Information inconsistency?

Discuss Christopher Ward watches
suicidal_orange
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1406
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:20 pm
CW-watches: 6
Location: Somerset

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by suicidal_orange »

golfjunky wrote:How long does it take to activate a DDOS attack ? Is it just the push of a button?
Yes, it's that quick. Basically you get people to install a trojan in advance (through dodgy e-mail links, infected websites or including it with free software) then when you want an attack to happen you send the site to all the infected computers which work as fast as their internet connections allow.

It could be triggered by the appearance of a link or the receipt of an e-mail announcing the sale, but what are the chances the 'hacker' could guess the random address or was on the first round of e-mails for two sales in a row? Slim. That means they hate the brand so much they were sat there waiting to press go.

It could happen but it would to be a very sad individual.
User avatar
Bahnstormer_vRS
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35166
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:06 pm
CW-watches: 34
LE-three: 1
LE-foura: 1
LE-fourb: 1
LE-six: 1
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by Bahnstormer_vRS »

smegwina wrote:Please remember that unless anyone here has access to server logs, or has interrogated the host server itself, everything we say is pure conjecture.

The only thing that is certain is that the servers were overloaded.

Was it a DDOS? Possibly.

Was it the frantic clicking of the public? Possibly.

There are only a few people who know, and we aren't them!

Would CW knowingly mislead? Unlikely, but look at the Bremont fiasco.

Could they be given incorrect information by the host? Possibly

Could we all be jumping to premature conclusions? Probably.

Is it all getting a bit out of hand with the "I'm not buying any more"/statements? Definitely

There are only two certainties.

1 - CW need to get a handle on their IT capacity/capability. They have issues with virtually every sale, and it is simply astonishing that these issues keep reappearing. Sales fall over, stock systems appear to not be linked to purchases, order tracking seems non existent and there is a general immaturity about their whole IT infrastructure.

The above are basic web storefront requirements and I hope they have a deep dive look at their whole structure from an IT/ecommerce platform perspective.

Now, whilst frustrating, none of the above is malicious, and we need to remember that.

What doesn't help on an overstretched system is people link hopping, adding random numbers to baskets to see how many of a particular product are left, etc etc, so we need to realise this as well.

The second certainty is even if it were a DDOS attack, data integrity will still be maintained. A DDOS is simply an overload of the servers by a vast number of automated requests, as opposed to someone poking around in the databases.

Think if it as a server flashmob. Ever seen the news reports of masses of people trying to force themselves into a shop and getting stuck when the doors to a store are opened on bank holiday sale day? That is essentially what happened here. A DDOS attack would be if there were also a couple of hundred/thousand random people added to that crowd. It simply overloads the capacity of those doors to cope.

Please let's remember to keep a sense of reality.

Rant over... :)

Sent from my IRON using Tapatalk
Not a rant by any means Nick.

Probably the most objective, understandable and even handed analysis of the situation, written.

From my point of view there seems to be an element of 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' in the explanation of what went on. The truth likely lies somewhere between or in combination.

What I don't understand is the vitriolic nature of the the OP's and several following posts. It would be much better to be able to have a convivial discussion / debate.

Guy

Sent from my Xperia XZ Premium using Tapatalk
In small proportions, we just beautie see:
And in short measures, life may perfect bee. - Ben Jonson (1572 – 1637)

Inscription on the Longitude Dial
Hatfield House, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 5NB, England
robinbarke
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:42 pm
CW-watches: 7
Location: Lower Heyford, Oxon

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by robinbarke »

What intrigues me, and I accept that it may be my computer at fault, is that the sales pages appear to be little changed during the period of the sale indicating that volumes are at a very low level. For example the 30 per cent off COSC watches started at 12 and still remains at 12 for sale. Can anyone account for this in a supposedly high sales volume period? Or maybe people just do not believe that these watches are unwanted gifts that have been returned without their COSC certificates. There appears to be little change in the NN offerings or the 30 per cent off page. Perhaps the server difficulties were exclusively in the period prior to the sales launch?

Robin
C9GMT C8 Mk 1 C5 Malvern 2011 C9FLE C50 Malvern COSC C60 FLE2012 2013FLE
Oris Big Crown, Hublot, Rolex Datejust, Nomos Tangomat.


