New CWGC website

[BillyH]

9 hours ago, Medaler said:

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!

 

For what it's worth I completely agree with you. CWGC should just use the 'box' to show a photo of the headstone.

 

BillyH.

[healdav]

On 12/09/2017 at 14:29, 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

There are so many people who protest just to make trouble, that telling them to supply the correct photo would probably get rid of them.

[reesy]

On 12/09/2017 at 14:29, 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

 

To be fair and balanced to the CWGC you are having a bit of tunnel vision here. Yes they must maintain accurate records, that is beyond doubt. They also must maintain the vast number of cemeteries, headstones and structures they own around the world (no mean feat I might add). They also must ensure that the memory of the fallen is maintained, long after we have gone, so finding new and interesting ways to perhaps capture a younger audience for the future rememberance should be encouraged and applauded. No one is ever going to get this 100% correct everytime, not even if they employed everyone on this forum! Maybe submitting pictures might not be the best way, but it is good to see them trying. As always my main concern is that they ensure taxpayers money is used intellengently to sustain all these many tasks the CWGC does to their usual high standards. 

[RaySearching]

5 hours ago, BillyH said:

For what it's worth I completely agree with you. CWGC should just use the 'box' to show a photo of the headstone.

 

BillyH.

 

That would be the best way to additionally commemorate the fallen and a step in he right direction

 

Maybe the WGPP would like to donate, the photos donated to them

cannot see that happening though

must be very lucrative for them

behind the donations paywall

 

52 minutes ago, healdav said:

There are so many people who protest just to make trouble, that telling them to supply the correct photo would probably get rid of them.

Is not the accuracy of the records the reason people would protest,  Not just to make trouble 

 

 

Ray

 

[BillyH]

2 hours ago, healdav said:

There are so many people who protest just to make trouble, that telling them to supply the correct photo would probably get rid of them.

 

So do I take it that you are perfectly happy to see the wrong photographs posted on CWGC?

 

BillyH.

Edited 13 September , 2017 by BillyH

[Medaler]

2 hours ago, healdav said:

There are so many people who protest just to make trouble, that telling them to supply the correct photo would probably get rid of them.

 

I would be very surprised if the CWGC were to adopt that particular line as official policy. I would imagine that would damage their reputation somewhat. The CWGC may have some faults, but they don't tend to operate like a bunch of back street cowboys.

[Medaler]

2 hours ago, reesy said:

 

To be fair and balanced to the CWGC you are having a bit of tunnel vision here. Yes they must maintain accurate records, that is beyond doubt. They also must maintain the vast number of cemeteries, headstones and structures they own around the world (no mean feat I might add). They also must ensure that the memory of the fallen is maintained, long after we have gone, so finding new and interesting ways to perhaps capture a younger audience for the future rememberance should be encouraged and applauded. No one is ever going to get this 100% correct everytime, not even if they employed everyone on this forum! Maybe submitting pictures might not be the best way, but it is good to see them trying. As always my main concern is that they ensure taxpayers money is used intellengently to sustain all these many tasks the CWGC does to their usual high standards. 

 

"Finding new and interesting ways to perhaps capture a younger audience for the future remembrance should be encouraged and applauded." - Agree 100%, but we wouldn't add "interesting" doodles into the margins of the Magna Carta just to appeal to a younger audience would we? - or embroider new figures onto the Bayeux Tapestry? The answer to capturing a younger audience lies in the way we interpret history for them, not in corrupting the evidence.

 

"As always my main concern is that they ensure taxpayers money is used to intelligently sustain all these many tasks the CWGC does to their usual high standards." Exactly, but how will that objective be helped by opening up a whole new set of potential disputes that they will have to fund the resources to resolve?

 

 

 

[stiletto_33853]

3 hours ago, reesy said:

so finding new and interesting ways to perhaps capture a younger audience for the future rememberance should be encouraged and applauded.

