Just found out that the users on the map are gone like a lot (no one in JP and Korea but I’m sure there were 100+ although most of them seen inactive), so the database is lost and that is why my account was gone?
broadly speaking, it’s insane how couchers, implemented in python/javascript/react, in development for so many years, has a fraction of the features of the original couchsurfing from 2008 that had a far greater number of users. 10x, 100x as many users? and that was just a php web app wasn’t it? and we are waiting years to add multiple photos to a profile
the old CS site, with many features, worked mostly at server level, where it is much easier to optimize performances and to add features, bounded only by the fantasy of the developer.
It had no presentation tricks and worked on any browser.
“modern” apps are often doing a substantial part of job on the presentation level, relying on scripts that run on the client.
This makes “pretty” apps, that make a big effect on illiterates, but since these must work on any kind of user device have to me made in a way that is unoptimizable, need much more time to test under any possible condition [and often fails !], and where a small change require a complete rewrite [ the hype of code reuse is not true, since it requires even more time to test ].
1 Like
As I mentioned on the Github issue, not having multiple pictures is not a technical hurdle. Not all discussion we have are public (for practical reasons), you can probably find some conversations about it in the meeting notes.
We’d love to have you join and help us develop the platform if you feel it’s not moving quick enough.
If you go back to this model of open contributions maybe I will consider joining. Couchsurfing is about freedom and ephemeral connections, openness, but dev team seems more about structure, restrictions, debating, locking people into the team.
You want an open model where everyone can join and contribute whenever wherever.
So who’s gonna decide if your work is good enough? Who’s gonna decide if you’r idea make sense and is gonna be implemented?
Vote? ok, so what if we have a large group of people who think they know it all but in reality their knowledge is that of a 3rd grader? Of course i’m exaggerating to make a point.
This is exactly why all these platforms like trustroot and bewelcome are not improving. Excellent people who try to come in to improve things need to go through these endless discussions for years just to make one tiny change. At some point even the most brilliant person who initially wanted to help will leave because there are no meaningful changes you can do.
Having a dedicated team and validating their skills first is the way to go
Davis, read again martin’s post. Open model where anyone can join whenever is exactly how many successful OSS projects work. The closed, formal team where it’s almost like a job (unpaid) model has not been working well for couchers either.
I read it when Martin first posted that and I fundamentally disagree with that approach.
Who’s going to make sure that you have quality volunteers joining? Who’s going to guarantee that certain criteria and deadline are met?
If you have anyone joining you WILL end up with a lots of volunteers that nobody oversees. Nobody’s making the calls, months will be spent just to make a decision because there’s no clear hierarchy and everyone’s too concern to step on someone’s toe or hurt someone’s feelings. You always need a leader in a group setting. We literally learned that in elementary school when forming groups. Someone needs to be in charge or nothing will get done.
You assign roles to each person and ensure they meet expectation. You may argue that volunteering is different but it’s not. You’re doing exactly the same thing what you would do in the real world out there at your full time job. The only difference is this is unpaid. So why would you treat the process of working on a product differently?
The lack of success at Couchers isn’t due to its current volunteer model.
The key is not to select volunteers and then let them decide, nor to discuss any minor [and major] issue until consensus is made.
The idea is to give as many information [open API] to people willing to improve the system and then let the do what they found more useful. users will decide what is the best version, so “losers” could decide if giving up or stay with their share of users [that can interact anyway with everyone] that found their version more usable.