See my book, Aynho Junction, in the News section of http://www.robinbarkerphotography.com
User avatar
neilj568
Trusted Seller
Trusted Seller
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:08 pm
CW-watches: 2
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by neilj568 »

robinbarke wrote: without their COSC certificates.
Robin
What is the worth of a COSC certified watch without its certificate??
_________________________________________
Wrist Size 210mm/8.2"
User avatar
gaf1958
Trusted Seller
Trusted Seller
Posts: 12431
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:24 am
CW-watches: 24
Location: ɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀ 'ʇsɐoƆ ǝuᴉɥsunS

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by gaf1958 »

neilj568 wrote:
robinbarke wrote: without their COSC certificates.
Robin
What is the worth of a COSC certified watch without its certificate??
30% off list price it seems...
CW C1+2xC3+6xC6/60K+C7+C11+3xC60T+2xC65+C90+2xC600
Omega Ω 11xSpeedy+14xSeamaster+4xConnie+DeVille
Cartier+2xPanerai+2xFarer+2xOris+Sinn+11xSeiko+ManyVintage
B&R+Halios+5xVisitor+TagH+6xTissot+2xZelos+4xCertina+more
Family12xCW+2xΩ+Cartier
User avatar
Bahnstormer_vRS
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35166
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:06 pm
CW-watches: 34
LE-three: 1
LE-foura: 1
LE-fourb: 1
LE-six: 1
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by Bahnstormer_vRS »

gaf1958 wrote:
neilj568 wrote:
robinbarke wrote: without their COSC certificates.
Robin
What is the worth of a COSC certified watch without its certificate??
30% off list price it seems...
Which I gladly paid for a brand new C7 IRR, without COSC certificate, a couple of years ago.

Guy

Sent from my Xperia XZ Premium using Tapatalk
In small proportions, we just beautie see:
And in short measures, life may perfect bee. - Ben Jonson (1572 – 1637)

Inscription on the Longitude Dial
Hatfield House, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 5NB, England
shirehorse
Junior
Junior
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:14 pm
CW-watches: 2

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by shirehorse »

Technically it was a DDOS, but rather than something malevolent it was us...

One of their sale pages currently takes 6-7s to load for me. That's pretty insane for some text, images and links (I know there's more... js and maybe some frameworks too). Imagine a few hundred people (I can't imagine it would be thousands???) trying to access these pages at the same time (and refreshing, and opening multiple pages at the same time). Many of the loaded images are not even displayed... (e.g. straps are loaded for a nearly new watches page).

CW could do a lot to optimise their webpages, but that comes at a cost too - and something throwing more capacity at a problem is far cheaper than fixing it!
User avatar
TigerChris
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:51 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by TigerChris »

Kip wrote:
Perhaps if one has a better way for CW to handle returns or clearanced items, or have better ideas for promotions, they can offer those suggestions directly to Chris. I am sure he would at least listen.
Reduce the number of 'flash sales', reduce the frequency of vouchers and set up an 'outlet' that sells returns/clearance items all year. There is always a bargain to be had then if you are lucky enough to drop on a watch in the outlet that you are after, it might not then 'devalue' certain watches in some peoples eyes and also reduces the risk of high traffic at one time. Only one idea, I'm sure some might say it's daft and others may have other ideas, but I'm trying to at least be constructive.
Hollis Brown
Junior
Junior
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:24 am

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by Hollis Brown »

TigerChris wrote:
Kip wrote:
Perhaps if one has a better way for CW to handle returns or clearanced items, or have better ideas for promotions, they can offer those suggestions directly to Chris. I am sure he would at least listen.
Reduce the number of 'flash sales', reduce the frequency of vouchers and set up an 'outlet' that sells returns/clearance items all year. There is always a bargain to be had then if you are lucky enough to drop on a watch in the outlet that you are after, it might not then 'devalue' certain watches in some peoples eyes and also reduces the risk of high traffic at one time. Only one idea, I'm sure some might say it's daft and others may have other ideas, but I'm trying to at least be constructive.
This is a good idea, because at the moment ebay is the outlet, and I guess most of the 'stock' comes from people trying to hoover up discounted watches from the 'flash sales'.

Have an 'Outlet' section on the website that offers returns or end of stock items all year round, and sell at a premium to the usual sale prices e.g. 75% of RRP instead of 30-50% off. Then allow previous customers to use vouchers on these sale items in order to gain an extra bonus. Maybe put serial numbers on the vouchers when they are mailed out to make sure it's an exclusive benefit (i.e. one voucher, one use).
User avatar
Thegreyman
Trusted Seller
Trusted Seller
Posts: 12066
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 3:45 pm
CW-watches: 6
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by Thegreyman »

I think we are going slightly offtopic now by discussing the sales strategy of CW (which I have no real issue with, btw).

