Feeds

'WTF! MORONS!' Yahoo! Groups! redesign! traumatises! users!

'Vile, unfriendly interface' attacked by world+dog. But format stays

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

Yahoo! has told thousands of users who are complaining about the Purple Palace's pisspoor redesign of its Groups service that it will not be rolled back to the old format - despite a huge outcry.

The Marissa Mayer-run company revamped Yahoo! Groups last week, but it was immediately inundated with unhappy netizens who grumbled that the overhaul was glitchy, difficult to navigate and "severely degraded".

In response, Yahoo! told its users:

We deeply value how much you, our users, care about Yahoo! Groups ... we launched our first update to the Groups experience in several years and while these changes are an important step to building a more modern Groups experience, we recognise that this is a considerable change.

We are listening to all of the community feedback and we are actively measuring user feedback so we can continuously make improvements.

But the complaints have continued to flood in since Yahoo! made the tweak by changing its "classic" (read: ancient) interface to one dubbed "neo" that appeared to have been quickly spewed on to the interwebs with little testing before going live.

And - while the company claimed it was listening closely to its users about the new look Yahoo! Groups - it has ignored pleas from thousands of people who want it to reverse the update.

Yahoo! said in response to one unhappy camper on its official customer care Twitter account: "It is not possible to return to the old format."

The Register has asked Yahoo! to explain what's gone wrong. But at the time of writing it hadn't returned our request for comment.

El Reg understands that accessing the rebooted version of Yahoo! Groups on any browser initially led to all sorts of problems, with users reporting that they couldn't view messages properly and that it was impossible to make any changes to individual settings on the service.

The company said it had - so far - fixed some but not all of the bugs submitted by its miserable userbase. ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
'Missy' Cummings on UAVs, smartcars and dying from boredom
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
The 'fun-nification' of computer education – good idea?
Compulsory code schools, luvvies love it, but what about Maths and Physics?
Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots
We know what the Doctor does, stop going on about it already
'Cowardly, venomous trolls' threatened with TWO-YEAR sentences for menacing posts
UK government: 'Taking a stand against a baying cyber-mob'
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Sysadmin with EBOLA? Gartner's issued advice to debug your biz
Start hoarding cleaning supplies, analyst firm says, and assume your team will scatter
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.