't want to do things your way, especially when you
have no idea what they're actually doing instead.  There's nothing I can do
about that last request of course, it just seems like the nice thing for you to do.
(In reply to comment #10)
> If you're really posing that as a solution, you should add it to the bug as an
> attachment so that it can be reviewed/approved, should you not?  Assuming

I'm not attaching what is easier done as a link, you know that blue underline
thing. View source is available in browsers.

> I'd also like to point out that as long as www.getfirefox.com is up people can
> still learn about and get firefox.  With the current growth and market share,

That's completely irrelevant. That redirects to Download Firefox. Spreadfirefox
is for those who *already* "got Firefox" and want to help spread it. There's a
link to SFX from the Help -- Promote Firefox. Really awesome to just link to
what a person just downloaded. Brilliant!

> among other things, nothing disastrous will happen with spreadfirefox being
> down, especially when far more places refer to getfirefox than to 
> spreadfirefox.

You don't get it. The purpose of SFX is complementary to GF, they're not rivals
and they're not the same. I'm not sure why one would shut down the central place
to get Firefox banners for three weeks. It's mind-boggling, but even more so are
the rationalizations I'm hearing: "Gee, only thousands of people will go away
without putting links and banners to Firefox on their page/profile/whatever. Who
needs those links for free?" The cost of uploading my fix is about 5 seconds of
someone's time. Any payoff (ie, even just hundreds of new links) is worth that.

> Don't most people find spreadfirefox via the mozilla.org site either directly
> through the browser which they had to get there?

Yeah, that's the point. Now people won't have access to a site with which they
can help spread Firefox. Are you confused or dazed?

> While I love a good classical reference, I highly doubt mozilla.org will 
> crumble
> and fall if your advice isn't taken.

If three weeks of no-SFX is not a big deal, why does it even exist in the first
place? No one said anything will crumble, it's just idiotic to see an
opportunity wasted when the cost is so low, namely a five second upload. The fix
is there, just #^$&ing upload it. Do I need to hold someone's hand?

> Please stop talking to people like they're
> idiots just because they don't want to do things your way, especially when you
> have no idea what they're actually doing instead.  There's nothing I can do
> about that last request of course, it just seems like the nice thing for you 
> to do.

Oh, I see. Now I'm the bad guy for finding a relatively big problem that can
affect thousands and I'm passionate about it. Interesting outlook: I find a bug,
three days go by, no one does anything, I fix the bug, and then I get blamed for
people's cowardly apathy and lack of resolve. Perhaps step aside if you can't do
anything constructive.

Yeah, I have actually no idea what the SFXers are doing, that's the only part of
your post I happen to agree with. It must be awfully important that they don't
have 5 seconds to spare for an upload or CVS checkin. So yeah, I'd like to know
what they're doing. As I said, "Where's the captain of this crowd?"

Boys and girls, guess what? I don't make money off Mozilla, and paycheck isn't
in any way affected by its success or failure. But when someone who reports
*and* fixes something and not only gets ignored but also get's blamed, that's
slightly infuriating.
Andkon its great you want to help, and clear you have a lot of passion for Fx &
SFx, we all do, it's all to easy to get to get carried away with that passion,
please dont, and calm down.  You have been somewhat pro active with the button
dropdown and that should be and is applauded, really.  You also make some good
points, but you are making a lot of assumptions, without knowing whats going on
behind the scenes, and just looking at it worst case scenario on paper.

The fact is it is not like you make out.  SFx will not be closed for 3 weeks. 
As said here, SFx page, and the Mozillazine article with comments there, its
expected to be before that hopefully.  I wish I could be more accurate, but
security and good use of resources comes first, especially for long term
stability and success.

Now, SFx has been in beta for a long long time know, since 1.0 release approx a
year ago.  It has and hasnt come a long way, in terms of the content is much the
same, it is very blog and forum orientated, which isnt doing a great deal or at
least enough, to Spread Firefox effectively.  That is far worse, than a site
being down for a week, then it coming back 10x better.  A week's closure with
security issues and serious upgrades to better everything, is a small price to
pay for a site that will be vastly securer and more effective, long term.

You stress that the buttons are a large part of where the damage is.  Well, that
is not true.  For the thousands of members whom already have buttons, they
remain as is, just fine.  The lack of buttons is only for guests, that is a
vastly lower figure, and different picture of the effects.  Also, SFx being
closed for a week does not mean all buttons stop as said, the majority whom
already have them continue.  For those looking for them, well there's loads and
loads online.  There easily found by browsing and searching:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/buttons.html
http://mozilla.wikicities.com/wiki/Marketing:Firefox_Materials#Ad_Banners.2FButtons

Now, I did try to get these links added to the SFx status page.  I totally think
they should be, if there are alternative services and resources, they should be
linked aswell as easily found on the web.  So, accepted there, that could have
been done, maybe it still will be.  On your button dropdown, well yes its good.
 But how many people are going to bother to click dropdowns to browse many
buttons?  There are many other sites and places for buttons and such, SFx is not
the be all and end all.

But, getting this into context: We have a site thats not been as effective in
its objectives for over a year.  Its very worthwhile, long term better, and a
small price to pay, having a weeks closure with security issues and serious
upgrades to improve all of that ten fold, and have a vastly more effective,
securer, active, productive site longterm thereafter.
(In reply to comment #12)
> already have them continue.  For those looking for them, well there's loads 
> loads online.  There easily found by browsing and searching:

Well, what's preventing links to these resources from SFX.com?

> Now, I did try to get these links added to the SFx status page.  I totally
> they should be, if there are alternative services and resources, they should 
> linked aswell as easily found on the web.  So, accepted there, that could have
> been done, maybe it still will be.  On your button dropdown, well yes its 

Good luck on that. The politburo might decide to put it up around March.