I also agree with pretty much all of what Nick (@smegwina) wrote above. I actually do not think that Chris Ward has lied to us, I'd like to think he has far more integrity than that. If he stated it was a DDOS attack then I assume that is what he has been advised either by the CW internal IT people or 3rd party IT/hosting supplier. Whether or not it was that or site overload due to prospective buyers of the sale items is speculation although it may seem a more likely explanation to some.
Patrick

C60 Pro 300, C60 Sunrise, C63 Sealander Lucerne blue LE, C65 Dartmouth, W11 Amelia (wife), C63 Sealander (son)

Some others + a few on the way
User avatar
TigerChris
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:51 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by TigerChris »

Thegreyman wrote:I think we are going slightly offtopic now by discussing the sales strategy of CW (which I have no real issue with, btw).
Kip was the one who brought the subject up, all I was doing was replying to his comment. Maybe its a subject that deserves a thread of its own?
User avatar
FloridaPhil
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2483
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:48 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Sarasota, Florida, USA

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by FloridaPhil »

Thegreyman wrote:I think we are going slightly offtopic now by discussing the sales strategy of CW (which I have no real issue with, btw).

I also agree with pretty much all of what Nick (@smegwina) wrote above. I actually do not think that Chris Ward has lied to us, I'd like to think he has far more integrity than that. If he stated it was a DDOS attack then I assume that is what he has been advised either by the CW internal IT people or 3rd party IT/hosting supplier. Whether or not it was that or site overload due to prospective buyers of the sale items is speculation although it may seem a more likely explanation to some.
^^^ This.

1. IMO, it's far more likely that it was server overload caused by real buyers than a DDoS
2. Who would benefit by concealing that fact? The hosting company.

The title of the thread may be correct, just pointed at the wrong party.
WatchChat on Facebook
The friendliest watch group on Facebook chatting about our watch passion and whatever else happens to come up.
User avatar
TigerChris
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:51 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by TigerChris »

FloridaPhil wrote:
Thegreyman wrote:I think we are going slightly offtopic now by discussing the sales strategy of CW (which I have no real issue with, btw).

I also agree with pretty much all of what Nick (@smegwina) wrote above. I actually do not think that Chris Ward has lied to us, I'd like to think he has far more integrity than that. If he stated it was a DDOS attack then I assume that is what he has been advised either by the CW internal IT people or 3rd party IT/hosting supplier. Whether or not it was that or site overload due to prospective buyers of the sale items is speculation although it may seem a more likely explanation to some.
^^^ This.

1. IMO, it's far more likely that it was server overload caused by real buyers than a DDoS
2. Who would benefit by concealing that fact? The hosting company.

The title of the thread may be correct, just pointed at the wrong party.
If it is the hosting company that have lied to CW which, in turn, has led to CW effectively lying to it's customers then the hosting company want sacking (for want of a better word, not allowed on here!) off quick sticks in my opinion
User avatar
FloridaPhil
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2483
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:48 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Sarasota, Florida, USA

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by FloridaPhil »

TigerChris wrote:
FloridaPhil wrote:
Thegreyman wrote:I think we are going slightly offtopic now by discussing the sales strategy of CW (which I have no real issue with, btw).

I also agree with pretty much all of what Nick (@smegwina) wrote above. I actually do not think that Chris Ward has lied to us, I'd like to think he has far more integrity than that. If he stated it was a DDOS attack then I assume that is what he has been advised either by the CW internal IT people or 3rd party IT/hosting supplier. Whether or not it was that or site overload due to prospective buyers of the sale items is speculation although it may seem a more likely explanation to some.
^^^ This.

1. IMO, it's far more likely that it was server overload caused by real buyers than a DDoS
2. Who would benefit by concealing that fact? The hosting company.

The title of the thread may be correct, just pointed at the wrong party.
If it is the hosting company that have lied to CW which, in turn, has led to CW effectively lying to it's customers then the hosting company want sacking (for want of a better word, not allowed on here!) off quick sticks in my opinion
They need to be replaced in either scenario. AWS would solve either/both issues immediately.
WatchChat on Facebook
The friendliest watch group on Facebook chatting about our watch passion and whatever else happens to come up.
what-time-is-it
Trusted Seller
Trusted Seller
Posts: 3854
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:53 am
CW-watches: 1

Re: Information inconsistency?

Post by what-time-is-it »

Agreed about AWS (Amazon Web services) - looks like at present CW use https://www.cogecopeer1.com/
Current collection incl Citizen, G-Shock, Rolex, Seiko, Sinn & Tag.

Chris
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post