Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC (1514 Views)
Reply
Occasional Contributor
VINAY_KUMILY
Posts: 3
Registered: ‎06-30-2011
Message 1 of 19 (1,742 Views)

NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

Hi All,

 

I am using the ITRC service last five years, I am not satisfied with the this new  ITRC  site because of the following shortcomings.

 

 

1.Poor Performance

 

2.Not a User Friendly

 

3.Whatever the information if we ask form Google it will come to the Home page of this new site (Earlier it go to the exact page )

 

4. Disappeared the old blogs

 

5.Not able to view the sorting option ( Earlier we can sort the blogs by top read, subscribers, etc)

 

 

Kindly do the betterment – “New arrival should be easy to use with adaption the modern technology”

Community Manager
Warren_Admin
Posts: 186
Registered: ‎03-16-2007
Message 2 of 19 (1,727 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

We are glad to see that you have been using the ITRC service for the last five years, Welcome to the new HP Enterprise Community. We have combined the best of several legacy sites into one, with greatly expanded functionality and integration.

You have identified some concerns, and here is some perspective: 

  • Performance and User-friendliness: Can you be more specific? We are always looking for ways to improve the community experience.
  • Google search results: As Google re-indexes on their schedule, more and more of the direct links will become available.
  • Blog concerns: To our knowledge, the legacy ITRC did not host blogs. The HP Enterprise Blog site is available here.
Honored Contributor
Ajdin Osmanagic
Posts: 648
Registered: ‎03-12-2002
Message 3 of 19 (1,714 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

Hi,

 

I WAS using ITRC 10 years, and now I'm forced to use this new one. I'm bothered with user unfriendly stuff, which were pointed out with first post on this link:

- proportions of the page is user unfriendly, i.e. too much graphical elements, small fonts, and lots of white space; could not find what some graphical icon means (sings like moderator, author,...)

Why two forums? Where is the difference?

- ITRC is still to be found at http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/ITRC-OV-Operations-ITO-Forum/bd-p/itrc-162

- new HPOM forum at: http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/Operations-Management-Support/bd-p/sws-OMC_SUP

- really poor performance at sign in, if at all! 50% chances to be singed in or not (when not, then page is still performing sing-in, but after few minutes, hours, it is really obvious, that you will not be signed in)

Currently I'm sign ing in in another browser, looks like unsuccessfully...

 

These kind of issues, at first glance.

 

BR,

Ajdin

Occasional Visitor
SisECI
Posts: 3
Registered: ‎07-01-2011
Message 4 of 19 (1,708 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

I'm HP NonStop systems user and I don`t find topics, solutions and forums about them. The page contents must be more direct..... I missed the old ITRC.

Acclaimed Contributor
Dennis Handly
Posts: 25,274
Registered: ‎03-06-2006
Message 5 of 19 (1,704 Views)

Re: NOT satisfied with the this new EBC forum

[ Edited ]

>SisECI: I'm HP NonStop systems user

 

A new forum was added for NonStop servers:

http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/NonStop-Servers/bd-p/nonstop

 

And NonStop OS forum:

http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/NonStop-OS/bd-p/nonstop_os

Exalted Contributor
Steven E. Protter
Posts: 33,806
Registered: ‎08-15-2002
Message 6 of 19 (1,675 Views)

Re: NOT satisfied with the this new ITRC

Shalom,

 

1.Poor Performance

I have found off hours slowdowns, but remembering the bad old ITRC days, this system is in general a step up.

 

2.Not a User Friendly

 I find it to be new. There is a learning curve. I think with time you will find it friendlier. Many featurse users were requesting in ITRC for years were added.

 

 

3.Whatever the information if we ask form Google it will come to the Home page of this new site (Earlier it go to the exact page )

HP has stated, they will be going through their data and fixing links to the old ITRC to point to the relocated posts. The process will work on most recent posts first. I'm starting to see some accurrate results in google. As HP fixes the data this problem, which I agree is serious will hopefully get better.

 

 

4. Disappeared the old blogs

???

 

5.Not able to view the sorting option ( Earlier we can sort the blogs by top read, subscribers, etc)

I am not sure what you are getting at here, but there seem to be some filtering options.

