As has been discussed endlessly in other threads, there are various surprising "shortfalls" in the new Chowhound format. So that leads to the question: Why is the message board software chosen for Chowhound so behind the times? There has to be a reason. It simply has not been communicated.
I don't mean to take away from the incredible effort it must have been to transfer all the historical posts to a new board, or the finally much-improved search capability.
But, could this not have been done on superior message boards software? Pick a complaint: URLs, formatting text, private messaging, search results for first time users--all of these would already have been "fixed" before they even made the switch.
Now, I have a lot of respect for CNET. I think they "got" the internet well before almost anyone. So, that is why I'm thinking, there *HAS* to be a reason for using this overly-simplistic format. I just want to know what it is! What is the reason, CNET??