Seadog Posted 3 July , 2012 Share Posted 3 July , 2012 Members will recall that following the last update to the CWGC system it was stated that all pervious links to the database would continue to work unlike their previous abortive attempt when all the links were lost. Well it could be me but there appears to be a problem with that statement and I give examples below although there are others. If anyone else has experienced this possible error please post. Working: Francis Gray Deakin Original URL http://www.cwgc.org/...casualty=357578 Working: New URL http://www.cwgc.org/...N, FRANCIS GRAY Not Working: Sidney Derrick Original URL http://www.cwgc.org/...asualty=1629852 Working: New URL http://www.cwgc.org/...RRICK, SIDNEY J Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 3 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2012 These are the two complete original urls which seem similar to me: Working - Deakin http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_details.aspx?casualty=357578 Not working - Derrick http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_details.aspx?casualty=1629852 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tootrock Posted 3 July , 2012 Share Posted 3 July , 2012 I have tried the url's above, and I also have problems In your first post only the first (of 4) works. In your second post only the first (of 2) works. The url copied from the CWGC site is: http://www.cwgc.org/search-for-war-dead/casualty/1629852/DERRICK,%20SIDNEY%20J Hope this helps. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 3 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2012 Thanks Martin, I have no idea what happened to the "new" urls but they work now. Perhaps the best example is in post 2 where of the two original urls (prior to the last update by CWGC) only the first one works although both seem to be similar in their detail. As I say this happens with other "old" urls and I was wondering whether other members had this same problem as a lot of us used these original links in other web pages and these were supposed to work after the CWGC update. Regards Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 3 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2012 Thought I would share this with you :- New one on me and after clicking on just three links to the database! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 3 July , 2012 Share Posted 3 July , 2012 That looks like a simple flood control - in other words there is a limit set on the number of database queries that can be made within a given timeframe. Not an unreasonable thing to do, not least as it stops automated scripts from repeatedly hitting on the database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelS Posted 3 July , 2012 Share Posted 3 July , 2012 A problem unrelated to those above, but yesterday I was looking for the casualties of the HMS Mary Rose. Whether I enter Mary Rose, or "Mary Rose" in either Regiment or Secondary Regiment (there isn't anything more appropriate) in a 'Navy' ticked search, zero results are returned; A date based search for naval casualties on 17/10/17 does find them but, of course, produces many others as well (172 total); using the Keyword filter with either Mary, Rose or Mary Rose produces the same number of results. In case it was a problem with the fact that 'Mary Rose' comprises two words I repeated the above with Strongbow (lost the same day) with similar results. As the CWGC verbage says it should be possible to find casualties using a ship's name, what am I doing wrong, has anyone had any success with a ship's name based search, and, if I'm having problems, what would somebody without knowledge of ' Geoff's 1914-21 Search Engine ' (86 valid results by simply entering Mary Rose in the 'ship or unit block', and nothing else) do? NigelS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 3 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2012 Nigel. I do not get any results whatsoever when looking for those from the merchant ship "ss bristol city" sunk in ww2 on the database. It just does not work so maybe someone can explain how to find this info. Mind you I have already found the data by using the excellent Geoffs Search Engine which beats the CWGC effort hands down! Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelS Posted 3 July , 2012 Share Posted 3 July , 2012 Thanks Norman, glad to know it not just me; thank goodness Geoff resurrected his. NigelS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Wood Posted 17 July , 2012 Share Posted 17 July , 2012 Members will recall that following the last update to the CWGC system it was stated that all pervious links to the database would continue to work unlike their previous abortive attempt when all the links were lost. Well it could be me but there appears to be a problem with that statement and I give examples below although there are others. If anyone else has experienced this possible error please post. Not Working: Sidney Derrick Original URL http://www.cwgc.org/...asualty=1629852 Working: New URL http://www.cwgc.org/...RRICK, SIDNEY J I reported this error to the CWGC in April, and got a response saying they would look into it. To date they have not fixed it. (and posted here http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=178260&hl= ) The issue arises when the forename of the deceased (as stored by the CWGC) ends in a full stop - in your case Sidney J. When the CWGC software resolves the old format link into the new format it keeps the full-stop. Whereas the new links that work have the full-stop removed at the end