Rol 2.0

Originally posted by Fore Check
ROL 2.0 wouldn't be bad, if they'd have carried over the data and links that we have grown used to using in ROL 1.0

Particularly the auctions.

Click to expand...

yea I still dont see where to click to bid

some of the content was really out of date , that is what should be fixed,, the last tech review posted was an ezi-65 or something like that. and the forum was horrible.

I hope the content gets rejuvinated, I never considered the site what it claims to be by a long shot.due to how old alot of content was.(besides news releases)

[
Another problem that the original ROL had that I hope to see fixed (I haven't found a link for it yet) is the Vendor search. The original ROL vendor list was horrid. I am hoping that the new one will be searchable, indexed and broken up into more logical partitions...
Anyone who dislikes the new forum tool and prefers the old one must not think much of TRF either... LOL

jim [/B]

Click to expand...

The vendor list was not that great but it was there. The current
one is pretty bad. When searching it does not come up with any
vendors or very few. Possibly the database has not been
updated.

I have recently deleted the link from the favorites and won't visit
the site again till I here it's better. I can get better vendor search
thru google.

William

Here is the blurb from RMR...

It gives a little better of an idea what and why... Overall if you look around the new ROL has much more potential, a better forum, better auction, better vendor list ( dont worry vendors will add their names quick ) ect ect... give it time and it will be nice.

Also don't forget that things like Info Central were already external links and have not been affected, it actually looks like he will make it better by integrating them into the new ROL vs being external.

From RMR-
"Rocketry Online 2.0 Launched
Totally new software has been installed on the Rocketry Online (ROL)
server which will upgrade every single aspect of ROL. The change is so
massive the new site has been dubbed ROL 2.0. The upgrade will provide
visitors with totally new auction, discussion forum, links directory and
news databases which will both run smoother and have too many new
features to list here. After the launch of ROL 2.0, there will be a
transitional period of 30 days where links will be provided on the home
page to relic ROL 1.0 modules like forums, auctions and classifieds so
that existing posts can expire naturally as topics and new posts are
switched to the newer modules. Users of the site are encouraged to
register as a new user, but are welcome to use the same user ID and
password from ROL 1.0. Vendors, manufacturers and clubs are also
encouraged to post a new description and link to their website in the
all new links area. The ROL 2.0 site may be found at
www.rocketryonline.com. "

Just figured Id throw that in...

Originally posted by Countdown Hobbies
From RMR-
"Rocketry Online 2.0 Launched
Users of the site are encouraged to register as a new user, but are welcome to use the same user ID and password from ROL 1.0.

Click to expand...

My old ID from 1.0 apparently did not make the transition to 2.0

I haven't decided yet if it's worth applying for a new ID

I believe what that was saying is that your old ID is not going to carry, but you are welcome to recreate it in 2.0.

I would recommend registering your ID just to place your marker and keep someone else from taking your usual online ID. For example, on the old TIRF forum, someone else grabbed KermieD because I had not thought to reserve the name.

Originally posted by KermieD
I believe what that was saying is that your old ID is not going to carry, but you are welcome to recreate it in 2.0.

I would recommend registering your ID just to place your marker and keep someone else from taking your usual online ID. For example, on the old TIRF forum, someone else grabbed KermieD because I had not thought to reserve the name.

Click to expand...

I hate it. I don't like losing all my feedback in the auctions, AT ALL

Ewww... Use vBulletin for the forums (or something similar) or remove them all together. The forums aren't worth the space they take up. Someone needs to step in and redesign. It looks like they just slapped a portal onto the front page.

Really, no offense meant to anybody by the following comment but:

If we're supposed to be a bunch of rocket scientists, how come so many people can't find the link and sentence referring to InfoCentral, right in the middle of the new page?

Originally posted by 10fttall
Really, no offense meant to anybody by the following comment but:

If we're supposed to be a bunch of rocket scientists, how come so many people can't find the link and sentence referring to InfoCentral, right in the middle of the new page?

Click to expand...

I *do* beleive that the "where did InfoCentral go?" question is one of the *most* asked questions since the switchover... LOL

I've gotten tired of pointing out where it is...

Originally posted by 10fttall
.....we're supposed to be a bunch of rocket scientists....

Click to expand...

that is a FRIGHTENING thought

.

I don't like the new look and feel of ROL 2.0 either. But it goes beyond look and feel to some real useability problems.

I especially don't like what was done to the auctions (which was a GREAT implementation in ROL 1.0):
- the feedback was not carried over
- the user names were not carried over
- can't look at closed auctions
- can't see the bid history
- no Sniperguard
- no way to leave/examine feedback (?)

