New CWGC search interface

[Guest KevinEndon]

What will forum pals do if the CWGC put in the new system and it bins URL's?

Will you boycott it, send an email or 2, maybe a phone call, but at the end of the day there is not a great deal we can do about it. I feel that it may be a case of "get over it and move on".

p.s I have over 2,000 urls saved that I will lose, so I am not happy with what I saw Monday but I am awaiting the new system before I judge it.

I hear you say "act now". I can imagine that any emails that start with "new search engine" will be placed in the bin. Phone calls to senior CWGC will not go through, the receptionist will be told to say that they are in a meeting trying to sort out the problem so I feel that all complaints will now be falling of deaf ears. That's why I ask that we sit back and wait and see what comes of this, after all they have changed it back once there is no reason that they can't again.

Kevin

[John_Hartley]

Chris Baker has already reported that this totals over 1,500.

Actually, no he didnt. He reported that 1500 sites link to the CWGC site, not to individual records in its database. M site links to CWGC but I have no saved URLs for any of my Stockport men - recalling that the Commission has done this once before on previous revamp, it didnt seem a worthwhile exercise.

I think in all this we need to keep in mind that assisting researchers and webmasters is not the reason for the CWGC datebase - it is there to assist folk in identyfing where they have buried or commemorate a casualty. However, if it can do both jobs then that is a bonus.

[NeilEvans]

I think, i could be wrong, that only me, John Hartley and Les have mentioned the change a few years ago. The search format stayed the same whilst the URL's changed, was there this kind of reaction back then?

Must say i don't like the look of the new search.

Neil

[Seadog]

You are correct Neil, but I remember that with that change all I had to do was to manually make a small alteration to the URLs which in my case took very little time or effort though I understand that with many people it would be more time consuming.

Norman

[NeilEvans]

ah, cheers Norman.

Neil

[John_Hartley]

Neil

Yes, it was different. Then it was just the URL changed. Similar sort of rants then as now.

John

[Seadog]

Yes but the difference this time is there isn’t a URL and all web sites reliant on them and users research will be trashed, bit of a major variance and well worth a rant don’t you think?.

Regards

Norman

[John_Hartley]

Have you ever seen me object to a rant?

[Seadog]

In all honesty No!

Norman

[bhbertram@tiscali.co.uk]

I think in all this we need to keep in mind that assisting researchers and webmasters is not the reason for the CWGC datebase - it is there to assist folk in identyfing where they have buried or commemorate a casualty. However, if it can do both jobs then that is a bonus.

I note Mr Hartley's point that "assisting researchers and webmasters is not the reason for the CWGC database", and to some extent, that is a fair point. However, there is a reverse side to the coin in that researchers are also helping the CWGC to achieve a better product in terms of the accuracy of data stored and in other areas. Though it is a broader topic, would Fromelles have been discovered by the CWGC for example had an amateur researcher in Australia not looked for the fate of those men? It appears that while the "amateur researcher community" recognises that it has a dependency upon the CWGC, the opposite does not seem the case and it may be that amateur researchers are regarded by elements in the CWGC as threats to the status quo, pains in the derriere or whatever, rather than additional, valuable and highly-motivated resources that they can call upon without having to pay them! Sadly, the current situation has transpired because, in the consultation process whatever that might have been, the CWGC IT team may not have asked the right questions nor recognised the need for inter-dependency.

I've also noted a couple of comments about government websites and data. Granted that some are labyrinthine, they have been developed at huge cost, to meet government needs first and the public a very poor second as evidenced by my continuance at submitting my annual tax return on paper! However, comparisons between those websites and that of the CWGC are largely irrelevant. Discounting the unsophisticated quality of the search engine prior to this problem of the last few days, the CWGC has by and larged furnished "good" data. My view, simple as it may seem, is to leave the core data alone, and improve search engine sophistication.

However, the need for inter-dependency to be recognised must be addressed, and it is perhaps through the establishment of a joint CWGC-"Interested Parties (e.g. WFA/GWF/IFTC/etc)" User Group that this could be achieved. Somebody made a reference to Jaw-Jaw rather than War-War. Somehow this seems pertinent given that the data is of men and women who have to be commemorated because of a lack of Jaw-Jaw. It is in the mutual interest of the CWGC (as supplier) and Interested Parties (as the major part of the customer community) that this is somehow done.

[Paul Reed]

Barrie, that's one of the best posts I have read on here for a very long time. Couldn't agree more.

[tharkin56]

I remember filling in the survey, but as always as good as the questions you ask. How useful is it etc not what would happen if you change the links etc. Hopefully they will learn from this.

I wonder if they can some how redirect old links to the new ones so thay would at least work albeit it display the new info.

[DMcNay]

What will forum pals do if the CWGC put in the new system and it bins URL's?

Will you boycott it, send an email or 2, maybe a phone call, but at the end of the day there is not a great deal we can do about it. I feel that it may be a case of "get over it and move on".

p.s I have over 2,000 urls saved that I will lose, so I am not happy with what I saw Monday but I am awaiting the new system before I judge it.

I hear you say "act now". I can imagine that any emails that start with "new search engine" will be placed in the bin. Phone calls to senior CWGC will not go through, the receptionist will be told to say that they are in a meeting trying to sort out the problem so I feel that all complaints will now be falling of deaf ears. That's why I ask that we sit back and wait and see what comes of this, after all they have changed it back once there is no reason that they can't again.

Kevin

I sincerely doubt that they will change it back if we "sit back and wait and see". Why would they? Once it's changed, it's changed. They've only reverted back in this instance beacuse the new version clearly wasn't ready for public consumption.

