1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

When events conflict, why blindfold us?

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by speedboat, Apr 24, 2011.

  1. speedboat

    speedboat AllStar

    67
    0
    Sep 22, 2009
    :confused:

    When I add a program and a conflict exists, I select the resolve by priority option and then I'm presented with one or more conflicts as a "Locked Events"! Why hide the name of the program with a conflict? Why ask me to blindly confirm the skipping of these locked events. Why not tell me what the event is?

    :confused:
     
  2. TulsaOK

    TulsaOK New Member

    3,469
    0
    Feb 23, 2004
    Is your system locked?
     
  3. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,572
    373
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    It's a catch-22...

    If you lock channels or your system, then presumably you do it for a reason... IF they show you the locked stuff, that would somewhat defeat the purpose of the locks.

    For resolving conflicts, though, they do need a workaround wherein you could enter your lock password to temporarily view and resolve the conflicts.
     
  4. TulsaOK

    TulsaOK New Member

    3,469
    0
    Feb 23, 2004
    Actually, it's not necessarily the channels that are locked when this happens. I receive this message on OTA channels. They need to rethink the way they apply this.
     
  5. jsk

    jsk Icon

    776
    11
    Dec 27, 2006
    I received this message when I locked out the HD duplicate channels in the 9xxx channel range. It presented these as locked events even though I was using the mapped down channel numbers that weren't locked. It looks like a minor bug, but the workaround is to unlock the HD duplicate channels and create a favorites list excluding the duplicate channels.

    I wish they would automatically hide all duplicate channels.
     
  6. TulsaOK

    TulsaOK New Member

    3,469
    0
    Feb 23, 2004
    I don't see this bug ever being addressed. Like most of the "minor" ones they seem to feel if there's a work around why address it. IMO, the folks designing/writing/testing this stuff don't actually use it. If they actually do use this and this is what they are willing to accept then shame on them.
     
  7. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,572
    373
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    That's the stance of a lot of companies... if the noise from customers doesn't reach a certain level, they figure it isn't worth fixing.

    I have worked at companies that released software/hardware with multiple known issues that they decided not to bother fixing and decided to take a wait-and-see approach to see if enough people complained.

    It's sloppy if you ask me... but it's not new.

    And you're right... when there is a workaround, even an awkward one, companies will push a fix back and not worry about it.
     
  8. bnborg

    bnborg Icon

    616
    0
    Jun 3, 2005
    I worked at a company that actually had an enlightened approach to software development--at least for the project I worked on. There was a direct line of communication between the end users and the developers.

    Yes, there were four or five levels in this chain, to filter out isolated problems and frivilous requests. But then the individual developer would often talk directly with the end user who originated the "Problem Report". They were all called PR's even if they were enhancements. We didn't try to differentiate between them.

    That was then. Now development has been outsourced. I don't know how the end users feel about the software now, but I'm sure it sucks.
     

Share This Page