Kevin.

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the item sort in the auction categories.

Not by Title
Not by End Date
Not by Creation Date
Not by Current Price
Not by Number of bids

Random....

Originally posted by Countdown Hobbies
I am pretty sure the original ROL was having some issues and lacked some needed things. Just give this one time and it will come around as well, its the same guy making both and he is good at what he does. Its nearly impossible to make a switch without problems.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to clear up this item Ken posted.

The reference "its the same guy making both" is an inaccurate representation of the facts. As the original founder and developer of Rocketry Online, I, in no way, have any affilliation with the current operation or rendition of the website at https://www.rocketryonline.com.

When Rocketry Online was built in 1997, there were no CMS systems, no vBulletin discussion forums and eBay was just 1 year old. The primary function of ROL was to aggregate the diverse array of hobby rocketry information available on the Internet into an easy to use vertical portal. Due to its popularity, the site added discussion forums, chat rooms, classified ads and user auctions. At no time did the original focus deviate from serving as an information portal primarily and as a user community secondarily.

ROL enjoyed phenomenal success at the end of the last decade, eclipsing all other hobby rocketry sources on the Internet, including some that had been around for some time, such as the Compuserve rocketry forum and rec.models.rockets.

In 2000, as my father lie dying, I sold Rocketry Online to enable me to spend more time with my family. This proved to be a wize decision, as my father ultimately died before the end of the year. But the torch had been passed and ROL was now the responsibility of someone else.

Unfortunately, ROL has suffered from lack of attention this entire decade. No site can survive if run on autopilot very long, but the fact that the site never broke is a testimony to the stableness of the underlying code. A comment is made in the ROL 2.0 FAQs about the ability to auto-remove dead links. For years, running a dead-link identifying software package on the site, reviewing the results and the hitting the "Delete" key in the database editor proved a fast, efficient method of managing the links in the site database. Perhaps in our fast-paced lives, we don't have time to run our businesses any more?

As the former owner, it probably would be politically correct for me to not comment on the new site or the new management. But I have never been PC in any way: shape, fashion or form.

I think the underlying effort is aimed at setting cruise control and letting ROL run itself. The design is very much below Brent's usually beautiful graphic ability. I think the design is clumsy and unintuitive. And there is enough whitespace to give a 2nd degree sunburn while browsing it.

But I don't really think many will notice. ROL lost the core of its users years ago. Newer software technologies, like the forum software here, have done more for the hobby at creating an online community flavor. The sad thing to me is that ROL has lost all of its personality. It was like an old friend, your favorite pair of jeans, that dirty coffee cup you refuse to wash. Now, it's just another cookie-cutter fast food restaurant building turned into a local deli and sub shop.

I did find it cruel and punishing that they have put a meta redirect into the old portal software so that if you try to browse the old list of vendors, it redirects you after 5 seconds to the new site's search engine. (Give it a try: https://www.rocketryonline.com/Search/db_search.cgi?setup_file=URL&submit_search=yes&category=Vendor) Rather than let people access the old data that is already there, it's more rewarding to flush them out of the old system and into the barren and empty new database, where they find nothing and leave.

Perhaps it's time to reflect on what the original goals were, and whether they were met, and then re-assess whether or not there is still an opportunity in this market. I find that currently the information about the hobby is even MORE fragmented than when I originally drove up the onramp to the Information Superhighway in 1995. Since ROL was designed in 1996 to be the Yahoo of hobby rocketry, perhaps now would be a good time to roll out the Google of hobby rocketry?

I remember attending the conference at LDRS XVII where Darrell presented ROL to the masses. The internet was a foreign concept, but it was nice to always know that ROL would be the same, with lots of good information everywhere. It was my home page until a few years ago, too.

I agree with the old pair of jeans analogy. I miss it a lot. Web 2.0 notwithstanding, ROL 1.0 was always a good information portal to which I could return and find good, solid content on rocketry. It seems like ROL 2.0 is trying to become a forum site with a few things on the side, rather than a content site with a few forums on the side, as was the original intent.

Here's the first entry for ROL in the wayback machine. https://web.archive.org/web/19970417201817/https://rocketryonline.com/ You did an excellent job, Darrell. Thank you so much for the ROL we all came to know and love.

(wow, I just re-read that. It's pretty sappy. I apologize. But even <a href=https://forums.newtons3rdrocketry.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1270>other forums</a> are worried...)

Originally posted by ddmobley
I just wanted to clear up this item Ken posted.