 

SEP

Steven E Protter
Owner of ISN Corporation
http://isnamerica.com
http://hpuxconsulting.com
Sponsor: http://hpux.ws
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux
Founder http://newdatacloud.com
Occasional Visitor
AnishTS2011
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎06-28-2011
Message 7 of 19 (1,667 Views)

Re: NOT satisfied with the this new ITRC

Hi All,

 

If there  is a way to give old thread  id and find  the location of the same in new system it will be greatly helpful to us. Right now what ever we bookmarked is gone for a toss....

 

Warm Regards,

Anish  T S

Neighborhood Admin
BGroot
Posts: 1,217
Registered: ‎11-26-2007
Message 8 of 19 (1,641 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

Ajdin,

 

Regarding multiple forums in the HP Software Solutions community (Operations Manager for example), we decided to leave the ITRC forums as they are so that ITRC members who joined the community could recognize them. We started this community a 1.5 years back and had our own support forums at a product level. You still can search in both forums from a category level, but it is up to you in which board you wish to participate it. If we had combined the forums together many ITRC members would not be able to find the forums. We will be evaluating after a few months to see if we should combine the forums or not.

Honored Contributor
Ajdin Osmanagic
Posts: 648
Registered: ‎03-12-2002
Message 9 of 19 (1,633 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

Hi

 

Thanks for clarification.

My last post did not include newbies at product itself, so for them, having 2 separate forums/communities is even more confusing. It is already frustrating that ITRC migrated to new form, and whoever decided that it would be a bit separated, had I believe good intentions, but I see now, that merge is necessary, because we're talking about the same product. Not that now we have CPE branch of forum, and R&D one. Separate fractions are not good idea. Pure from my point of few, I have to check 2 links, instead of one link. Not to mention, that we had to migrate password to new form, new sign-in rules. Merging those 2 forums would be at least annoying thing in this whole process. 

I will probably visit the other forum, but will not participate any more. Why should? I have another separate forum about the same thing on another link. Maybe you guys will calculate popularity and compare it. 'ITRC' will win, what then? So I'm interested at this point, what drives this future decision?

Did I mention OpC, ITO, OVO, OMU, HPOM, OVOW? If you'd read some of the questions, when people are describing product, they're not so specific, which version is the product itself, because they are lost a bit in that constant name change. But it makes a difference, if they specify that it is OVO for Windows, if they wouldn't, then how can they help themselves with UNIX commands?

So to stabilize understanding from all perspectives (consultants, sale representatives, R&D, administrators, support engineers,  higher management,..., operators,...) I'd say it is necessary to simplify things on user level of internet forums, to have less 'maintenance' of being up2date, and rather focus on providing valuable answers.

 

BR,

Ajdin

kmc
Occasional Contributor
kmc
Posts: 3
Registered: ‎06-28-2011
Message 10 of 19 (1,619 Views)

Re: NOT satisfied with the this new ITRC

I totally agree.   Bring back the old ITRC.

Valued Contributor
maf
Posts: 112
Registered: ‎11-11-2010
Message 11 of 19 (1,584 Views)

Re: NOT satisfied with the this new ITRC

Would it be too difficult to provide a link to the migrated post on the 

"ITRC redirect announcement"

page? Sure, over time google reindexes, but until then this is purely annoying.

 

Also, Google is not the only way to get here. Surely everybody has emails containing links to the original itrc forum.  Browser history, Web page scraps, Tab sessions, external crossreferences - all these are broken.

 

 



Neighborhood Admin
BGroot
Posts: 1,217
Registered: ‎11-26-2007
Message 12 of 19 (1,579 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

Ajdin,

 

Thanks for your feedback. I understand where you are coming from. As I mentioned we will be evaluating the situation in a few months, so I hope you can have some patience with us until we make the decision. We also will be asking our members opinion in this matter.

 

What you could do in the mean time is to subscribe to both forums * click on subscribe at a board level" and get a summary of new threads on a daily or weekly basis. That way you don't have to look through the boards to see what is new unless you want to search for a specific topic. Just a thought.