[Guest KevinEndon]

and if the urls dont work the next time would that still mean that it still wasn't ready for public consumption. I cannot see anything Joe Public can do should the CWGC implement what they have, a case of take it or leave it.

Kevin

[eviltaxman]

I know what the URL looks like now, but has anyone got a new link (they copied) before they withdrew them or didn't they actually release them, only the search screen?!?!?

[Seadog]

Take a look at post 82 this will explain the problem. With the new system it is impossible to copy the URL for an individual record. This is replaced by a PDF file only. Therefore all previous links however they are used ROH, research etc will be redundent as and when the new system is finally implemented. That I am afraid is the long and short of it.

Regards

Norman

[galena]

I know what the URL looks like now, but has anyone got a new link (they copied) before they withdrew them or didn't they actually release them, only the search screen?!?!?

     http://www.cwgc.org/Search-Result.aspx?t=ca&q=R%2fghOaIowKtl0TxbHoopnGL0YEGxY%2ffA27WR8fei3o
   DPimS72H1z4yYeXjlmQH%2bWEvhSq97zKEwDojvRDFPaiYxsS1d2P7sVV4p5ggCbJWDcLXWjrIjBm%2bpiOKURIZ
   W0%2bq9F2yxlGM8EfpfPgIg3lCumQd81VVgnb2JQ262efpEj9ucYFxsr%2bXlV9K0Ripmx1%2fQqca1S%2fGUhDkl
   %2fsw4DYHWhdJUx0Jvl%2fdSOPgoUwt4%3d#a2

I had to put line Breaks and put Inside a code box, Else you would not see it.

[eviltaxman]

Norman/Galena... thanks. I've been trying to find some older links (from the previous incarnation) within some of my records and the only ones I can find are slightly different to what we have now, but were easily "updated" using the "Replace" command in Excel. However these new ones, per Galena's example, are going to prove to be a really big annoyance (he says politely!!). However there are, more often than not, ways round "non-standard" links on the net. Assuming the CWGC don't revert back to what we're used to, then only time will tell.

[Auimfo]

Just dashed off an email to David Stacey:

Dear Sir,

I am interested to know what 'extensive consultation' was conducted to determine that the Record Search facility required changing. Both myself and many people I know are regular users of the CWGC database but none of us seem to have been approached for any input and although I was aware of the recent website survey, I cannot recall it having addressed these proposed alterations.

Having briefly used the new search facility whilst it was temporarily up and running, I cannot see what improvements have been made. There has been no additional search functionality installed (which seems ridiculous given the obvious opportunity to make this improvement) and in fact some information has now been removed. Additionally, I am unsure what 'providing a more intuitive system' actually means other than possibly being a word that sounds impressive without having any actual substance.

I am also at a loss to understand what additional security requires the omission of individual links to casualty details and why? What possible breach of security could necessitate such a ludicrous move. Have there been any documented breaches that explain this decision?

Ultimately, it appears that the necessity for the planned changes are far outweighed by the vast amount of research and databases that will be destroyed at the push of a button by this thoughtless upgrade. As you are probably aware, there are many research websites and online databases that link directly to individual CWGC records (and if you're not aware then as Director of Information Services, you should be!). Many of these sites provide a greater search functionality than offered by the CWGC and the site owners should be congratulated for their ongoing volunteer endeavours to promote remembrance and not crushed for no apparant reason.

In my opinion, this is just an example of bloody-minded bureacracy seemingly forgetting the spirit of remembrance for which it was created.

It'll probably fall on deaf ears and won't change their intentions one iota but at least I've had my say. Just maybe if there is enough agitation, it might hopefully make them reconsider the way they have this set up.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[DMcNay]

and if the urls dont work the next time would that still mean that it still wasn't ready for public consumption.

That was not the issues that made it unready. The missing secondary units, the missing entries in cemetery reports, etc. These were the errors that made it not ready for public use.

I cannot see anything Joe Public can do should the CWGC implement what they have, a case of take it or leave it.

Kevin

I agree, we can't do anything about it once they've changed it. That's the reason why we have to make our feelings known BEFORE.

[Bardess]

If your email doesn't get a response, Tim, I think it shows just how out of touch the big-wigs really are [or, perhaps, have been advised that this change is a good one]

Does anyone think a petition might be the right way to go? At least that way we can get a couple of thousand to sign it which may carry a bit of weight

[auchonvillerssomme]

The one thing that amazes me in all of this is the resistance to facilitate easier searches, how is it that Geoff's search engine can do this but CWGC wont allow anything other than name inititial and war or year. This has always raised suspicions in my mind about money and where the CWGC really wants to be as an organisation - it must be quite tempting as managers seeing a well used database being accessed for free when Ancestry can get away with charging huge fees. I would love to see their business plan.

Mick

[eviltaxman]

Maybe they should simply pay Geoff a disgusting amount of cash and use his search engine!!

[Guest]

Maybe they should simply pay Geoff a disgusting amount of cash and use his search engine!!

Now that is sensible.

I have emailed my local MP, it can't do any harm. Doing nothing won't help. "...for evil to triumph ..." etc etc. Maybe a bit strong, but I think doing something, is better than just sitting back.

Mike

[Seadog]

Mike you are quite right, to do nothing is not an option. The great strength of a forum like this is that it can marshal an enormous lobby which any public service as I suppose the CWGC to be just cannot ignore. After all if you were responsible for the new upgrade would you be happy to press ahead knowing the level of opposition, I think not. Please contact the CWGC as soon as possible with your comments. I have also e-mailed my MP who is a Minister so every little helps.

Regards

Norman