CWGC Debt of Honour Database - Problems?

[Terence Munson]

My links (New and old style) are working now.

Terry

[Seadog]

Phew, right there Terry, I hope this continues. I wonder what happened as it sounds like a C-Up.

Regards

Norman

[David_Underdown]

It looks like the old style links are now working again, but there's now some rate limiting added, so you can only access about 5 that way before you're told you've made too many requests and have to take a break (won't affect most users I suspect). One slight omission in my original post, need to make sure URL terminates with a / or link won't work (I'll edit a correction in)

[mandy hall]

WarGravesCommission ‏@CWGC

Couple of glitches affecting the CWGC website today, apologies for any inconvenience. We're aiming to fix ASAP

Tweeted by CWGC this morning.

Mandy

[Phil Wood]

I know that David, trouble is that it depends on how many you have to amend and surely after the last mess-up this should not have happened. You will recall that the CWGC then apologized for not realizing that users were linking the records to other sites such as Rolls of Honour! Following which the update was reversed and the software amended so that stored links would continue to function. So what has happened here?, plus or course Geoffs Search Engine is now defunct.

Norman

Geoff's Excellent Search Engine is far from defunct - http://www.hut-six.co.uk/cgi-bin/search1421.php

[David_Underdown]

I know that David, trouble is that it depends on how many you have to amend and surely after the last mess-up this should not have happened. You will recall that the CWGC then apologized for not realizing that users were linking the records to other sites such as Rolls of Honour! Following which the update was reversed and the software amended so that stored links would continue to function. So what has happened here?, plus or course Geoffs Search Engine is now defunct.

Norman

Websites are complicated things. There will always be the odd glitch. Yes they've made mistakes in the past, but don't jump to conclusions that it's happening again. My opint about amending the URLs is that it can be done as a purely mechanical process and completed in seconds, and then your own web page, database or whatever has one fewer thing to rely on.

[David_Underdown]

Going right back to the very first post on this thread:

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

I see that the URL which Norman pointed out wasn't working is now fine. I suspect what happened yesterday is that an upgraded version of the redirect engine was put in place to deal with the issue Norman had found (which seemd to occur when the new url would end in a full stop) but it promptly fell over (probably after initial testing was done which appeared to show everything was working), by that time everyone had gone home (24/7 support is very expensive), so it wasn't until this morning there was anyone to get it up and running again.

[Seadog]

Thanks for the confirmation that the original problem is now sorted, I did hazard a guess that this may have been the reason for the latest problem still it is now fixed and everything is sweetness and light!

Norman

[ericwebb]

Hum ho! There's certainly been a further change since I last accessed the advanced search no more than a few weeks ago, that link is now broken, the new one is:

http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead.aspx

A larger issue remains whether the search engine is properly configured - I've previously had some very rum results from non-name searches, that is looking for members of a particular regiment or indeed anyone at all who died during a specified period. However trying this out again for Gallipoli - where it most certainly wasn't before - they are at least now believable. A qualified 'Hurrah!' therefore.

Eric

[Seadog]

Glad to hear that there is some improvement Eric but the facility to search by ship (MN or RN) is still totally lacking although the ships name does appear on the record. The Ship was the seafarers regiment and the inability to search by such is completely unacceptable when the CWGC consider that such a facility is necessary for other services.

Regards

Norman

[keithmroberts]

Search is constrained by the original data entry format. There was clearly not a field for "ship". most of the issues are a direct reflection of the original form in which data was stored, and of the original organisation of the CWGC. At that time I suspect the database was probably for internal use only. The consultation undertaken after the initial redesign (the one that was abandoned), was a serious attempt to find a way forward. Surely the new search system, with all its limitations is a major improvement, and the gradual tweaking is helping.

I'm sure there will be more, but I doubt if a new field can ever be set up because of the outdated original structure of the data.

Keith

[Seadog]

I do know there is not a field for Ship but you will also know that the ships name appears in the Regiment field so why a search cannot be made of the name appearing in said field is a mystery to me after all its not exactly rocket science is it?.

[KevinBattle]

You could/can search by Ship name on Geoffs Search Engine.

Copy and paste the names into a Landscape Word document and then find the CWGC entry for each man.....

CWGC ought to be ensuring that their new Search facility at LEAST matches (and preferably improve - if possible!) what Geoff was able to do with the same database!

[Seadog]

_{Thanks Kevin I have used Geoffs version for that purpose and It works extremely well.}

_Norman

_{PS On another matter entirely note the size of text here which was pasted from MS Word 12 size using the thing top right which normally works OK. seems like some glitch in the GWF software.}

[ericwebb]

It's accepted of course that CWGC are 'doing their best' within historic and other constraints, nonetheless an open and honest acknowledgement of current shortcomings on their part would seem proper - indeed essential - not least because the newcomer, the non-initiate, is likely to take them as the 'last word' both as to accuracy and to information available, which at present they emphatically are not.

[Seadog]

Received this response from CWGC regarding the inability to search DoH by ships name. I post it here as it mentions that the ships name is in a field called “Unit “which although it does not appear as this on the search parameters must be the second field under “Regiment/ Service” on the database. I see no reason whatsoever why as it exists that searches cannot be made on it and I have replied to the CWGC to that effect.

Norman

My Bold Text

Thank you for your enquiry I have been in touch with our External Communication Department and have been informed that at present, we do not have a “ship” or “unit” or “squadron” search field on the website as during testing this proved too problematic for most users. This is/was due to the large number of differences in the data we hold for units, ships and squadrons and the fact that during testing the majority of our users failed to get to grips with the various permutations.

