ss002d6252 Posted 10 September , 2017 Share Posted 10 September , 2017 5 minutes ago, RaySearching said: Whilst initially it sounds a good idea I have reservations In theory I could photo-shop a head-shot of myself onto a soldier in uniform and pass myself of as say (The unknown soldier) I think this facility would be open to abuse leading to the CWGC database being corrupted Ray I can see it leading to arguments if no more than one or two pictures can be displayed and another relative etc pops up and wants their picture displayed or disputes the pictures that have been uploaded. Is the CWGC ready for the arbitration ? Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clk Posted 10 September , 2017 Share Posted 10 September , 2017 Hi, 46 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said: I can see it leading to arguments if no more than one or two pictures can be displayed and another relative etc pops up and wants their picture displayed or disputes the pictures that have been uploaded. Is the CWGC ready for the arbitration ? That's exactly what I was thinking. Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 10 September , 2017 Share Posted 10 September , 2017 Just now, clk said: Hi, That's exactly what I was thinking. Regards Chris I'm not sure they've thought it all the way Chris I upload a picture of Tommy Atkins sourced from a newspaper, family come along and go that doesn't look like great uncle Tommy Atkins. What do the CWGC say ? Either they say get stuffed, replace the picture or try and arbitrate (and we know how some people will argue the toss). I can't see it taking many of these cases to really tie up CWGC. (and that's without someone arguing copyright etc etc) Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted 10 September , 2017 Share Posted 10 September , 2017 going back a few years, couldn't you print a copy of the parchment that was sent to n,o,k ? nowadays you can download and print the commemorative certificate with cemetery picture and n.o.k details, nice but not the same. cant remember where, but the original parchment was printable elsewhere. Forces war records do a similar thing 'Memorial scroll' but at £22.95, I don't think so, it looks tacky not like the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 10 September , 2017 Share Posted 10 September , 2017 10 minutes ago, chaz said: going back a few years, couldn't you print a copy of the parchment that was sent to n,o,k ? nowadays you can download and print the commemorative certificate with cemetery picture and n.o.k details, nice but not the same. cant remember where, but the original parchment was printable elsewhere. Forces war records do a similar thing 'Memorial scroll' but at £22.95, I don't think so, it looks tacky not like the original. You could certainly print them from my copy of SDGW on CD-ROM - but they were not very accurate in their rendition. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 10 September , 2017 Share Posted 10 September , 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, ss002d6252 said: I can see it leading to arguments if no more than one or two pictures can be displayed and another relative etc pops up and wants their picture displayed or disputes the pictures that have been uploaded. Is the CWGC ready for the arbitration ? Craig Me too, and with other CWGC Projects like "Every one Remembered." the IWM project, Ancestry tree's which could all be used for this feature, I have great reservations regarding this, great reservations. It will probably be officer heavy from School Rolls etc. Should the CWGC fall foul of wrong pictures being added then it will make so many more errors than there are already on there, and that is quite a lot, and a mockery of the whole database. Andy Edited 11 September , 2017 by stiletto_33853 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 10 September , 2017 Share Posted 10 September , 2017 1 hour ago, ss002d6252 said: I can see it leading to arguments if no more than one or two pictures can be displayed and another relative etc pops up and wants their picture displayed or disputes the pictures that have been uploaded. Is the CWGC ready for the arbitration ? Craig My big fear is that it could be far too easy for a dodgy militaria dealer to upload a picture of anyone in the right uniform and then advertise the items they have for sale using said picture on the CWGC website as an "added bonus" and fake provenance. Many of us afflicted by the collecting bug will pay a premium for a picture of the original recipient. In all seriousness, what could be worse for such an august and respected body as the CWGC to have it's reputation tarnished by repeated cries of "That's not him!" - and what could be more disrespectful to the memory of the fallen than to have somebody else's picture attributed to them? If what has been suggested here is something that they are serious about doing, quite frankly I think they have lost the plot altogether. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 10 September , 2017 Share Posted 10 September , 2017 31 minutes ago, Medaler said: My big fear is that it could be far too easy for a dodgy militaria dealer to upload a picture of anyone in the right uniform and then advertise the items they have for sale using said picture on the CWGC website as an "added bonus" and fake provenance. Many of us afflicted by the collecting bug will pay a premium for a picture of the original recipient. In all seriousness, what could be worse for such an august and respected body as the CWGC to have it's reputation tarnished by repeated cries of "That's not him!" - and what could be more disrespectful to the memory of the fallen than to have somebody else's picture attributed to them? If what has been suggested here is something that they are serious about doing, quite frankly I think they have lost the plot altogether. Mike Very valid point Mike. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaySearching Posted 11 September , 2017 Share Posted 11 September , 2017 May I suggest that all the forum members who have concerns about the proposed facility of adding a photos of individual soldiers to the database should write to the CWGC voicing their concerns if they (the CWGC) receive enough letters of protest the CWGC may think again I for one would much prefer as previously stated would rather have the facility used to display a photo of the casualties headstone or a photo of the panel where the casualty is commemorated I would willingly let the CWGC have all the photos of individual headstones (several thousand ) to add to their database which I have taken over the years if they would like them Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
healdav Posted 11 September , 2017 Share Posted 11 September , 2017 1 hour ago, RaySearching said: May I suggest that all the forum members who have concerns about the proposed facility of adding a photos of individual soldiers to the database should write to the CWGC voicing their concerns if they (the CWGC) receive enough letters of protest the CWGC may think again I for one would much prefer as previously stated would rather have the facility used to display a photo of the casualties headstone or a photo of the panel where the casualty is commemorated I would willingly let the CWGC have all the photos of individual headstones (several thousand ) to add to their database which I have taken over the years if they would like them Ray What's your problem with photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaySearching Posted 11 September , 2017 Share Posted 11 September , 2017 18 minutes ago, healdav said: What's your problem with photos? No problem just concerns Have you not read all of the thread? Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughton Posted 11 September , 2017 Share Posted 11 September , 2017 Our concern over here on the other side of the pond is the broken links, even within the UNKNOWN REPORTS submitted to the CWGC. For example in our report onf 2nd Lts. Clark and Noon we have the CWGC link: http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/CLARK, ERNEST VAUGHAN which now gives us a 404 Error page. If you search on the new site the link is: https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/clark,-ernest-vaughan/ In this case it is merely the dropping of the hyphens in the link. Those that have hundreds and perhaps thousands of links in their research documents are toasted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted 11 September , 2017 Share Posted 11 September , 2017 1 hour ago, laughton said: Our concern over here on the other side of the pond is the broken links, even within the UNKNOWN REPORTS submitted to the CWGC. For example in our report onf 2nd Lts. Clark and Noon we have the CWGC link: http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/CLARK, ERNEST VAUGHAN which now gives us a 404 Error page. If you search on the new site the link is: https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/clark,-ernest-vaughan/ In this case it is merely the dropping of the hyphens in the link. Those that have hundreds and perhaps thousands of links in their research documents are toasted! You don't have be on the other side of the pond to suffer from broken links. It's a major side-effect of the CWGC website change. A real PITA for anyone with a big project and I sympathise. I've got a small blog and a couple of Casualty Google Map to think about, and I'm not sure if I have the energy to fix them right now. What's being said about this on the CWGC twitter/facebook accounts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted 11 September , 2017 Share Posted 11 September , 2017 2 hours ago, laughton said: Our concern over here on the other side of the pond is the broken links, even within the UNKNOWN REPORTS submitted to the CWGC. For example in our report onf 2nd Lts. Clark and Noon we have the CWGC link: http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/CLARK, ERNEST VAUGHAN which now gives us a 404 Error page. If you search on the new site the link is: https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/clark,-ernest-vaughan/ In this case it is merely the dropping of the hyphens in the link. Those that have hundreds and perhaps thousands of links in their research documents are toasted! just tried and both links work, my point was the same, slight puctuation marks and spelling changes need options as Ancestry and FMP do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reesy Posted 11 September , 2017 Share Posted 11 September , 2017 (edited) It seems safe to say that