Perhaps it's time to reflect on what the original goals were, and whether they were met, and then re-assess whether or not there is still an opportunity in this market. I find that currently the information about the hobby is even MORE fragmented than when I originally drove up the onramp to the Information Superhighway in 1995. Since ROL was designed in 1996 to be the Yahoo of hobby rocketry, perhaps now would be a good time to roll out the Google of hobby rocketry?

Click to expand...

Wow, really nice to be reading posts from you again Mr. Mobley, it has been a long time...you don't know me from "shine~ola" but anyone who is anybody will remember what you have done for the hobby...especially with ROL.

Welcome

I too have to admit that it sucks!!!

I never thought ROL 1.0 ever had any problems and was an excellent rocketry resource, this one just ain't cuttin' it.

Originally posted by cliveroonie
I knew it was an external link, but I always instinctively went to ROL to find it. Thanks for the url. I will now bookmark it for future reference.

Clive

Click to expand...

Clive - instinctly go to EMRR TOOLS and whoa! There it is... say it again... Whoa! There it is....

The only thing I didn't like about ROL 1.0 was the forums, and that should now be fixed. The rest should be repopulation of data from 1.0 - 2.0 (it would be nice to transfer existing links) and user retraining

Originally posted by Johnnierkt
Wow, really nice to be reading posts from you again Mr. Mobley, it has been a long time...you don't know me from "shine~ola" but anyone who is anybody will remember what you have done for the hobby...especially with ROL.

Click to expand...

John, it's a pleasure to meet you.

I have a tendency to take anything regarding ROL very personally. I was made an offer on ROL one time earlier by the same purchaser, and I turned it down because I was concerned that the resource would be pillaged. I tried to make certain that the portal portion would remain the primary focus of the site. The result was to let it die a slow, but attractive, death and then alter its content drastically.

Can you imagine going to Yahoo one day and all you see is a group of discussion forums and online shops, and the portal content is relegated to a link labled "Weblinks" off to the side?

Originally posted by daveyfire
I remember attending the conference at LDRS XVII where Darrell presented ROL to the masses. The internet was a foreign concept, but it was nice to always know that ROL would be the same, with lots of good information everywhere. It was my home page until a few years ago, too.

Click to expand...

What a trip down memory lane that is! Thanks for the memory. I recall putting a LOT of effort into the handouts and the presentation, flying rockets at the event was secondary to helping plant the seed for ROL.

I agree with the old pair of jeans analogy. I miss it a lot. Web 2.0 notwithstanding, ROL 1.0 was always a good information portal to which I could return and find good, solid content on rocketry. It seems like ROL 2.0 is trying to become a forum site with a few things on the side, rather than a content site with a few forums on the side, as was the original intent.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you. I miss my old friend.

Here's the first entry for ROL in the wayback machine. https://web.archive.org/web/19970417201817/https://rocketryonline.com/ You did an excellent job, Darrell. Thank you so much for the ROL we all came to know and love.

Click to expand...

That's a good source if you want to look at the old content. Just pick one of the links in the middle of their archives and click away.

The first link was such a horrible design, modeled after the original Excite search engine. But it brings back very fond memories, and I appreciate your putting the link up to the Way Back Machine.

Originally posted by rstaff3
The only thing I didn't like about ROL 1.0 was the forums, and that should now be fixed. The rest should be repopulation of data from 1.0 - 2.0 (it would be nice to transfer existing links) and user retraining

Click to expand...

You have to recall that back in 1997, the only forum software was stuff like WWWboard, which tended to pile all of the discussions into a single page and had zero formatting, which tended to look like an early rendition of USEnet.

The ROL forums used an freeware application developed by Selena Sol and Gunther Bierks, and were the most graphically integrated example of thousands of sites that were running their software. They used to refer interested individuals to ROL as a showcase for what could be done with their product.

Someone mentioned the difficulty of navigating those forums, I assume due to the fact that we kept posts for up to 90 days visible. But by using the "Show only new" sign in flag, you could read just those posts that had been posted since your last visit. And, by combining that with clicking the "Next Forum" link, you could quickly scan all forums for new posts with just a few clicks. I even added cookie login and tracking, which was cutting edge in 1997.

But there is no doubt that better forum software has become available since 2000 when I sold it. Why nothing was done with the site since then is beyond me. I tried on numerous occassions to maintain the site, but the passwords were changed and I was cut out of the loop. I think the reason was because Brent always wanted me to do it for free or in exchange for advertising on the site and ER. I finally gave up, however I did offer in January of this year to provide some much needed maintenance FOR FREE and was turned down.