Inevitably our website has to cope for a larger audience than Geoff’s search engine – whose users tend to have a much greater understanding of military records and data – and therefore a compromise has to be met. However, using the new “Export” function it is possible to search records off line by the unit field. For example, a search for all casualties in the Royal Navy can be exported to Excel and worked on “off – line”.

Simply search on the 'Regiment/Service' or “Served in” field as an option and click the Export button when the search is returned. You will then have that section of the database delivered in seconds to your own computer as a spread sheet the ship name is NOT in the Regiment field but in its own 'Unit' field.

[KevinBattle]

I don't like "knocking" the CWGC, but if Geoff could do it using THEIR database, why can't they?

Their website caters for the same audience (users) as GSE.

So, what they are saying is that the complexity of showing specific Unit/Ship/Squadron is TOO much for Joe Public to understandhow to get the specific ship information.

Geoff solved that by adding in a filter for "Starts With" "Contains" or "Exact" ..... which they can't seem to be able to replicate.

So CWGC suggests that you can download the ENTIRE RN casualty list and search through "off line" for a specific ships casualties. So that's what Joe Public does, is it?

Just done exactly that... First World War United Kingdom Royal Navy casualties produces:-

48346 record(s) match your search criteria 3324 pages ................ !!!!!!!!!!

Who is going to sort through that lot??????

Sorry, that's a poor excuse.

[KevinBattle]

For Norman from the man himself.....

You might like to show this link to SeaDog on GWF, it shows the variations in ship's names which gives CWGC doubts about doing a search on this field (Unit Text). The same field also has unit names for WW1 and WW2 units (battalions, squadrons, field companies, etc). WW1 records seem to have many more variations than WW2. Unit Text now seems to be appended to Regiment on their results pages. Also Nationality (which was the unit, not the man) is now missing from their results. Not helpful, even though many were confused by it.

http://www.hut-six.co.uk/WW2/towerhill1418.html

cheers,

geoff

[Seadog]

I do not understand why the CWGC cannot provide a search facility the equal of Geoff’s and I am aware of all the possible problems that may affect the use of the “Unit” field but surely a “wildcard” facility would solve this. My concerns are primarily directed at the inability to search by ships name for I view this as the equivalent of searching by regiment which is available. As for downloading the merchant navy or royal navy complete records can the CWGC be serious?, the Tower Hill Merchant Navy Memorial alone records the names of 12,000 in respect of WW1 who have no known graves and 24,000 for WW2.

Regards

Norman

[keithmroberts]

it is surely more likely to be frustrating for the person chasing say a single sailor, whose only other knowledge is the name of a ship. Using the download option and the sorting power of a modern spreadsheet this is really not so awful. yes it could be better, but lets remember the CWGC's primary function is to commemorate, not to spend additional funds to promote research. Rebuilding the unit fields would be very costly.

sometimes removing an option can be sensible. when the new front end was launched there was a similar issue with the cemetery search, as the data had a field based on the arbitrary 2areas2 I think it was, in which the cemeteries were grouped. That was utterly misleading and produced incorrect returns. After a number of comments, that search field was eventually removed, and a good thing too.

I'll make an offer to see just how long it takes for a broadband user and a fairly infrequent user of spreadsheets. I'll time the download, and then sort by units. Then if someone cares to name a ship, I'll extract the data on crew members from that ship, and see how long it takes.

For the numbers likely to do so, the cost of inserting a unit search, not to mention dealing with the potential confusion and the resultant complaints, would surely be money better spent say on maintenance or signage.

[Seadog]

Keith you keep repeating the same old argument “but let’s remember the CWGC's primary function is to commemorate, not to spend additional funds to promote research. Rebuilding the unit fields would be very costly” and whilst I admire your support for the Commission I do think that you are somewhat missing the point that I am trying to make. If we get into any discussion about what the prime function of the CWGC is then I would submit that they have strayed into areas which are of no concern of theirs which will be only to obvious if you care to view some of the topics on their website.

I reiterate that my prime concern is that a facility which the CWGC regard as important to provide viz, the search by regiment is totally lacking in respect of both the Royal and Merchant Navies because their “Regiment” is recorded in the “Unit” field. I see no reason why such a facility cannot be provided in respect of the MN & RN which will then put them on a par with the other services.

Regards

Norman

[keithmroberts]

Sorry Norman. You can see no reason, but it has been spelled out, and the comment relayed from Geoff does that again.

Keith

[keithmroberts]

Just tried it. I selected WW1, Royal Navy and Merchant Navy. The result with some 65k names was almost instantaneous. exporting to my 5-6 year old computer took a couple of seconds. opening in Excel, and sorting by unit took another 30 seconds or so.

Really, how hard was that? It has taken me longer to type this comment.

Keith

Edited 5 September , 2012 by Keith Roberts
typos

[Phil Wood]

As for downloading the merchant navy or royal navy complete records can the CWGC be serious?, the Tower Hill Merchant Navy Memorial alone records the names of 12,000 in respect of WW1 who have no known graves and 24,000 for WW2.

As an experiment I have just downloaded the RN records for WW1 - took less than a minute and I now have a spreadsheet with just under 50,000 names - with ship names.

I have also downloaded the Merchant Marine records - 15,357 of those.

Whilst I cannot help agreeing that it should not be difficult to enable a search for ship's names on the CWGC site, the work round they suggest is simple - thanks to the new search engine.

[Chris_Baker]

Indeed the ability to download to Excel gives you far greater powers of searching, finding patterns, etc. It is a real boon and I have found myself using it very often.