Bank feedback fail
-
My understanding is they take my money, invest it poorly, charge me for putting the money in, taking the money out, looking at my money, looking at the statements that set out what they've done with my money, and also charge me when I don't put enough money in. Was there something I missed? An extra service I should sign up for so I can give them more money?
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
looking at the statements that set out what they've you've done with your money, and also charge me when I don't put enough money in I use my own money
I actually had the impression that Canadian banks were sensible? Guess not
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
looking at the statements that set out what they've you've done with your money, and also charge me when I don't put enough money in I use my own money
I actually had the impression that Canadian banks were sensible? Guess not
This is an Australian bank.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
I bank with a very, very well known bank whom I won't name. They are awful, but for complicated reasons I'm stuck with them for the moment. They offered me a "We'd love your feedback" page, which was a mistake on their part. Or so I thought. I filled in quite a detailed rant about the issues with their site, from security to basic speed and performance. I went to hit "submit" and it popped up a message saying "Only alphabets and numbers please". Alphabets and numbers. Right. No full-stop/periods, no commas, no question marks or apostrophes. I couldn't even put a newline in the text box. My mind boggles. These guys are managing my money. Seriously scary.
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
No full-stop/periods, no commas, no question marks or apostrophes. I couldn't even put a newline in the text box.
It was just for security http://xkcd.com/327/[^] :) It is "da big bank" after all...
-- "My software never has bugs. It just develops random features."
-
This is an Australian bank.
cheers Chris Maunder
You poor poor man :laugh:
-
Slacker007 wrote:
Chris, I have never experienced basic speed or performance with this site
Really? What sort of page load times are you seeing?
cheers Chris Maunder
Homepage, first view - 4.7s to 7.858s. 55.6% of the requestes are for images with Java script coming in at 20.6% of the time. Once pages are cached, it goes a little faster. The biggest hit in time that I notice, and have noticed this for a few years now, is the amount of time it can take to get returned back to the thread, after replying to someone. I don't have exact numbers on this but it is very noticeable, sometimes I never get returned. This happens either at home or at work. I wasn't trying to offend you, but I thought it odd that you would point out another site's misgivings, in regards to speed and performance, when in my opinion, this site is not always a jet fighter.
-
My understanding is they take my money, invest it poorly, charge me for putting the money in, taking the money out, looking at my money, looking at the statements that set out what they've done with my money, and also charge me when I don't put enough money in. Was there something I missed? An extra service I should sign up for so I can give them more money?
cheers Chris Maunder
You missed "charging you for leaving your money in the bank[^]". :rolleyes:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I bank with a very, very well known bank whom I won't name. They are awful, but for complicated reasons I'm stuck with them for the moment. They offered me a "We'd love your feedback" page, which was a mistake on their part. Or so I thought. I filled in quite a detailed rant about the issues with their site, from security to basic speed and performance. I went to hit "submit" and it popped up a message saying "Only alphabets and numbers please". Alphabets and numbers. Right. No full-stop/periods, no commas, no question marks or apostrophes. I couldn't even put a newline in the text box. My mind boggles. These guys are managing my money. Seriously scary.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Homepage, first view - 4.7s to 7.858s. 55.6% of the requestes are for images with Java script coming in at 20.6% of the time. Once pages are cached, it goes a little faster. The biggest hit in time that I notice, and have noticed this for a few years now, is the amount of time it can take to get returned back to the thread, after replying to someone. I don't have exact numbers on this but it is very noticeable, sometimes I never get returned. This happens either at home or at work. I wasn't trying to offend you, but I thought it odd that you would point out another site's misgivings, in regards to speed and performance, when in my opinion, this site is not always a jet fighter.
Just as some extra info, being someone accessing the site from Cambridge UK - I have never had any speed issues with regards to this site.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Just as some extra info, being someone accessing the site from Cambridge UK - I have never had any speed issues with regards to this site.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Could be. However when I run the test, being from New York, USA and I am using the latest version of Chrome, and on a cable internet connection, it can be bloody slow. But like I said, I love this site, always have, and I really don't care if it is slow.
-
And here goes the way to get a 100% customer satisfaction : do not give them the opportunity to complain. This post was brought to you using an alphabet (c).
do you not mean 100 percent customer satisfaction
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
to basic speed and performance.
Chris, I have never experienced basic speed or performance with this site, but I still love the site. Love is blind I guess. :sigh:
Slacker007 wrote:
Chris, I have never experienced basic speed or performance with this site, but I still love the site. Love is blind I guess.