 

Reesy,

 

This is nothing new, try Ancestry tree's, the IWM in conjunction with Brighsolids site, all doing the very same thing (one subscription based, the other to be a fee charging site after 2018 is finished I believe) and have been for a good few years now, so is the CWGC so far behind the times??? If the CWGC are hell bent on this then it will impinge on their integrity if so much as one photograph is placed on the site without the exact same provenance they require to amend a record. A family saying this is my uncle Joe Bloggs I am afraid just does not cut it, so where does the provenance come from??? some postcard that just happens to have his name on the back in pencil?

Also this will make it very officers based, there are quite a few pictures of them in Public School Rolls of Honour etc., very few say fishermen or colliers from deepest darkest wherever will appear with provenance, thought the idea was equality in the CWGC's remit?

No-one is denying the CWGC do a fantastic job, they do, however I think this is a bad idea for the CWGC with huge ramifications on their integrity as a whole, and causes me and others concern. Is the CWGC site, where a man is remembered, to become an inaccurate site with more inaccuracies than it already contains?? because they run the risk of this happening. Have you ever tried to get the CWGC/MOD to amend a record?? if so then you will know the provenance that is needed and should be the same provenance needed to add a photograph.

Maybe the CWGC and RBL project of every man remembered would be a suitable place with the proviso that it acknowledges that this is an image purported to be Joe Bloggs. The main CWGC page to my mind is not the right place.

 

Andy

Edited 13 September , 2017 by stiletto_33853

[johnboy]

Back to copyright.....

who will own it on the pics?

[Guest]

Which photograph will go here? Click

 

Mike

[reesy]

All comments above are very fair and I agree. One wonders how much the CWGC listen to such things in detail though. They probably view people on forums as 'cranks' or out to cause mischief!! With this new CWGF they have setup (and which they'll need to fund) I wonder in what direction they are heading. Will they end up making money from this venture and then the combined governments withdraw some or all funding? Is this why they have decided to create a new website with potential bells and whistles they can add to it? e.g the addition of photos for casualties as one example? I wonder if it's all part of something bigger we are not understanding, or maybe I'm just being over the top!

[ss002d6252]

9 minutes ago, Skipman said:

Which photograph will go here? Click

 

Mike

An exceedingly good one.

11 minutes ago, johnboy said:

Back to copyright.....

who will own it on the pics?

Good question.

Craig

[RaySearching]

18 minutes ago, Skipman said:

Which photograph will go here? Click

 

Mike

 

9 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

An exceedingly good one.

 

 This one  Click 

 

[Medaler]

Brilliant Ray,

 

Thanks for bringing some well needed humour back into this.

 

Regards,

Mike

[ss002d6252]

 As I mentioned earlier I'm not sure that the CWGC have thought out the extra work that this could bring for them - but, if they're happy to accept it, I don't personally have any objections to what they are doing. I'd hope the pictures are all correct but what about cases, where for example, I have a man in the 6th DLI - #123 private Tommy Atkins - and I know that he was the only man with that name who served in the battalion. The photo from a contemporary paper has Tommy Atkins, 6th DLI. How do they verify that this is the same man as #123. I know it is as I have the spreadsheet of men to confirm it but what do they have...

There's also the case that even if we accept Tommy Atkins and #123 Atkins are the same man how can you verify beyond reasonable doubt that the picture actually is Tommy Atkins if pressed ? Judging be some of the errors I've seen I have no doubt that some of them will be wrongly captioned to some extent.

Craig

[Peterhastie]

Awful, gone back to using Geoffs (excellent) Search Engine

[museumtom]

 I downloaded the CWGC database earlier this year, it took a bit of time but got there in the end. It would be missing the new additions to the CWGC since then though. Having said all that Geoffs is the best search engine for WW1 without a shadow of a doubt.

 Kind regards.

 Tom.