There are some extreme ego issues with Brent, and this has been pointed out before. His take on the hobby has alienated all except west coast fliers, and things have suffered because of it. At the time of sale, all the advertising slots were full on the banner ads of the site, and there were people waiting in line for the front page top banner ad slot, which the advertiser at the time prepaid for a year at the time. Now, there probably aren't three advertisers on the whole site. I think that speaks volumes.

Originally posted by ddmobley
You have to recall that back in 1997, the only forum software was stuff like WWWboard, which tended to pile all of the discussions into a single page and had zero formatting, which tended to look like an early rendition of USEnet.


....

But there is no doubt that better forum software has become available since 2000 when I sold it.

Click to expand...

Eggzactly

why cant they just keep the old rol in adition to the new one

Originally posted by ddmobley
But there is no doubt that better forum software has become available since 2000 when I sold it. Why nothing was done with the site since then is beyond me. I tried on numerous occassions to maintain the site, but the passwords were changed and I was cut out of the loop. I think the reason was because Brent always wanted me to do it for free or in exchange for advertising on the site and ER. I finally gave up, however I did offer in January of this year to provide some much needed maintenance FOR FREE and was turned down.

There are some extreme ego issues with Brent, and this has been pointed out before. His take on the hobby has alienated all except west coast fliers, and things have suffered because of it. At the time of sale, all the advertising slots were full on the banner ads of the site, and there were people waiting in line for the front page top banner ad slot, which the advertiser at the time prepaid for a year at the time. Now, there probably aren't three advertisers on the whole site. I think that speaks volumes.

Click to expand...

Darryl,

I seems to me like so much sour grapes for you to drop in here for the first time and make a personal attack on Brent McNeely. You have sold the property for reasons you stated and it is time to move on. At this point, if ROL or Extrame Rocketry don't suit your needs, don't use/buy them. The great thing about a free market economy is that if a product doesn't fulfill the need of enough customers it doesn't survive. Lord knows there aren't enough paying customers in the rocketry community for too many people to make their living, especially those with marginal or poor products or service.

I reference InfoCentral frequently for information, but even before you sold off ROL the articles there and in the Tech Series had become stale. It is easy to sit in the cheap seats and take potshots. I think the fact that ROL has changed demonstrates a level of effort to try to keep the site more up-to-date. I, for one, applaud Brent and Kevin for at least trying to keep up. I'm confident that in the long run ROL will be better for the upgrades.

--Lance.

Originally posted by llickteig1
Darryl,

I seems to me like so much sour grapes for you to drop in here for the first time and make a personal attack on Brent McNeely. You have sold the property for reasons you stated and it is time to move on. At this point, if ROL or Extrame Rocketry don't suit your needs, don't use/buy them. The great thing about a free market economy is that if a product doesn't fulfill the need of enough customers it doesn't survive. Lord knows there aren't enough paying customers in the rocketry community for too many people to make their living, especially those with marginal or poor products or service.

I reference InfoCentral frequently for information, but even before you sold off ROL the articles there and in the Tech Series had become stale. It is easy to sit in the cheap seats and take potshots. I think the fact that ROL has changed demonstrates a level of effort to try to keep the site more up-to-date. I, for one, applaud Brent and Kevin for at least trying to keep up. I'm confident that in the long run ROL will be better for the upgrades.

--Lance.

Click to expand...

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and you are MOST certainly in the minority here. If you like what you have gotten from ROL since 2000, then you are entitled to like that. The majority of the community has spoken.

< removed by a moderator >

And ROL 2.0 sucks. I just *LOVE* the LDRS coversage that has been on ROL since 1999 (NOT!).

And THAT is a personal opinion. Speaking of personal opinions, the "In Our Opinion" series was written by individuals from all aspects of the hobby rocketry community. The LAST article (https://www.rocketryonline.com/Search/db_search.cgi?setup_file=Opinion&submit_search=yes&db_id=38) was written on September 25th, 2001, a year AFTER I sold ROL. How many articles were written before I sold it? 37. How many after I sold it that I *didn't* write? 0. I think the entire community knows what was and wasn't considered stale.

... "the Google of hobby rocketry" ...

THAT sounds cool!

Originally posted by k3td
... "the Google of hobby rocketry" ...

THAT sounds cool!

Click to expand...

I agree... The market is ripe for a proper site. Your old work was left to rot on the vine. I hope you pick up the ball and run with it.

Originally posted by ddmobley
< removed by a moderator >

Click to expand...

Well, so much for an example of a personal attack. More ER shills?