this website probably cost a fair bit and at this time doesn't offer much more than the old one did. Combined with the fact that they tweeted a long time ago it would be live in May and yet launched in September with no notable new functionality except the obvious face lift, I would be somewhat disappointed if I were the powers that be (or as a taxpayer!). Is there anyway of finding out the cost, can you make a freedom of information request to the CWGC? I'd be curious to find out.... Edited 11 September , 2017 by reesy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrenchrat22 Posted 11 September , 2017 Author Share Posted 11 September , 2017 The CWGC unfortunately are not subject to the freedom of information act. I tried to some information out of them a couple of years and mentioned FOI act. They quoted they were not subject to the act. When a letter from my MP dropped on their door, they moved heaven and earth to supply me with the information I requested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johntanner Posted 11 September , 2017 Share Posted 11 September , 2017 9 hours ago, laughton said: Our concern over here on the other side of the pond is the broken links, even within the UNKNOWN REPORTS submitted to the CWGC. For example in our report onf 2nd Lts. Clark and Noon we have the CWGC link: http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/CLARK, ERNEST VAUGHAN which now gives us a 404 Error page. If you search on the new site the link is: https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/clark,-ernest-vaughan/ In this case it is merely the dropping of the hyphens in the link. Those that have hundreds and perhaps thousands of links in their research documents are toasted! Well both links work for me and no 404. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaginatian Posted 11 September , 2017 Share Posted 11 September , 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, laughton said: Our concern over here on the other side of the pond is the broken links, even within the UNKNOWN REPORTS submitted to the CWGC. For example in our report onf 2nd Lts. Clark and Noon we have the CWGC link: http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/CLARK, ERNEST VAUGHAN which now gives us a 404 Error page. If you search on the new site the link is: https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/clark,-ernest-vaughan/ In this case it is merely the dropping of the hyphens in the link. Those that have hundreds and perhaps thousands of links in their research documents are toasted! Those links work whatever the actual "name" is. The important part is the casualty "number". That's why https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/bloggs,fred or just https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/ also work. While not tested it's probably true for cemetery links as well. Ian Edited 11 September , 2017 by imaginatian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
healdav Posted 12 September , 2017 Share Posted 12 September , 2017 21 hours ago, RaySearching said: No problem just concerns Have you not read all of the thread? Ray Only the last page with one post showed up to me, sorry. Best thing to do if someone comlains that you have the wrong photo is to ask for the correct one. You probably won't hear again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughton Posted 12 September , 2017 Share Posted 12 September , 2017 (edited) Very interesting that the links work if they are copied from a WORD document and posted here on the GWF. However, they do not work if they are within the WORD document. The links from the PDF version of the same documents do work. Here is a typical table within one of our reports. The link I am referring to is the one called "Date of Death", which would show as http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/1566141/CARRICK, LAWRENCE STANLEY, as posted above. It will be interesting to see if the link works when the table is extracted and placed within this post (it does!). I tried a number of them that are within WORD documents and they do not work. Supporting Documents: (# refers to attachment number; “I” information provided) Casualty Identification: Burial Information: Carrick, Lawrence Stanley i Adanac Military Cemetery link 49th Battalion i Somme, France i Lieutenant i Plot 8 Row J Grave 4 i Date of Death: 15/09/1916 link Date of Burial / Exhumation i Attestation Papers link Cemetery Schematic link Service Record link Graves Registration Report 8 Circumstance of Death 1 Concentration of Grave CEF Canada Register 2 Headstone Register War Diary Extract(s) 3 Casualty Spreadsheet Area Map(s) 4 Trench Map Exhumation 9 Trench Map(s) 5 Grave Stone Photograph Possible Candidates List 6 Grave Stone Inscription Excluded Candidates List Memorial Inscription/Photo Service Record Extract 7a,b Reporting and Review 10 I had not previously noticed that some of the CWGC links had changed to the "name version" versus the "number version". I went back in time to look at some of the work I had done on the men of our community (Milton, Ontario CANADA) to see what happened with those links. For example, this page about Fred Baguley, one of the men in the infamous CA40 case. http://www.miltonhistoricalsociety.ca/military/first-world-war/wwi-soldier-details/baguley/ In that case, he is linked to the CWGC where it says "Vimy Memorial" and there the link is of the "number version", which no longer works. Maybe it has not worked since they changed to the "name version" and I never noticed? This is what the link shows - will it work when posted within the forum? (it does not!) http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_details.aspx?casualty=1564856 Regardless, we should ask the CWGC if they can put a piece of programming into their site so that the links work for any of the new, or the old, system. Edited 12 September , 2017 by laughton added "it does" and "it does not" when links tested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 12 September , 2017 Share Posted 12 September , 2017 5 hours ago, healdav said: Only the last page with one post showed up to me, sorry. Best thing to do if someone comlains that you have the wrong photo is to ask for the correct one. You probably won't hear again. I think you may have missed the point. The most serious and fundamental principle of an organisation like the CWGC is that EVERYTHING that it puts on display to the public via its website should have an accuracy that is beyond reproach. For them to hold any other attitude than that will not only tarnish their reputation, but is fundamentally disrespectful to the memory of the men and women that it is their prime consideration to commemorate. Whilst there are many inaccuracies in their database, they remain there for a reason, that being that any alteration requires proof beyond doubt to validate any changes that they might be asked to make. That policing of their records is of vital importance. Submitting pictures of any Tom, Dick or Harry without irrefutable evidence that they are actually the people that they purport to be can only damage both the reliability and reputation of both their database and their organisation. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaySearching Posted 12 September , 2017 Share Posted 12 September , 2017 1 hour ago, Medaler said: I think you may have missed the point. The most serious and fundamental principle of an organisation like the CWGC is that EVERYTHING that it puts on display to the public via its website should have an accuracy that is beyond reproach. For them to hold any other attitude than that will not only tarnish their reputation, but is fundamentally disrespectful to the memory of the men and women that it is their prime consideration to commemorate. Whilst there are many inaccuracies in their database, they remain there for a reason, that being that any alteration requires proof beyond doubt to validate any changes that they might be asked to make. That policing of their records is of vital importance. Submitting pictures of any Tom, Dick or Harry without irrefutable evidence that they are actually the people that they purport to be can only damage both the reliability and reputation of both their database and their organisation. Mike Eloquently wrote Mike Regards Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 12 September , 2017 Share Posted 12 September , 2017 8 hours ago, RaySearching said: Eloquently wrote Mike Regards Ray Cheers Ray, As you can probably tell, I feel very strongly about this. I find it very difficult to understand how the CWGC can even contemplate doing this, let alone have gone so far as to have software developed that actually caters for it. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 12 September , 2017 Share Posted 12 September , 2017 4 minutes ago, Medaler said: Cheers Ray, As you can probably tell, I feel very strongly about this. I find it very difficult to understand how the CWGC can even contemplate doing this, let alone have gone so far as to have software developed that actually caters for it. Regards, Mike Must admit Mike, I totally agree and have sent an e-mail to the CWGC regarding this, asking that IF they go ahead then the provenance needs to be as strict as when changing a record entry. I have suggested they think very hard regarding this. Awaiting a reply, do not think I can hold my breath long enough for the answer though. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 12 September , 2017 Share Posted 12 September , 2017 33 minutes ago, stiletto_33853 said: Must admit Mike, I totally agree and have sent an e-mail to the CWGC regarding this, asking that IF they go ahead then the provenance needs to be as strict as when changing a record entry. I have suggested they think very hard regarding this. Awaiting a reply, do not think I can hold my breath long enough for the answer though. Andy Cheers Andy, It is comforting to know that I am not alone in my views. I don't think I have said so clearly, but I do have the most profound respect for what the CWGC do - and the way that they do it. That is one reason why I am struggling to get my head around this one. If it had been Ancestry, I have a feeling that we would all just shrug and not pass comment! "have sent an e-mail to the CWGC regarding this, asking that IF they go ahead then the provenance needs to be as strict as when changing a record entry." - That hits the nail right on the head. I will write to them myself - and I may well pinch that sentence! Regards, Mike 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