Crystal Web ADSL performance feedback thread Part 3...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought the trial accounts had phone numbers.

aside:
/notes CW outsourcing its BI ;)
 
PostManPat said:
Looks like it takes first name + telephone number, if that username is taken it takes the first name and RNG's a few numbers to it.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm gonna guess that usernames are created manually by someone, and a certain someone appends the phonenumber to the first name to get a unique username in first try. Those usernames which have fewer than 10 digits appended to them seem to have just parts of the phone number appended. ie, for those with only 5 digits after their first name, those are the last 5 digits of their phone number it seems. At least that's the pattern I've observed for those accounts I've been able to verify.
 
My username has no tie in with my phone number, although I have a fair number of numbers tacked to the back.

G

new_in_za2 said:
Actually I'm gonna guess that usernames are created manually by someone, and a certain someone appends the phonenumber to the first name to get a unique username in first try. Those usernames which have fewer than 10 digits appended to them seem to have just parts of the phone number appended. ie, for those with only 5 digits after their first name, those are the last 5 digits of their phone number it seems. At least that's the pattern I've observed for those accounts I've been able to verify.
Click to expand...
 
OK, some more stats: When it comes to the number of digits appended to usernames:

0: 1350
1: 81
2: 39
3: 79
4: 74
5: 1980
6: 3
7: 1
8: 7
9: 13
10: 1766
11: 4
12+: 0

So the vast majority of accounts have 0 digits, 5 digits or 10 digits appended to them.
 
CW is dropping the ball big time. No comment from them yet?
 
Rohan said:
CW is dropping the ball big time. No comment from them yet?
Click to expand...

Either they don't know about the issue (doubtful), or they're trying to figure out how to do damage control on this. At this point in time, I'm super thankful that they don't have the ability to store any credit card details yet (that I'm aware of), because it seems obvious that they can't be trusted to not expose such information.
 
Note that Internet Solutions made a change yesterday to the way data is collated, in an effort to drill down into usage better.

Unfortunately this code contained a bug that made its way into production and Crystal Web was affected by this. The code has been patched and we have been assured that the error will not be repeated.

We apologise for the inconvenience in this regard.
 
Other IS isps affected or was this a CW specific change?
 
Crystal Web Management said:
Note that Internet Solutions made a change yesterday to the way data is collated, in an effort to drill down into usage better.

Unfortunately this code contained a bug that made its way into production and Crystal Web was affected by this. The code has been patched and we have been assured that the error will not be repeated.

We apologise for the inconvenience in this regard.
Click to expand...

In the today's usage it just states the overall cap. Will tomorrow's one split it between open time and peak?
 
Honestly, its the lack of professionalism. Don't get me the wrong, the network is great. I haven't seen pings like this in ages. But their business processes, QA processes etc are really shoddy.

From the portal, to wall-of-text emails, to an excel spreadsheet of price reductions, to sending me usage stats not meant for me.

Please get your head back in the game.
 
and will the incorrect values already reported on Monday also be corrected. To have most probably have used only 2-3GB but have reported 17GB is a major knock on cap/usage.

G
 
Not that concerned with my U/N appearing in public space, very little you can do with it, telno or not.

CW are probably juggling a few too many items atm, rushed dev, and mistakes happen with fallout. Lessons hard learnt but not nearly enough to write them off.

Dont talk about integrity/ethics, really has nothing to do with development in general. Bad code, is bad code, not bad ethics.
 
Now I understand what people were asking me this morning.

I thought they were saying the usage was weird because of the calculations being broken.

I just didn't receive any email at all.
 
My user name was not even on my usage e-mail I received this morning. Still in the dark on how much of my cap I used this month.
 
Quick note: this was Internet Solutions who unfortunately made the error and it had nothing to do with any code we had implemented or are implementing. IS have patched the code on their end.
 
Crystal Web Management said:
Quick note: this was Internet Solutions who unfortunately made the error and it had nothing to do with any code we had implemented or are implementing. IS have patched the code on their end.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how these issues are always everyone's fault except CW, yet CW is the only ISP affected... Surely, CW is not the only reseller on the IS platform? Why are no other ISPs affected by IS' bug in their code?

I must say all these breaches makes me see red lights too. Bad code, ethics, what ever. The fact remains you're untrustworthy.

EDIT: Posted as a ex CW subscriber, in my personal capacity, and expressing my own personal views, thoughts, and comments.
 
Last edited:
savage said:
It's amazing how these issues are always everyone's fault except CW, yet CW is the only ISP affected... Surely, CW is not the only reseller on the IS platform? Why are no other ISPs affected by IS' bug in their code?

I must say all these breaches makes me see red lights too. Bad code, ethics, what ever. The fact remains you're untrustworthy.
Click to expand...

Good question you're raising there...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X