Hey be careful what you say, we don't need him testing the limits of your blind love. Next thing you know he'll take away our ability to use symbols and newlines ;)
-
Slacker007 wrote:
Chris, I have never experienced basic speed or performance with this site, but I still love the site. Love is blind I guess.
Hey be careful what you say, we don't need him testing the limits of your blind love. Next thing you know he'll take away our ability to use symbols and newlines ;)
:-D
-
Homepage, first view - 4.7s to 7.858s. 55.6% of the requestes are for images with Java script coming in at 20.6% of the time. Once pages are cached, it goes a little faster. The biggest hit in time that I notice, and have noticed this for a few years now, is the amount of time it can take to get returned back to the thread, after replying to someone. I don't have exact numbers on this but it is very noticeable, sometimes I never get returned. This happens either at home or at work. I wasn't trying to offend you, but I thought it odd that you would point out another site's misgivings, in regards to speed and performance, when in my opinion, this site is not always a jet fighter.
What's interesting is we moved all images / script requests onto Amazon CloudFront specifically to speed that stuff up. Yet 55% of the time is spent on them? Hmmm. When I access from Australia the site's pretty damn good. However, 2 data points means absolutely nothing.
Slacker007 wrote:
I wasn't trying to offend you, but I thought it odd that you would point out another site's misgivings
Actually I knew I was setting myself up and was actually interested to see if anyone commented. You did, which means I have a handle on a perf issue now which means I can work to improve it. Interested in helping us iron out some kinks? It won't hurt a bit...
cheers Chris Maunder
-
do you not mean 100 percent customer satisfaction
-
I bank with a very, very well known bank whom I won't name. They are awful, but for complicated reasons I'm stuck with them for the moment. They offered me a "We'd love your feedback" page, which was a mistake on their part. Or so I thought. I filled in quite a detailed rant about the issues with their site, from security to basic speed and performance. I went to hit "submit" and it popped up a message saying "Only alphabets and numbers please". Alphabets and numbers. Right. No full-stop/periods, no commas, no question marks or apostrophes. I couldn't even put a newline in the text box. My mind boggles. These guys are managing my money. Seriously scary.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
What's interesting is we moved all images / script requests onto Amazon CloudFront specifically to speed that stuff up. Yet 55% of the time is spent on them? Hmmm. When I access from Australia the site's pretty damn good. However, 2 data points means absolutely nothing.
Slacker007 wrote:
I wasn't trying to offend you, but I thought it odd that you would point out another site's misgivings
Actually I knew I was setting myself up and was actually interested to see if anyone commented. You did, which means I have a handle on a perf issue now which means I can work to improve it. Interested in helping us iron out some kinks? It won't hurt a bit...
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
Interested in helping us iron out some kinks?
Anyway I can.
-
Judging from some of the articles I've deleted recently, possibly.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Could be. However when I run the test, being from New York, USA and I am using the latest version of Chrome, and on a cable internet connection, it can be bloody slow. But like I said, I love this site, always have, and I really don't care if it is slow.
Are you using your ISP's DNS servers, or something else? I've seen suggestions that using Google DNS / Open DNS can mess with the performance of CDNs like CloudFront: http://blog.celingest.com/en/2013/02/14/the-importance-of-dns-servers-to-maximize-cdn-use/[^] http://apcmag.com/why-using-google-dns-opendns-is-a-bad-idea.htm[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
And then route all the truncated fractions to this guy's[^] payslip? :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Are you using your ISP's DNS servers, or something else? I've seen suggestions that using Google DNS / Open DNS can mess with the performance of CDNs like CloudFront: http://blog.celingest.com/en/2013/02/14/the-importance-of-dns-servers-to-maximize-cdn-use/[^] http://apcmag.com/why-using-google-dns-opendns-is-a-bad-idea.htm[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Are you using your ISP's DNS servers, or something else?
Wow, an awesome question. I just asked and our company here, uses the same ISP as I have at home, which would account for the similarity in user experience between home and office. Time Warner The test returned back this for CDN's used: CDN's Used ajax.googleapis.com : Google dj9okeyxktdvd.cloudfront.net : Amazon CloudFront www.google-analytics.com : Google pagead2.googlesyndication.com : Google atdmt-a.akamaihd.net : Akamai c.betrad.com : Akamai secure.img-cdn.mediaplex.com : Akamai
