New CWGC search interface

[apwright]

Hey, it's all back to normal...

Well spotted, Diane!

Adrian

[Bardess]

... and the links on my Casualty spreadsheet are working

[jwp2007]

Me too !

[chrisharley9]

Starling

Ive have just taken this one out of my spread sheet

It works for me but someone else try it & tell me what they get

Chris

[ralphjd]

Michelle. Nor mine Ralph.

[chrisharley9]

Well looks like somebody is listening

[michaeldr]

Quote: Starling

Ive have just taken this one out of my spread sheet

It works for me but someone else try it & tell me what they get

Working OK out here Chris

[chrisharley9]

Normality has been resumed - shame about not being able to see the non world war graves

Chris

[June Underwood]

My website is working OK now!

Incidentally Terry Denham knows about the problem and is working on it - from a Turkish bar. I didn't realise he was on holiday and had emailed him to ask him to give his input to the problem. One hour later he was looking at it and was in contact with CWGC.

I feel very guilty for interupting his holiday, but he did ask me to explain the problem, which I did, but briefly.

June

[dfaulder]

>><<

PS

David Faulder

http://www.cwgc.org/Latest-News.aspx

This link doesn't work wonder why !

It's a case of "As you were!" or "About .... Turn!"

Try http://www.cwgc.org/content.asp?menuid=3&a...ws&menu=sub

Happy days are here again?

Now about those bookmarks I changed yesterday - how the flip do I change them back! (There's no satisfying some people! I know use my back-ups!)

David

[Andrew Hesketh]

Actually, I'll delay sending for a short while. I posted it for comment, so will wait to see if anyone picks up anything.

If you are considering adding anything, may I request that they offer more search options via an advanced search, as Geoff did.

[NigelS]

Normality has been resumed - shame about not being able to see the non world war graves

But for how long?

The Duncan Macleod 'CWGC project' is also working again ( http://www.purecollector.com/history/cwgc/index.html )

See http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceN...sCommission.htm

for the MOD release on Kevan Jones's visit to the CWGC HQ (see David Faulder's last)

NigelS

[Derek Robertson]

What a shambles!

And it's nice to have the old, trusty steed back the way she was.

[Tonym]

Jim & Martin

I retract my comment I was unaware that he was away

Tony

[melliget]

Hallelujah!

Andrew, sorry I had already sent the email to Peter Francis and David Stacey. Let's hope that the attempt was a precursor to added search functionality.

[kinnethmont]

Now about those bookmarks I changed yesterday - how the flip do I change them back! (There's no satisfying some people! I know use my back-ups!)

Cpl. Jones used to recite " Don't panic " on these sorts of occassions !!!

Hallelujah!

Andrew, sorry I had already sent the email to Peter Francis and David Stacey. Let's hope that the attempt was a precursor to added search functionality.

The info will do them no harm, surely they will learn something from the excercise.

[Will O'Brien]

My website is working OK now!

Incidentally Terry Denham knows about the problem and is working on it - from a Turkish bar. I didn't realise he was on holiday and had emailed him to ask him to give his input to the problem. One hour later he was looking at it and was in contact with CWGC.

I feel very guilty for interupting his holiday, but he did ask me to explain the problem, which I did, but briefly.

June

I'd also like to stress (as he isn't here to comment) that Terry doesn't actually work for the CWGC. He has built up an informal relationship with them over many years due to his particular interest & through the In from the Cold project. June's post highlights his deep commitment to helping in all things CWGC related & I thank Tony for retracting his comment

[John_Hartley]

Can Terry Denham give us any explanations as to why these changes have been made and not thought through sufficiently-

Terry is out of the country on holiday and has only rudimentary contact with the "digital world". But I understand he has had no involvement in this.

[auchonvillerssomme]

And just to prove that I wasn't imagining things- you now can't do a search on headings on cemeteries, which is a backward step for me.

http://www.cwgc.org/search/cemetery_report...0800&mode=1

For those out there who say they can, please show me.

Mick

[melliget]

Now about those bookmarks I changed yesterday - how the flip do I change them back!

David.

If they were the ones that reference the PDF file and contain the casualty ID, you can convert them quite easily. However, if they were those long, complicated, alphabet-soup ones, then I don't fancy your chances. Perhaps Terry might work it out after a few more glasses of raki!

Martin

[Seadog]

I will not get too excited with the apparent restoration of the original search facility. This is why.

From my ROH

GEORGE BRAIN

http://www.cwgc.org/CasualtyDetails.aspx?casualty=194498

From the current CWGC search

http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_detail...casualty=194498

So the links to the ROH WILL STILL NOT WORK

Notice the subtle differance?

What a glorious mess!

Norman

[kinnethmont]

03.59

Detail posted on CWGC site confirm the dreaded PDF's will be back!!!

