I think I'm going to miss the old site version of mod publishing process. I just found out today when I tried to release a mod update after I was back from holiday, & I got redirected to beta version. Well, I usually used old site before. I guess I'll try to use beta version now while adapting to the beta version's publishing process.

Anyway, it's good to see that it's finally close to the launching of the beta site.

Btw, I recently noticed something strange after uploading a mod "Merciless Survivor Bots" via beta site. After waiting for more than 5 minutes, I tried to check L4D2 section to see if my recently uploaded mod showed up or not. However, even after more than 10 minutes, the mod still didn't show up. Then I tried to check like this to compare:

(checked from old gamemaps site's home. My mod showed up)
----------

(checked from L4D2 section on old gamemaps site. My mod didn't show up)
----------

(checked from L4D2 section on beta gamemaps site. My mod showed up)
----------
----------
From the tests, I figured out that there might be a sync bug between old & beta sites on L4D2 section, because my mod even showed up on old site's home & L4D2 section on beta site. Could this bug be investigated? Because actually I'm also still not sure if this bug happens to anyone or only me.

I've noticed if updating my thumbnails (not the mods), there are delays, but they vary in terms of how long they are.  However, this also happened to me for years back when I was modding and with both new beta and original website.  This is probably due to the amount of traffic the websites (both) are experiencing at the time.  I think the problem will get better once they have the old site gone, because they should have more server redundancy at that point since they'll have the option of using some of the old servers too with the new website.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it buddy!

@AlfredENeuman:
Yeah, I think it's as you said. I just checked now (one hour later) & my mod finally showed up. I hope that the beta site could be finalized & launched soon, so that there's no sync/ delay bug anymore.

I hope so too, in part because I think it will generate some excitement and perhaps get some more people to publish their work here.  Have a great day.

Btw, I think I probably found some bugs again during updating one of my mod. I captured some screenshots of the bugs:

(As described on the screenshot, the pop-up window is cropped when clicking three dots on the mod near the bottom of the browser. Normally the pop-up should be automatically adjusted & moved to upper location so that it won't be cropped. But on this case, it was cropped. I don't know if it happens just on my browser or not)
----------

(The version number just keeps continuing from 19.9 to 19.10. Usually when the version number reaches for example 1.9 & then there's a new update, it will go to 2.0. The mechanism of the old site was like this when releasing a mod, but somehow the beta site still proceeds from 1.9 to 1.10 instead. I wonder if this is a bug, or a new mechanism implemented on beta site)
----------

Well, I think those are all I noticed during my mod update today.

@Mr. iLL:
I see. Last time I updated the version of my mod, the delay didn't take much time like 1 hour anymore but only in few minutes.

As for the version numbering, when I released an update by using the old site before it was replaced by beta site, I never chose "Major Update" because I thought major update was only for a big update that gave significant changes to a mod. So, because I only did small updates, I kept using "Minor Change". The version number increased, from 1.0 to 1.1, & then from 1.9 to 2.0. Actually I prefer the old site's version numbering as it won't confuse users about the version of the mod. For examples, I usually did as below:
- I changed v1.9 to v1.91 not because I jumped the version far enough, but because I either only fixed very small bugs that I had noticed just after uploading, or I reuploaded the mod because of wrong file (I usually see v1.9 as v1.90 instead, so I add 0.01 for very small updates. The other problem would be using same version number could cause the new file not to be packed. For example, when I renamed the version number of reuploaded mod to v1.9, the zip file still contained the old v1.9, not the reuploaded new one. Probably it was a bug on the old site's mod releasing mechanism).
- The change from 1.9 to 1.10 might confuse users or visitors, like, probably some of them might also have similar thought like mine about decimal numbering (Examples: 1.9 has the same value as 1.90 & also same as 1.9000). Some people might think that the version is rolled back, by seeing the change from 1.9 (1.90 in their eyes) to 1.10. That's why I think it would be better to stick to the old site's version numbering (from 1.9 to 2.0 instead of 1.10), unless if beta's version numbering is made like from 1.01 to 1.02 & then from 1.09 to 1.10 instead, as that could prevent people from getting confused.

I think those are all of my opinions & some suggestions about version numbering. Btw, when I accessed discussion section via Discussion Main Page, I encountered error like this:

This error just happened recently, I guess. I could access this discussion section only when I jumped directly to "Announcement" via history of my browser.

I just did one more test, as I also needed to update the version of one of my mods. This time, I carefully observed the version number before & after I clicked "Minor Update". Here's the result:

(before clicking "Minor Update". The version number of the "New Version" was still blank)
----------

(after clicking "Minor Update"). The version number went up to 20.2 while the old version showed 20.1.
----------
From this test, I think, if beta site plans to implement the 0.01 number increase on each "Minor Update", the number increase should be made to 0.01, so instead of becoming 20.2 it would become 20.11 (& automatic adjustment/ change from 20.1 into 20.10 would also be good). Or if for example, the version starts from 20.0, it would go to 20.01 instead, not to 20.1. It would appear like this:

This way, it could help prevent confusion. I hope that this could help much.

Btw about the error when opening "Discussion" main page as I reported before, probably it's related to compatibility with certain phone browsers. I tested twive with two browsers in my phone, a default Sams*ng browser & Opera mini, & I got this result:

My default Sams*ng browser showed errors, while Opera mini worked well. It looks like my default browser isn't compatible with "Discussion" main page anymore, but it can still jump to "Announcement" section via history & there's no problem on "Announcement" section.

@Computator:
"Are you still seeing the error with the discussions main page?"
The error doesn't happen anymore. Thanks for fixing it.

About the version numbering, yep, for now I still set the version number manually based on the old site's settings when the decimal number shows 0.9, as the change from 0.9 to 0.10 still makes me feel as if the version was rolled back (as 0.9 has bigger value than 0.10 in decimal). I'd rather see automatic adjustment/ change, from 0.9 to 0.91 instead when clicking "Minor Update".

Btw probably I found another bug. This happened when I tried to rename one of my mod & add some authors on the list of the new feature about author, publisher, contributor etc. When I finished everything & clicked "Update", the error showed like this:


However, strangely, the file renaming was successful like this:

(Previously, this mod's name was "Upgraded Unreal Melee")

Well, although it's not a harmful bug as the updating process went well although there was shown an error page, probably admin & staff might want to take a look & check this error. I hope that this could help much.

I've apparently spotted another bug:  Somebody posted a comment on my mod Left 4 Dead 2.75 Version 3.1, but that comment isn't showing up at all.

I hope this is fixed soon- I can't respond to a comment if I don't even see the comment!