[imaginatian]

A few random notes:

 

The CWGC will have to use a moderated approach to any uploaded content, which is you upload it, then someone reviews it, and only when approved does it goes on the website.  This is just common sense to prevent unsuitable content from getting online, and by unsuitable I don't mean pictures of the wrong casualty!  Otherwise it won't be long before "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" lets the whole world know that the CWGC website is displaying pornography instead of an image of their beloved relative who sacrificed everything...

 

The easy way to avoid controversy is to only have images of headstones or memorials, although this could still be a touchy area.  If I upload an image of a headstone what happens is someone uploads a better or worse one?  Who decides which is the better image?

 

Could there be potential privacy issues with WW2 headstones where other family members are named on them, as many will still be alive?  Privacy laws are different in other countries.  For example Germany has much stricter rules - no Street View on Google maps for Germany! - so could there be issues posting images of headstones in Germany or of German headstones that are in the care of the CWGC?  It could even be that it's fine if you're viewing from outside Germany but not from within.

 

With regards to copyright you should read the new Terms and Conditions.  If you upload anything you immediately sign away all rights to the content to the CWGC and their "partners" forever i.e. they could sell it and you get nothing for it.  I've taken tens of thousands of images of headstones from all around Europe that have little or no commercial value.  After reading these T&Cs I know I won't be uploading any of them to the CWGC.  I'd get more satisfaction from doing my own website.

 

Many don't like the new website and don't understand the need for change, i.e. if it ain't broke don't fix it!  However the redesign was desperately needed for a number of reasons.  If you have a website you want people to visit it. The main way most people find it is via a search engine e.g. Google or Yahoo etc.  These search engines trawl the internet on a regular basis looking for content to index and they use their own algorithms to determine how high up in the results for a search any website content should appear.

 

How they do this is a closely guarded commercial secret.  However these companies do provide pointers as to what makes one website more likely to appear higher or lower in the results than another, and these pointers are ever evolving.  At the moment one of the biggest drivers is having a "responsive" website.  This means that it works well on any device from a computer with a 30" display to a mobile phone with just 3" of screen.  The "old" CWGC website was a nightmare to use on a mobile phone and would have scored badly.  The "new" website, although a little clumsy in areas, is now responsive so will get a positive score.

 

Another factor is how "accessible" a website is.  This covers both "usability" and "appearance".  For example this forum would lose search engine points because you can get to a person's profile by hovering over their name and then clicking the links that are displayed.  That's fine if you're using a computer with a mouse to navigate the web page.  However you can't "hover" on a touchscreen phone, you can only click, so this means you get different experiences on different devices, which loses you search engine points.  Accessibility can even consider colour schemes.  How many websites still have text in one colour that is difficult to read against a second background colour?  When designing a website you should be taking into account those with less than perfect vision, to the point that some will be using text readers rather than browsers, or even those that are colour blind.

 

Many of you don't like the new search process.  You better get used to it as it won't be changed back.  It now allows search engines to dig deeper into the content of this site.  While you might think it's harder to find something the rest of the online world now have a better opportunity to discover it via the search engines.

 

Regards,

 

Ian

[Guest]

Geoff's Engine it is then.

 

Mike

[reesy]

7 hours ago, imaginatian said:

A few random notes:

 

The CWGC will have to use a moderated approach to any uploaded content, which is you upload it, then someone reviews it, and only when approved does it goes on the website.  This is just common sense to prevent unsuitable content from getting online, and by unsuitable I don't mean pictures of the wrong casualty!  Otherwise it won't be long before "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" lets the whole world know that the CWGC website is displaying pornography instead of an image of their beloved relative who sacrificed everything...

 

The easy way to avoid controversy is to only have images of headstones or memorials, although this could still be a touchy area.  If I upload an image of a headstone what happens is someone uploads a better or worse one?  Who decides which is the better image?