CHANGES TO `SEARCH OUR RECORDS`

Following extensive consultation with users of the popular CWGC website, we have made several changes to the “Search Our Records” section , which will make it easier for people to search our database of 1.7m Commonwealth casualties. However, a technical problem has affected these changes, which has required the temporary reinstatement of the previous search tool.

It is our intention to adopt the improved system, once the technical problem has been resolved. As well as providing a more intuitive system, the changes to the records search facility allow for greater security of our database but regular users may wish to note that one of the likely results of the security upgrade is that external websites will be unable to take advantage of the links to individual casualty details which are currently available

We are confident that these changes to the search facility represent a significant improvement on the previous system and that users will find the changes useful.

regular users may wish to note that one of the likely results of the security upgrade is that external websites will be unable to take advantage of the links to individual casualty details which are currently available

This is the killer sentence. Having shut down all the links from Rolls of Honour, etc the world over today they want to do it full time.

I wonder who the users they consulted with are?

[KevinBattle]

Having picked up on this topic this morning, I did as Martin Elliget suggested and emailed David Stacey as follows.

Hello, I know your email box is swamped this morning after the latest revisions.

I am only a small user and have not set up a web site or any embedded links, but I am part of various forums where members have done so. In many cases there are literally thousands of linked entries.

Is it not possible for the "old" format" to be left "live" but not accessible for searches? At least that way, the embedded links would still refer to that specific CWGC entry. That should calm most of the baying mob that are struggling to see how to re-establish their web sites.

Many of them have devoted years of research voluntarily so that others can speedily find their relatives. It would be a wicked waste for all that hard work to have been destroyed when I am sure you could restore the old database solely to ensure that these links remain live.

For updates and new entries, then they will have to use the new format, which I personally do not find any problem with, but am asking if some consideration could be made to ensure that the "old" URL page links can be kept live, not for enquiry, but just to keep any inbuilt or embedded links.

Perhaps a Note in your News Pages would tell people that the old links will remain "live" but not work for any updates, which will need to use the new Database.

I hope that this will be seen as a constructive suggestion that will enable the millions who use the CWGC site for reference and to honour the fallen, will be able to continue to do so without the work of years being crippled.

I am indebted to the CWGC for the assistance that the database brings to searching for family or Rolls of Honour information and would not like the changes to affect peoples perception of the organisation as being uncaring of the potential adverse effects of the change preventing continuing work to make it ever more adaptable and easy to use.

It is the change to the Casualty URL and amendment to time specific searches, so that even a "Save" will not take you back to the correct page, that has aroused so much ire. Is that the deliberate intent, as a forerunner perhaps to establishing the database as a "pay per view" format?

One major revision, however IS of concern, and that is the loss of Secondary Unit (and Service No.) information. i would hope that an upgrade would provide MORE information, not LESS.

An example:

Name: RANSLEY

Initials: R

Nationality: United Kingdom

Rank: Lance Corporal

Regiment/Service: Royal Engineers

Unit Text: Labour Coy. Royal Engineers.

Secondary Regiment: Labour Corps

Secondary Unit Text: transf. to (291081) 702nd Coy.

Age: 44

Date of Death: 08/11/1918

Service No: 114709

Additional information: Husband of Elizabeth Sarah Ransley, of 35, Bellot St., East Greenwich, London.

Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead

Grave/Memorial Reference: III. B. 3.

Cemetery: AWOINGT BRITISH CEMETERY

Can that Secondary Regiment information be restored urgently, as many Rolls of Honour often quote only one Service number, and thereby a casualty will not now be so readily identified.

Yours in hope that the links can be restored, Kevin

To my surprise when I needed a look up just now the CWGC site was back as yesterday!!

I've now caught up with the additional 2 pages of postings!! Seems like someone is listening and Martin needs to get them aware of all the glitches Forum Pals have found.

[Seadog]

Kevin, what a lovely polite and informative e-mail to the CWGC. This however is mine sent to Stacey:

Dear David

Please forgive my language but the crap new version of the database that WAS available is one of the worse attempts at so-called improvements that I have ever seen. The whole thing was a complete load of garbage and not befitting of the CWGC. I see that the original database has been reinstated albeit on a temporary basis. Do you not understand the ramifications of the new system? Can you not get your limited intelligence to focus on the fact that an untold number of web sites rely on the ability to reference the URL of a specific casualty. I have never seen an organization to be in such a complete mess as yours if you were a commercial undertaking then believe me David you would be looking for another job now. I have NO confidence in what was once a reliable and dependable organization, you have lost the plot mate and all faith in both you and the CWGC has evaporated.

What a sad state of affairs.

Norman

[auchonvillerssomme]

Has anyone on this site been in any consultation with CWGC? I certainly haven't and like many others on this forum and others I am known to them as a regular user.

Mick