Well, I would characterize it more as simply paying attention to the detail of what was happening so that I could make it work for my purposes.RossEvans wrote:I think they were a straightforward and negative review of a bad software design, a criticism with which you disagree. . . .
But except for lajackson's intrepid reverse-engineering that is published deep in these forums, I would never know this other behavior was happening.
The only person for whom this matters at all is the stake clerk. He either instructs the ward clerks to enter a second geocode in the ward MLS for the stake field or he does not. He either uses the information from the ward or he does not. The ward clerk doesn't care.
As for the design and programming of MLS, don't even get me started. This thread is about geocodes. I suppose we could start a thread on software reviews, but it would not really solve any of my MLS problems. And, I promised a long time ago when I joined that I would behave here. [grin]
I have learned that, for better or worse, the Church has different objectives in its programming than having a nice, polished, software product to sell on the commercial market. Specific functionality is key. Within MLS, some areas are more important than others, geocodes (along with a number of other things) are way down the list of priorities, and the programmers don't give a whit about . . . ok, I'll stop right here. The developers do listen to bug reports, prioritize them, and try to do what they can about the ones that affect the most folks.
I get more answers from this forum than anywhere else, because folks who participate in this forum are on the front line trying to make it all work and have more experience than anyone else. And yes, it is Ok to discuss what works and what does not, and how to work around it where possible to get the job done.
The bug reports are of much higher quality after some discussion and experience here in the forum.