of the link. I can see why they don't want a full-stop at the end of a URL but cannot see why it is taking them so long add the one line of code to their new software that would ensure the old format links resolve properly. It's a real pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 17 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2012 Many thanks or the info Phil as you say its about time this was fixed. Regards Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Wood Posted 17 July , 2012 Share Posted 17 July , 2012 I informed them in mid April via the response form on their website - and got an automated response saying they would take up to 30 days to respond. I have heard nothing since. If anyone has contacts at the CWGC who could expedite things please feel free to do so (PM me for my email address if you want me to explain the issue - or if they'd like me to write the code to fix it ) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 17 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2012 Thanks Phil, I should have read you post fully, I have an email for a person at the CWGC and will direct a query there. In my experience though the problem is with these people that a one-line answer is all you are likely to get if that but I will still contact them. Regards Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 19 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 19 July , 2012 Reply received today from the CWGC: Dear Thank you for your e mail of 18 July 2012. With regard to the issues you have raised, I am writing to confirm that your e mail has been passed on to our Website developers for their further investigation. Our Head of External Communications will advise you in due course of the outcome but, in the meantime, thank you for your patience whilst we attempt to resolve the issue.For future reference, please contact us on the e mail address casualty.enq@cwgc.org Kind Regards Yours sincerely Julie Somay (Mrs) Enquiries Administrator Commonwealth War Graves Commission 2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 7DX, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1628 507200 | Facsimile: +44 (0) 1628 771208 | Website: www.cwgc.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Munson Posted 19 July , 2012 Share Posted 19 July , 2012 I've had this with a few of my links - what works for me is adding a forward slash immediately after the casualty number eg: without http://www.cwgc.org/...asualty/1629852 with http://www.cwgc.org/...sualty/1629852/ Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 19 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 19 July , 2012 Thanks Terry it appears that the Commission will be looking at the problem and no doubt a solution will be found. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmac Posted 19 July , 2012 Share Posted 19 July , 2012 A problem unrelated to those above, but yesterday I was looking for the casualties of the HMS Mary Rose. Whether I enter Mary Rose, or "Mary Rose" in either Regiment or Secondary Regiment (there isn't anything more appropriate) in a 'Navy' ticked search, zero results are returned; A date based search for naval casualties on 17/10/17 does find them but, of course, produces many others as well (172 total); using the Keyword filter with either Mary, Rose or Mary Rose produces the same number of results. In case it was a problem with the fact that 'Mary Rose' comprises two words I repeated the above with Strongbow (lost the same day) with similar results. As the CWGC verbage says it should be possible to find casualties using a ship's name, what am I doing wrong, has anyone had any success with a ship's name based search, and, if I'm having problems, what would somebody without knowledge of ' Geoff's 1914-21 Search Engine ' (86 valid results by simply entering Mary Rose in the 'ship or unit block', and nothing else) do? I believe to search on a unit you have to use one of the names built into the system, i.e. the ones that appear as it tries to recognise the unit name you are entering. I assume the database is indexed by their unit descriptions only so if you try typing in a complete regiment name but do not select their prompt the search comes up empty. Try, for example, typing Seaforth Highlanders and hitting enter. No result. Then select the name from the CWGC prompt and the results appear. They do not appear to have individual naval vessels listed. Where on the CWGC site does it say you can search by ship's name? I cannot find this. I cannot see how you search for particular RFC or RAF squadrons either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 19 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 19 July , 2012 The apparent non-ability to search by ships names whether it is RN or MN is in my opinion a gross oversight. After all the name of the ship is the base unit that the individual served in and is equivalent to a regiment. If Geoff’s search engine can provide such information why then cannot the CWGC as no doubt the software would I imagine be extremely expensive and does not appear to come near to that available on the aforementioned independent search engine. Regards Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmac Posted 19 July , 2012 Share Posted 19 July , 2012 I'm no database expert but I suspect that, in order to speed up the search process, the CWGC database is pre-indexed using a limited list of names. That list, for whatever reason, (sheer numbers?) does not include ships' names. If Geoff's engine searches the database based on text rather than a pre-indexed list it will