 

Greetings,

 

B

Advisor
George Glynn
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎04-30-2007
Message 13 of 19 (1,560 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

Is it really possible that no one involved with this enormous project at HP realized before the new community site was put into production--or really, way, way earlier, in the development and conception stage of the process--that this was going to be a gigantic problem? If so, it shows a tremendous lack of foresight and common sense on the part of the project managers and lead developers.  If not, that means y'all realized it but didn't actually care, which almost, but not quite, worse.

 

Bottom line: this should have been planned for from the get-go, and the transparent redirection from the old URLs should have been an integral component of the new site.  As many others have pointed out, not having this not only breaks search results from all outside search engines, it destroys links between old forum posts embedded in the body of the posts, which is, in fact, worse.  A lot of people really dropped the ball here, but given the status of modern corporate culture, I doubt anyone will suffer any repercussions for it, so it's party time!

Regular Advisor
John O'Neill_6
Posts: 117
Registered: ‎11-17-2003
Message 14 of 19 (1,544 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

I demand (as someone who has invested literally hundreds of thousands of dollars into HP equipment and services) that the entire team of people responsible for this travesty of a website be sacked.

 

Odds are that HP have 'offshored and outsourced' this new forum to some 'Web 2.0' start-up and have washed their hands of it.

 

HP are really starting to slip in my view, this week we find out that faulty memory modules in servers are deemed 'user replaceable parts'... Really!?

 

Be careful HP... if you keep devaluing your brand like this, then people like me (who make the purchasing decisions) will soon decide that the premium paid for the HP gear is not worth it and we'll start looking at DELL.

 

That's right.. DELL.

 

-John O'Neill

Honored Contributor
Stephan.
Posts: 512
Registered: ‎10-31-2002
Message 15 of 19 (1,534 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

Just make sure that Dell will not offer you the same "service"

 

http://support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx/support/csr/cust_replaceable_parts?c=us&l=en&s=ge...

 

That is how it works, everything on hardware should get cheaper and cheaper and at some point the costs must be saved ... which does not mean that I like it.

 

My 2 cent,

Stephan

 

 

Outstanding Contributor
Pete Randall
Posts: 16,205
Registered: ‎11-03-1996
Message 16 of 19 (1,526 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

And when a customer screws up inserting a customer-replaceable memory module in a Dell box, the entire box can be replaced for, at most, a few thousand dollars.  If it's a pricey HP server, with a pricey HP support contract, you're looking at tens of thousands of dollars to replace the damaged machine.  If HP is going to charge top dollar to purchase the machine at the outset and then charge top dollar to maintain a support contract on the machine, HP should be willing to do something to earn all that money, not shift maintenance/repair duties onto the inexperienced customer's shoulders.

 

I'm sorry, Stephan, but your 2 cents, while affordable, just don't stand up.


Pete
Acclaimed Contributor
Dennis Handly
Posts: 25,274
Registered: ‎03-06-2006
Message 17 of 19 (1,520 Views)

Re: NOT satisfied with the this new EBC forum

[ Edited ]

>Odds are that HP have 'offshored and outsourced' this new forum

 

Well to Lithium as it says on the bottom of each page.

Honored Contributor
Stephan.
Posts: 512
Registered: ‎10-31-2002
Message 18 of 19 (1,516 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC


Pete Randall wrote:

And when a customer screws up inserting a customer-replaceable memory module in a Dell box, the entire box can be replaced for, at most, a few thousand dollars.  If it's a pricey HP server, with a pricey HP support contract, you're looking at tens of thousands of dollars to replace the damaged machine.  If HP is going to charge top dollar to purchase the machine at the outset and then charge top dollar to maintain a support contract on the machine, HP should be willing to do something to earn all that money, not shift maintenance/repair duties onto the inexperienced customer's shoulders.

 

I'm sorry, Stephan, but your 2 cents, while affordable, just don't stand up.


I don't want take this to far offtopic but screwing up a box during the replacement of a memory modul sounds like breaking the engine of a car while putting the key into the door. Anyway it may happen and just to add it, customer replaceable memory is only on the cheap proliant boxes available, not on the pricey big irons and I thought that I did mention that I'm not a big fan of it?

 

Stephan

 

 

Outstanding Contributor
Pete Randall
Posts: 16,205
Registered: ‎11-03-1996
Message 19 of 19 (1,514 Views)

Re: NO satisfied with the this new ITRC

Right, you did.


Pete
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of HP. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.