Seadog Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Mick, the "consultation" statement is just a load of garbage. The CWGC are in a hole and to dig themselves out will take a lot more than the platitudes expressed in the statement. What amazes me is that they seem to be determined to screw -up the system, exactly who are they working for and if they did "consult" what fool would not realise what the ramifications of their proposals were actually about. Be nice to know who those so-called "users" were, mind you I do not think that they actually existed. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffsyeoman Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 I suspect the 'consultations' will have been as energetic, open and widespread as the recent same at the National Archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 I know one thing for sure and that is if I were representing the CWGC then there is no other place that I would come to for advice than this forum. We are not out of the woods yet and I urge everyone to e-mail David Stacey with their views. The time for "pussy footing" with these people has gone and we must stand up for what we believe is right. e-mail: david.stacey@CWGC.org Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Mick, the "consultation" statement is just a load of garbage. The CWGC are in a hole and to dig themselves out will take a lot more than the platitudes expressed in the statement. What amazes me is that they seem to be determined to screw -up the system, exactly who are they working for and if they did "consult" what fool would not realise what the ramifications of their proposals were actually about. Be nice to know who those so-called "users" were, mind you I do not think that they actually existed. Norman Norman, I seem to remember that there was a "consultation" in the form of a pop-up survey on their website a few months ago (I think it may have been mentioned in another thread - I certainly hunted it out after being told about it; I did not see it via my normal entry point). I seem to remember completing it and trying where possible to stress the need for enhanced search (pointing specifically at the sort of functionality on Geoff's search engine -e.g. "who died alongside my Grandfather?"). However, if this was all they did, as a publically funded body they are seriously deficient even against current "standards" for consultation which involves "talking to stakeholders". I would have thought that some fairly simple searches would have indicated that family and military historians were substantial stakeholders. I just wish some public bodies (TNA is another that comes to mind!) would dare to allow some of their staff to officially join forums like this one to see what we are saying and even (with mods approval) to start a thread asking for suggestions! I would not have thought that that would offend against rules. It is of course possible that the "consultation" was outsourced and CWGC had little to do with it - their Head office is after all fairly small, so they may actually have little IT expertise beyond a third party commissioning department. They may have had the wool pulled over their eyes. If they had an IT steering group, with external IT experts who also happen to have an interest in using CWGC data (e.g. Geoff, and probably others on this forum) but who are independent of the sort of firms who they pay to do the work, they might end up with some decent CWGC IT standards to which their sub-contractors would have to work. Ideally I would like them to put their data into an open standard database (thereby ensuring a good match of security and accessibility) and then publish an API* to allow the likes of Geoff, FindmyPast, Ancestry etc. (I hope Geoff is not offended by being included with those two!) to develop their own search engines secure in the knowledge that anything they developed would continue to work. Then CWGC could have their own Noddy interface for casual one-off users. David *API - Application Programming Interface Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 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 You are quite correct, I could have sworn it was possible but I have tried and failed . I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the CWGC website. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
June Underwood Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 This is the reply that I have just had from David Stacey. Did any of us enter into a formal agreement with CWGC? I don't know whether we did and I'll have to go back through the files. Fancy not even being aware that many of us made links to CWGC - where have they been all these years? Who were the people that they consulted. From the tone of the email it spounds as though he has never even heard of the GWF. What other ways are there to "retain the information" I just despair. June DAVID STACEY'S REPLY Dear Ms Underwood Thank you for your email concerning recent changes to the Search Facility on the CWGC website. You may have already noticed that we have temporarily reverted to the older version due to some of the technical problems you and others have noted. However, when the technical issues have been sorted, we do intend to change the Search Facility, which I note has caused problems to people who are running linked databases. This is the first time that I have been made aware that links have been made directly to the Commission's website. If there are any formal agreements in place, then perhaps you could let me know. If not, then it would seem to me perfectly reasonable for the organisation to make changes it believes enhances the system. I can assure you that there was a wide consultation earlier in the year, which was included on the website. I do not know whether any of the members of your group participated in that consultation. The enhancements of the new system respond to some of the points raised during that consultation. Your comments about the new system have been noted and will be looked into. In the meantime, I am afraid I can give no assurance that the referencing of casualties on the database will remain the same and you may wish to consider other ways in which to retain your information. Yours sincerely David Stacey Director Information Services Commonwealth War Graves Commission 2 Marlow Road Maidenhead Berks SL6 7DX Tel: 01628 507147 (Direct) Fax: 01628 507186 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 David (Post 129), many thanks for your comprehensive post which I am sure was much appreciated. Before I get the title of “Chief Moaner” just one last comment. What has really got to me with this situation is the apparent total lack of consideration for the users. If a forum member can obtain figures for the number of records linked to other sites then why not the CWGC. Their apparent lack of both understanding and empathy with the people who in some cases have spent years in researching the fallen only to have that work trashed at a stroke is out of order. This really is not acceptable and someone from the CWGC should have the balls to comment here as to why this course of action was taken and then temporarily rescinded. I personally would love to see some heads roll over this and this as I believe is long overdue. Promise no more moans today (Honest) Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Mick You are quite correct, I could have sworn it was possible but I have tried and failed . I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the CWGC website. Steve Likewise, I see that I was mistaken in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 This is the first time that I have been made aware that links have been made directly to the Commission's website. If there are any formal agreements in place, then perhaps you could let me know. If not, then it would seem to me perfectly reasonable for the organisation to make changes it believes enhances the system. That's a very disappointing response. The first sentence in that paragraph is quite absurd, as their own IT consultants will be regularly monitoring where link-backs come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Perhaps some carefully and thoughtfully drafted letters could go to the Minister featured in the recent news reports and on the CWGC website. As a non techie I can actually believe that they were unaware of the links - and that the manager of the IT saw his prime job as keeping the site up and running. The real problem apart from this ignorance and the incompetent implementation must lie in the narrow nature of the "consultation" on the website, and that when a new spedcification was being prepared it was basically prepared by the technical people, with no real awareness of how the site has been used. Now of course - they have spent the money, and have no budget to attempt a redesign. I think that the only hope is for the senior managers, and the board to be lobbied. Sadly, this will also be more effective if we can involve more published authors in protest - joint letters to the press etc. , in addition to Paul, and ideally also persuade the WFA and especially The British Legion to make their weight tell. The latter can surely reach some influential people. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 This is the first time that I have been made aware that links have been made directly to the Commission's website. What an extraordinary comment from a Director Information Services If he was a football referee, the sound of "you don't know what you're doing" would be resounding around our stadium. Google currently shows 1520 sites directly linking to www.cwgc.org. (Enter "link:www.cwgc.org" in the search and they will all come up). Any IS Director, who has an iota of knowledge of the internet, knows that URLs are freely linked, all the time. To deny it is sheer nonsense. The point about CWGC being unable to guarantee that URLs will never change is, however, fair and necessary. Some teensy communication, let alone consultation, would have helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Good points Chris, technically the comments are known as waffle, this normally happens when (1) You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about or (2) You have already dug an enormous hole for yourself and are intent on making it even bigger. In this case both reasons apply. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apwright Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Can the CWGC be FOIed to disclose how many people were consulted, how they were consulted (i.e. what questions were asked), and what the responses were? Also, which body did the programming, how were they recruited, and how much money was wasted invested? I'd also like to know how a search engine that offers exactly the same search options, runs slower and provides less information than its predecessor can be judged to be "more intuitive" and "a significant improvement"! Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
June Underwood Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Adrian Why don't you email David Stacey at david.stacey@cwgc.org and ask him these questions. I too would like to know the answer, but I think as many different people as possible should contact CWGC. Otherwise it becomes a bit one sided. He replied to me within the day. June Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Bennett Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 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 Norman I can understand your frustration but rhetoric like this only serves to alienate. Jaw-Jaw, not War-War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhbertram@tiscali.co.uk Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 All With respect to having this CWGC database issue dealt with, I suggest that contact is made with the organ grinders at the CWGC and not the monkey in its IT organisation. The CWGC receives our money, the names on the database are our kith and kin, and we deserve far more respect than was shown in the arrogant and high-handed response to Ms Underwood. Most of us have MPs of one shade or another. I recommend that they are contacted without delay to raise the issues with the organ grinders. I have already contacted my MP (Ben Wallace) and I hope that you will do likewise. Of course, there is also the press if needs must, and the CWGC would not welcome that. Regards Barrie Bertram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Oh I do hope so Peter, for if I was one of those people who have posted here and have worked for years on research and then stored this by copying the individual records URL only to have all that work trashed at the whim of some inconsiderate and ignorant person at the CWGC, them my e-mail could be considered extremly moderate. Regards Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
June Underwood Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 I'm just going out but I've found a letter from Andrew Stillman, Records & Enquiries manager in Aug 2005 where he gives permission for us to use the links to CWGC. "The Commission is always pleased to support such causes which go hand in hand with our aim to reach as big an audience as possible" June Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltoro1960 Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Can the CWGC be FOIed to disclose how many people were consulted, how they were consulted (i.e. what questions were asked), and what the responses were? Also, which body did the programming, how were they recruited, and how much money was wasted invested? I'd also like to know how a search engine that offers exactly the same search options, runs slower and provides less information than its predecessor can be judged to be "more intuitive" and "a significant improvement"! Adrian The answer to the FOI request is yes, they are obliged to provide the answer to all reasonable questions, though they can charge if they feel the amount of work involved is expensive. The organisation that work for (evening all ) get hundreds of requests, all of which have to be answered. They start charging when it reaches £600 and guess what, nobody has been billed yet. The FOI now covers emails and handwritten notes, emails are always a source of embarassment for the unwary. I would suggest that the best person to ask would be a 'techie type', frankly some of what this chap has said in his reply is bunkum, I run a one man band website that a good few of you have visited, my company gives me stats on the traffic covering a multitude of topics,I only have the basic package, but I know my most popular pages, countries visitors come rom, what they were looking for when they came to site...yadi yadi you get the picture. If this gentlemen is unaware of external websites linking into the CWGC site then he is not the man for the job, the CWGC should be aware that they work for us and are merely the custodiers of the information not the owners. If they are concerned about security, then why not as a gesture make an 'open source' database available to lads like Geoff who have dedicated large amounts of time to the preservation of our heritage. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMcNay Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 I've put up an update to this on my blog: http://scottishmilitary.blogspot.com/2009/...eported-on.html I think it makes my feelings on the matter perfectly clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 ... This is the first time that I have been made aware that links have been made directly to the Commission's website. ... David Stacey Director Information Services Commonwealth War Graves Commission 2 Marlow Road Maidenhead Berks SL6 7DX Tel: 01628 507147 (Direct) Fax: 01628 507186 I have just about recovered enough from reading this to start to get a full appreciation of the implications of this: All private bookmarked / "favorited" casualty records All websites containing references to casualties All emails sharing details of casualties All private bookmarked / "favorited" cemetery details All websites containing references to cemeteries (including Google Maps, Flickr etc.) All emails sharing details of cemeteries All bookmarks to other CWGC items like news items (as I found out today!), policy notes etc. are fecked, comprehensively fecked (or will be when they do their second bull in a china shop charge). And the Director of IT at CWGC is unaware of this! What does he do when he finds something on the net of interest - print it out? And the schools have just gone back two months before the most important day in the CWGC's year, and "their minister" has urged us to make more use of the CWGC website - no doubt schools will be doing projects and children will be sharing links, putting links into project web-pages, making bookmarks etc. And then the CWGC will blast them all apart - no doubt in the run up to Remembrance Sunday. A real lesson for Schoolchildren about what happens if you do not care for your heritage. Perhaps I have not yet recovered from reading this reply, and ought to stop. Just wish my MP was not demob happy and his successor was not looking at a secure seat. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apwright Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Just found a couple of old posts from Terry Denham http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...showtopic=29678 which say that CWGC is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act as it's not a UK government organisation. So bang goes that idea, then. I guess we'll never learn how much money they spent on what must have taken a decent programmer almost half a morning's work to cobble together. He/she/they certainly didn't waste any time testing it before unleashing it on the public. And I wonder what "security" threats they're worried about! Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Perhaps David Stacy ought to have a word with the MOD, they link to the CWGC website. (see http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceN...sCommission.htm ) Perhaps it is our public duty to make him aware of websites that link to his - let's just restrict ourselves to "official" websites? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltoro1960 Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 I thinkthis may be the consultation that is referred to,from the CWGC annual report. Your Views Matter "During December and January, over 700 of our customers completed a survey about our service standards. Many of those who responded are now part of a ‘survey focus group’ which was instrumental in developing our new At Your Service leaflet. The leaflet provides information about our standards, the services we provide and our contact details." John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisharley9 Posted 8 September , 2009 Share Posted 8 September , 2009 Well a large number of councils give a link to the CWGC site Chris I thinkthis may be the consultation that is referred to,from the CWGC annual report. Your Views Matter "During December and January, over 700 of our customers completed a survey about our service standards. Many of those who responded are now part of a ‘survey focus group’ which was instrumental in developing our new At Your Service leaflet. The leaflet provides information about our standards, the services we provide and our contact details." John I bet they didnt say completey screw up years of other peoples work!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now