throw up ships' names, etc. Quite why, for example, the information 'H.M.S. "Victory"' appears by a casualty name under 2nd unit (base unit being Royal Navy) but you cannot search for that precise entry it is a tad bewildering. Why the programmers have done it this way, Gawd along knows. I have always wondered why the CWGC didn't ask Geoff to restructure and expand their database in the first place as his system was always more flexible and vastly more productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 20 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 20 July , 2012 I agree in fact I would suggest the CWGC throw a handful of money at Geoff and rebrand his excellent search engine as their own official version. Surely the question must be asked as to why when this search engine existed did the CWGC totally ignore it and go their own way with something which is worse! This just does not make sense to me and in my opinion casts serious doubt on the competence of senior CWGC management in their ability to both understand and commission IT systems, in fact I would go so far as to say that if this was a commercial organization then some senior heads would roll!. Regards Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 20 July , 2012 Share Posted 20 July , 2012 I'm sure that Bill has hit the nail on the head. When it was relaunched there were some issues because of the structure of the original database, and for example the allocation of cemeteries into "Areas" because these reflected an early organisational structure. The search system works for many one off users, and the majority of queries, but as has been demonstrated above falls down when tested to any degree. It does lack flexibility, and the ability to search in a restricted way. Another example, confirmed some time ago to me by the support team, is that one cannot restrict a search term in the key word search. One area that I am interested in is casualties from Idle, a Yorkshire village. if I search on that the results produced are everything that includes the character group "idle" so a simple search produces 70 pages of results. Using the AND operator however, to search on "Idle AND Bradford", produces just 7 results. I have not explored to see if other operators will work. However the download facility at least enables me to check the 70 pages of initial results fully in Excel using its "Find" function. I'm not enough of a database specialist to comprehend the reasoning behind the limitations, but I'm sure there was some considerable deliberation before decisions were taken, frustrating as the outcome often is. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 20 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 20 July , 2012 Thanks Keith bear with me for a flight of fancy imagine the scene:- CWGC HQ Senior Management Minute Secretary Number of Bods from IT Company Tea maker 1.0 “Who wants coffee”? 2.0 “Who wants tea”? 3.0 “Biscuit anyone”? 4.0 “Have we made lunch arrangements”? 5.0 “Right, now the new database search engine” 6.0 “any ideas”? 7.0 Small voice from the corner “Has anyone seen Geoff’s Search Engine”? SILENCE Much, much later Contract signed for vast sums of money “Anyone for a spot of lunch” (Senior Management) After a bottle or two of good Chablis “Tell me just what is a search engine” ? (Senior Management) CLOSE As I say just a flight of fancy. Norman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 20 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 20 July , 2012 If you think that my last post is a joke try reading the 2010/11 annual report as specified on the CWGC website: Click http://www.cwgc.org/...ual-report.aspx Then click on the magnifying glass thingy so you can read it, I may be missing something here but how does this actually work? Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 20 July , 2012 Share Posted 20 July , 2012 Norman I think you are being unfair. When the first attempt was made to upgrade the database, there was you will recall a howl of protest from the many who had built links into their websites to the casualty database. The commission listened, and changes were made. The tender document for the upgrade was published and several of us linked to it in earlier threads. The limitations are very frustrating, but the only way in which we will get further improvements is by treating the officers of the commission with respect, and also by assuming that there were serious reasons why particular decisions about the design were taken. I do think it is important that criticism is constructive, and also that it aimed in the right direction. I believe that Peter Francis might well be the man to contact. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 20 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 20 July , 2012 Keith I think that contacting Mr Francis would be a case of "bolting horses and stable doors" and will achieve nothing other that some bland reply. How Mr Francis can be responsible for a situation where a so-called improvement to the database search facility ends up worse than that written by a guy with no connection to the CWGC beats me and you have to wonder whether Mr Francis has actually used the CWGC search engine and indeed Geoff’s so that he would have some idea of what can be achieved. Remember that this topic relates to a glitch in the software which is only to obvious to the users. I would still appreciate any guidance on how to use the Annual Report facility in order to actually read it from the CWGC website. Regards Norman 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