 

Could there be potential privacy issues with WW2 headstones where other family members are named on them, as many will still be alive?  Privacy laws are different in other countries.  For example Germany has much stricter rules - no Street View on Google maps for Germany! - so could there be issues posting images of headstones in Germany or of German headstones that are in the care of the CWGC?  It could even be that it's fine if you're viewing from outside Germany but not from within.

 

With regards to copyright you should read the new Terms and Conditions.  If you upload anything you immediately sign away all rights to the content to the CWGC and their "partners" forever i.e. they could sell it and you get nothing for it.  I've taken tens of thousands of images of headstones from all around Europe that have little or no commercial value.  After reading these T&Cs I know I won't be uploading any of them to the CWGC.  I'd get more satisfaction from doing my own website.

 

Many don't like the new website and don't understand the need for change, i.e. if it ain't broke don't fix it!  However the redesign was desperately needed for a number of reasons.  If you have a website you want people to visit it. The main way most people find it is via a search engine e.g. Google or Yahoo etc.  These search engines trawl the internet on a regular basis looking for content to index and they use their own algorithms to determine how high up in the results for a search any website content should appear.

 

How they do this is a closely guarded commercial secret.  However these companies do provide pointers as to what makes one website more likely to appear higher or lower in the results than another, and these pointers are ever evolving.  At the moment one of the biggest drivers is having a "responsive" website.  This means that it works well on any device from a computer with a 30" display to a mobile phone with just 3" of screen.  The "old" CWGC website was a nightmare to use on a mobile phone and would have scored badly.  The "new" website, although a little clumsy in areas, is now responsive so will get a positive score.

 

Another factor is how "accessible" a website is.  This covers both "usability" and "appearance".  For example this forum would lose search engine points because you can get to a person's profile by hovering over their name and then clicking the links that are displayed.  That's fine if you're using a computer with a mouse to navigate the web page.  However you can't "hover" on a touchscreen phone, you can only click, so this means you get different experiences on different devices, which loses you search engine points.  Accessibility can even consider colour schemes.  How many websites still have text in one colour that is difficult to read against a second background colour?  When designing a website you should be taking into account those with less than perfect vision, to the point that some will be using text readers rather than browsers, or even those that are colour blind.

 

Many of you don't like the new search process.  You better get used to it as it won't be changed back.  It now allows search engines to dig deeper into the content of this site.  While you might think it's harder to find something the rest of the online world now have a better opportunity to discover it via the search engines.

 

Regards,

 

Ian

Interesting points. Do you work for the CWGC? You seem to be very clued up about this!

[healdav]

14 hours ago, BillyH said:

 

So do I take it that you are perfectly happy to see the wrong photographs posted on CWGC?

 

BillyH.

If it really s the wrong photo people will come back. If they are just trolling, they won't. Many things operate on this sort of principle.

[BillyH]

I'm afraid I just don't understand your point.

The only person talking about trolling is you, I am not worried about trolls - I just don't want incorrect photos posted on the CWGC website in the first place. 

Many well meaning people incorrectly believe they have a photo of a particular soldier, Ancestry if full of them, and this forum also has many new members who have made the same mistake.

CWGC will have to be very strict in it's vetting procedure, but for all we know at the moment perhaps they will be.

 

BillyH.

[ss002d6252]

7 minutes ago, BillyH said:

CWGC will have to be very strict in it's vetting procedure, but for all we know at the moment perhaps they will be.

 

BillyH.

I'm just wondering how they could actually manage it though - I don't envy that job at all.

Craig

[BillyH]

I agree Craig, they will be opening an enormous can of worms.

I have twice come across local (contemporary) newspaper reports showing the photo of a casualty - only for them to correct the error the following week, so even the newspapers of the period sometimes made mistakes.

 

BillyH.

[imaginatian]

3 hours ago, reesy said:

Interesting points. Do you work for the CWGC? You seem to be very clued up about this!

 

Reesy,

 

I don't work for the CWGC, or for whoever has developed the new site. However I do work in IT and have done some website development in my time.  They were just some educated comments!

 

Ian