>  But how many people are going to bother to click dropdowns to browse many
> buttons?  There are many other sites and places for buttons and such, SFx is 
> the be all and end all.

If there's a site that would logical need *spread Firefox* buttons, it's *spread
firefox* .com.

> But, getting this into context: We have a site thats not been as effective in
> its objectives for over a year.  Its very worthwhile, long term better, and a
> small price to pay, having a weeks closure with security issues and serious
> upgrades to improve all of that ten fold, and have a vastly more effective,
> securer, active, productive site longterm thereafter.

I completely agree. The before/after picture is still irrelevant. A static page
with banners and a few links to other resources is not that hard to do.


While I don't think this is a terribly important issue, and while I understand
that the site admins and devs are working on something already, I don't see why
it can't be possible to give a message that will not alienate new visitors.
There are several trivial ways to fix this, either by adding a few links to
valuable resources, or giving people a few buttons to choose from, just to show
what the site is about and not just redirect them to somewhere they've already been.

It's not a big thing, but something that can make Mozilla look better for
newcomers, and I think that's something to be taken notice of, if only to show
that even after being hacked, Mozilla isn't idle.
(In reply to comment #14)
> While I don't think this is a terribly important issue, and while I understand

Agreed, and very easy to fix.

> There are several trivial ways to fix this, either by adding a few links to

Correct again.
(In reply to comment #5)
> Dave, I meant the buttons available at other sites on the web, such as on
> Mozilla Community wiki, Mozilla.org, and the many others, they will will not
> credit SFx users!?

Yes, that's what I was talking about.  The affiliates will get proper credit for
button clicks during the outage.  It's being tracked.

The reason we're down so long is because we don't trust the software the site
was previously running on.  There was a complete rewrite of the site already in
progress since about a week after the July hack, which was within a couple weeks
of deploying when the current hack happened.  Since we don't trust the existing
software, and the new software is so close to being ready, we're waiting for the
new software before bringing the site back up.
(In reply to comment #16)
> The reason we're down so long is because we don't trust the software the site
> was previously running on.  There was a complete rewrite of the site already 
> progress since about a week after the July hack, which was within a couple 
> of deploying when the current hack happened.  Since we don't trust the existing
> software, and the new software is so close to being ready, we're waiting for the
> new software before bringing the site back up.

Why do you all not trust static HTML?

(In reply to comment #17)
> Why do you all not trust static HTML?

Because it's not static HTML.  It's a pile of PHP and Perl code.

(In reply to comment #18)
> Because it's not static HTML.  It's a pile of PHP and Perl code.

I'm not a professional web developer, but when it says .html at the end, I'm
pretty damn sure it's static HTML: http://andkon.com/xtra/sfx.html

(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > Because it's not static HTML.  It's a pile of PHP and Perl code.
> 
> I'm not a professional web developer, but when it says .html at the end, I'm
> pretty damn sure it's static HTML: http://andkon.com/xtra/sfx.html

Your mockup page is HTML.  The software running the website is not.  I never
said anything about not trusting your mockup, I said I didn't trust the previous
software the site was running on.

That's actually a cool idea, the down side is if someone got a button that way
there wouldn't be any affiliate credit for people clicking the button.  We can
probably do something like "stop back once the site is live again to get new
HTML for this button that will give you credit when people click on it" or
something.
Ok, this is bugzilla, not a debate forum.  In theory, the first comment is for
reporting a bug.  Subsequent comments are for determining the nature and cause
of the bug, if necesary.  If someone has a fix they *attach* it as a proposed
patch and then set a review request flag.  If flagged to the appropriate person,
this puts it in the review queue of the person who can make the call whether to
use it as is, recommend changes, or not use it at all.  Therefore if you are
*seriously* offering this as a patch and not just trying to display superiority
it would follow that you would go through the proper channels to submit it as a
patch.  I don't know how strictly the sfx side of things adheres to this, but
that is why you would attach it rather than just posting a link.

I see that there is now a much better page up in the interim.  Are you happy
enough with what is up there to call this bug fixed, or would you not call it
fixed since there are no buttons? (serious question)
(In reply to comment #21)
> use it as is, recommend changes, or not use it at all.  Therefore if you are
> *seriously* offering this as a patch and not just trying to displaysuperiority
> it would follow that you would go through the proper channels to submit it as

Yes, linking is now displaying superiority? Interesting. There's four other
people who voted for this bug. If they want to attach it, that's good.

> I see that there is now a much better page up in the interim.  Are you happy
> enough with what is up there to call this bug fixed, or would you not call it
> fixed since there are no buttons? (serious question)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The page on SFX today is the same on
that's been on for a week.
Please update temp page with Andkons page or add the following links:
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/buttons.html
http://mozilla.wikicities.com/wiki/Marketing:Firefox_Materials#Ad_Banners.2FButtons
(In reply to comment #23)
> Created an attachment (id=198978) [edit]

Thanks.
SpreadFirefox is back up.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
(In reply to comment #25)
> SpreadFirefox is back up.

Isn't it hilarious in a sick way how after about two-three weeks of downtime they didn't manage to implement a new system? So for all those weeks, *there really was no reason* for bringing down the site or not replacing it with my or a similar solution. Of course, the only reason it was abruptly brought back was for the 100M downloads.

And one more thing. Is this kind of sloppy style of management responsible for the fact that Google News only has a 100 or so papers mentioning the 100 million downloads whereas the 10 million mark had thousands of mentions?

http://news.google.com/news?&q=firefox+100+million
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: