New CWGC search interface

[Seadog]

If I recall correctly this survey was more about the War Cemeteries and accessibility etc, I do not recall anything about the database at all. After all what questions could they have asked, not the right ones if the latest retrograde changes are made perhaps something like this "How do you think we can made things worse for the user” and “Do you agree that we screw up years of research undertaken by dedicated individuals”. These incompetents have some sort of "death wish" as regards the functionality of the database and they are going in exactly the right direction to totally SNAFU!!.

Regards

Norman

[rollofhonour]

Just been over to the CWGC site and it has reverted back again to the old style. This is getting crazy!!!

[chrisharley9]

Martin

that is only going to be temporary - how much of your site will it screw up

Chris

[Guest KevinEndon]

Give the CWGC a chance, they knew there were problems, they know what the problems are, they are onto it. If in 2 weeks its not right then inform them what's wrong, until then, can I suggest we leave the emailing and phone calling alone, let the boffins do their work to get things right, who knows the search engine may well be alot easier and quicker than it is now. Until then lets lay off a bit, they know they have had problems, they know what the problems are and they have retured the search engine to its former glory.

Kevin

[dfaulder]

Give the CWGC a chance, they knew there were problems, they know what the problems are, they are onto it. If in 2 weeks its not right then inform them what's wrong, until then, can I suggest we leave the emailing and phone calling alone, let the boffins do their work to get things right, who knows the search engine may well be alot easier and quicker than it is now. Until then lets lay off a bit, they know they have had problems, they know what the problems are and they have retured the search engine to its former glory.

Kevin

Yes, if we were confident that they did understand. But we have an IT director who is reported as saying he is unaware of people linking directly to the Commission's website! I am not confident; any "boffins" that exist, I suspect work for the people that did this "upgrade" and it is not in their interests to have to rework what they have done (in fact I would expect that they would seek to defend and entrench their work and I doubt CWGC have any extra money to pay to have the work redone). If they re-implement this SNAFU, it will be even more difficult to effect change.

Sorry

David

[eviltaxman]

I know how annoying this is for everyone concerned, including me, but could we please refrain from throwing insults about the the IT people at the CWGC, especially as they are not here to defend themselves. Some of the comments made have been as good as personal attacks. I'm sure some of you are "law savvy" and it won't look good on you or us (the forum and the Trustees) if they decided to take any action.

Also, many of you have very short memories. Only a few years ago they changed all the URLs on the entries leaving us with null & void links. Remember, they are a Government department and at the end of the day, don't have to ask us anything about what we would or wouldn't like. The fact the held a survey of types (which I vaguely remember doing) is a bonus. I've worked for the Government for over 20 years and I don't remember the last time Joe Public was asked how they'd like access to the HMRC site.

[SiegeGunner]

Remember, they are a Government department and at the end of the day, don't have to ask us anything about what we would or wouldn't like.

They're not a Government department, Les, they're a Commonwealth treaty organisation established by Royal Charter, which is why they think they're immune to the pressures your organisation has come under in recent years, and likewise the Govt Dept I worked for for 30 years. They forget that other organisations with exactly the same constitution (Commonwealth Secretariat, Commonwealth agricultural and scientific organisations) have been reorganised, reformed, and even privatised.

Mick

[kinnethmont]

Kevin and Les. At last, the voices of reason.

Remember, they are a Government department

This is not the case.

There are a few here who, it seems, are now more interested in CWGC kicking than broken / null links which was the main problem. Much as I sympathise, and annoying though it is is, most of us involved with websites realise that linking to sites / site content can be a risky business.

A considerable number of bugs / issues found during the brief outing of the new search have been related to CWGC by Martin. I expect they will take them all on board and act on them, they certainly ought to.

Those who are simply complaining that CWGC are not providing the level of search / detail they crave ought to remember that CWGC's role is not to provide them with a fully searchable research service. The search facility may improve, that is up to CWGC.

As Les said, it is broke ( we all know it ), let us give CWGC a chance to fix it before ranting futher.

Has the launch of the new site / search been well implemented by CWGC? I think not.

[eviltaxman]

Mick/Jim

I withdraw the suggestion that they are Govt based. I only assumed this due to many of the names on the Board of the Commission have been civil servants (of the Crown) in a previous job.... I recognise many of the names.

However my other comments still stand - please give them a chance to correct/repair the search facility. If after 2-3 weeks it still isn't up & running or isn't as good, then feel free to moan away (but no personal insults).

[Seadog]

Do some of the recent posters here actually understand the repercussions of the CWGC latest actions? All web sites linking to individual records will be redundant, Chris Baker has already reported that this totals over 1,500. Another poster has mentioned the figure of 1.3 million links plus all of the extensive research undertaken by people with a passion for the subject will be trashed at a stroke. There are postings here which mention some people with over 1,000 records linking to the individual CWGC URLs and which have taken in some cases years to accumulate. Then the “new” system was uploaded with no warnings or information whatsoever and it was full of bugs, then withdrawn. Read the e-mail from Mr Stacey on this topic who confirms that the CWGC have every intention with pressing ahead with full implementation as soon as possible. Bearing all of this in mind I think that the response has been extremely muted so far.

Norman

[welshdoc]

I think we are lucky that the CWGC wedsite is not government run, as for any users of government websites, in particular HMCE , will tell you any information is near impossible to find, and if you follow their internal links you are sent round and round in circles until you give up. Phoning is the same press x then y then z then sent back to x and so on until the system hangs up. I dont think anyone alive actualy works in these offices, prehaps the civil service needs some Mumbai call centers (just a tease Les ). At least with the new CWGC search facility there is a fair chance it will be debugged (but why on earth it is released in this state is beyond me), it may be better but I doubt it. There reamains the disaster for those memorial sites witthe CWGC links and no matter what our personal feelings / irritations this is a disaster for many hard working enthusiats who have spent only god knows how long over their labours of love. Lets just hope something can be sorted and Les is right its pointless getting shirty lets keep to hard facts.

[Seadog]

Read my post (160) these are the hard facts and as for waiting for something to happen, we know what will happen. I say again read the e-mail from Mr Stacey, who by the way had NO idea that people used links to the CWGC, or visit the CWGC web site and read the statement there. It is extremely important that people make their feelings known to the CWGC as this might convince them of the total error of their ways and persuade them that common sense should prevail. To do nothing is NOT an option.

Regards

Norman

[kinnethmont]

Read the e-mail from Mr Stacey on this topic who confirms that the CWGC have every intention with pressing ahead with full implementation as soon as possible. Bearing all of this in mind I think that the response has been extremely muted so far.

Norman

I have read the e-mail and understand the links problem totally and am equally astonished at how this has been implemented.

For Mr Stacey to advise he was unaware that there are 1,000's of " links " to CWGC info on websites, Rolls, etc is beyond belief.

That said, he is well aware of it now, along with the other issues related to them. Armed with our findings, I would hope some change of direction might take place to ensure these links remain active. That is a matter for them, we will have to wait to see what happens next.

[melliget]

For Mr Stacey to advise he was unaware that there are 1,000's of " links " to CWGC info on websites, Rolls, etc is beyond belief.

Jim.

A slight correction: there are approx 1.3 million links, according to Google. That number was arrived at by doing a Google search for the sub-string that is common to all of the old links (i.e. minus the casualty ID). There would be some duplication in that figure but, even allowing for that, it would still be a very large number. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of websites affected.

regards,

Martin

[KevinBattle]

Having had a similar reply from David Stacey to that posted by June (#161) I replied:

David,

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

The Great War Forum and WW2 Forum are ones that have raised many more pertinent points.

You may wish to have someone log in to their postings to see if any comments can be taken on board without problem.

I am in favour of improvements enhancements where there is ADDITIONAL information made available, but not at the expense of existing features.

I am sure the CWGC will as usual make note of these observations and do its best to accomodate.

I cannot comment on embedded links as nothing I do is that sophisticated, but I do not believe the CWGC is so ingenuous as to be unaware that many databases DO have links with specific Casualty pages, that this morning were lost. I suggest you have someone read this posting on the Great War Forum

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...=132589&hl=

to understand the impact the loss of these links is having on people who have spent many years researching in far greater depth what the CWGC provides.

I won't distract you from your busy schedule further.

Thanks, Kevin

Now we know that his statement about being unaware of "links" exposes either total ignorance or a clumsy attempt to bully people into backing down.

I suspect that internally they will be looking to spread blame and outwardly do nothing until Peter Francis returns.

In the meantime, can I suggest that anyone who has spotted a problem with the NEW layout make their comments known for "someone" (Martin??) to put forward on behalf of the GWF the sensible reasons why the changes are causing problems for selfless individuals who have dedicated many thousands of hours, if not days, in setting up Memorials in honour of The Fallen.

I would also suggest that we look for workable IT solutions for the CWGC that remove or reduce the newly created problems and, if possible, add even more enhancement and user friendly abilities.

I can sense some of Normans frustration, but the way forward is to establish a good working relationship whereby people (who profess ignorance of what the CWGC database provides "interested" researchers into family, Local or Regimental history) are made aware of the importance of maintaining these records for others to use. I too am concerned that the change to a session timed format is an indicator that they are thinking of changing to a "pay per view" basis and it will affect storing the main Debt of Honour website as a Favourite or Bookmark.

Martin quickly compiled a list of about 16 areas where problems needed addressing, let's start with that and then catalogue all the problems, potential fixes and further enhancements and how to instal them, where possible. The CWGC hae given us a "Wake Up" call, let's try and use it to our advantage to make it better for everyone to access.

(PS: My apologies for naming Martin, it is not intended that this work should be "dumped" on him, it was just the most logical summing up of the problems and went some way to suggesting how to fix the issues.) I can make the representations, but I would prefer an "Official" GWF work group be set up to

1) collate the potential issues,

2) provide workable IT solutions, and

3) establish a good contact base in CWGC to work in conjunction with any future enhancements.

As a "failsafe" IF the CWGC go ahead and change to the new database, can we try and work out solutions so that the work of years by dedicated volunteers is not destroyed? IT gurus to the fore, please!!

That's my penn'orth!!

[rollofhonour]

Martin

that is only going to be temporary - how much of your site will it screw up

Chris

Fortunately I do not have direct links to the CWGC for those listed as I always feared this would happen but there are a whle raft of sites that I link to where they do have links to the men. How many hours of work are going to be screwed up!

[kinnethmont]

Martin

Correction agreed. The fact he appears to have been unaware of the way hyperlinks work was the core of the problem I was trying to highlight.

[June Underwood]

I have replied to yesterday's email to me from David Stacey and among other things I have urged him to come forward to give his reasons for the changes to this Forum [if he dare]. I am also thinking of writing to Kevan Jones, who last week was so supportive of CWGC. Perhaps he would be able to intervene. Unfortunately I can't find an email address for him. Can anyone else find this?

I also suggest that members do not wait until the new website is operative - it will be too late then to make changes. It is at this stage that we should act - BEFORE any changes are made.

June

[keithmroberts]

Basically, apart from poor implementation of the new system, CWGC made an error in their specification because those responsible for the spec were (for whatever reason), unaware of the sites that linked to their data.

I can't see the research issue being sufficient to cause a further redesign, but the commemoration issue is surely one that will influence them more. They need to know about the many on-line memorials that have been affected by the change, and that is surely where those with connections to Regimantal Associations, and the British Legion need to seek to arrange communication addressed as was pointed out earlier, to a higher level than the IT managers.

Keith

edited to correct mental aberration K

[melliget]

Sorry for the delay - I've had a busy day today.

Last night, just prior to the roll-back to the old system, I emailed Peter Francis and David Stacey of the CWGC the 16 issues summarised in post #82. David Stacey thanked me for the information and went on to say:

"Your points will be helpful in ensuring a better version is eventually introduced. I am afraid however that I can give no guarantee that the casualty URL will remain the same in a new version. We reserve the right to change and enhance the database as appropriate and people accessing the information may wish to consider other ways of referencing to the database."

On the issue of liaising with the CWGC on communicating further problems, I don't mind being involved but I'm wondering if Terry might be a better choice given his close dealings with the organisation. Someone suggested a separate forum thread to report and record problems, bugs, etc. This could be setup once the new system in reintroduced. I would suggest that, to be most effective, it would need to be clear, concise and a factual record of the issues only, leaving the more emotionally charged comments for other threads.

regards,

Martin

[Chris_Baker]

The item you put in bold is the critical factor, though. That is what has annoyed people.

The rest is decoration and in my opinion, based on what we briefly saw before the new site pages were pulled, a missed opportunity.

[tootrock]

Kevan Jones does not seem to have an e-mail address, but his other contact details are as shown below:

Constituency Office

0191 371 8834

10am - 4pm

Constituency Fax number: 0191 371 8834

The Fulforth Centre

Front Street

Sacriston

County Durham

DH7 6JT

Westminster Office

020 7219 8219

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

Martin

[NigelS]

Unfortunately I don't know enough about the technicalities, but shouldn't it be possible for both old and new interfaces (assuming it is just the interface that's changed) to be run concurrently ? If so, the old interface could be 'hidden' to new & casual users coming in at the CWGC home page, but access still allowed to the old interface to enable the old links to remain valid and search engines such as Geoff's to remain operational. I would guess the problem would be if its not just the interface that's been changed and if the format of the 'raw' data has been revised in order to accomodate the new interface, in which case running both systems would be an operational nightmare and probably impracticable. Any thoughts and comments from those more knowledgeable on this sort of thing?

NigelS

[bhbertram@tiscali.co.uk]

I have replied to yesterday's email to me from David Stacey and among other things I have urged him to come forward to give his reasons for the changes to this Forum [if he dare]. I am also thinking of writing to Kevan Jones, who last week was so supportive of CWGC. Perhaps he would be able to intervene. Unfortunately I can't find an email address for him. Can anyone else find this?

I also suggest that members do not wait until the new website is operative - it will be too late then to make changes. It is at this stage that we should act - BEFORE any changes are made.

June

Visit www.parliament.uk and go to the MPs and Lords prompt where there is a Find Your MP facility which allows EMails to be sent.

[melliget]

Nigel.

Yes, technically it's possible to support multiple interfaces but there would be technical reasons to make this less desirable that one interface. It's also possible to make a new interface backwards-compatible with the old one but the CWGC appear reluctant to do this, mainly, from what I can gather, on the grounds of "security". What their fear is in particular, we can only guess. Being a security issue, they will be reluctant to advertise that publicly. I don't believe the all-important back-end, the database, would have been changed in any of this. Perhaps a few extra columns were added to the existing database tables, nothing major. I'm guessing the changes have mainly been at the front-end, the interface.

regards,

Martin