End of the Search Engine? - CWGC Search Changes

Discussion in 'War Cemeteries & War Memorial Research' started by Paul Reed, Sep 7, 2009.

Tags:
  1. geoff501

    geoff501 Achtung Feind hört mit

    Making hay while the sun shines.

    The madness of the WW1 engine of Wednesday has died down a little. From a peak of 1668 searches, it was down to 858 Thursday and 422 yesterday. Usual activity is a steady 100-200 per day.

    In the last 3860 searches:

    1599 searched by name
    71 searched by service number
    324 searched by date, 182 of these on a date range
    1262 searched by regiment
    1199 keywords were used
    831 searched on unit text
     
  2. KevinBattle

    KevinBattle Senior Member

    I've made my comments so far on the GWF site, but I did email David Stacey as below:

    Hello, I know your email box is swamped this morning after the latest revisions.
    I am only a small user and have not set up a web site or any embedded links, but I am part of various forums where members have done so. In many cases there are literally thousands of linked entries.

    Is it not possible for the "old" format" to be left "live" but not accessible for searches? At least that way, the embedded links would still refer to that specific CWGC entry. That should calm most of the baying mob that are struggling to see how to re-establish their web sites.

    Many of them have devoted years of research voluntarily so that others can speedily find their relatives. It would be a wicked waste for all that hard work to have been destroyed when I am sure you could restore the old database solely to ensure that these links remain live.
    For updates and new entries, then they will have to use the new format, which I personally do not find any problem with, but am asking if some consideration could be made to ensure that the "old" URL page links can be kept live, not for enquiry, but just to keep any inbuilt or embedded links.

    Perhaps a Note in your News Pages would tell people that the old links will remain "live" but not work for any updates, which will need to use the new Database.

    I hope that this will be seen as a constructive suggestion that will enable the millions who use the CWGC site for reference and to honour the fallen, will be able to continue to do so without the work of years being crippled.
    I am indebted to the CWGC for the assistance that the database brings to searching for family or Rolls of Honour information and would not like the changes to affect peoples perception of the organisation as being uncaring of the potential adverse effects of the change preventing continuing work to make it ever more adaptable and easy to use.

    It is the change to the Casualty URL and amendment to time specific searches, so that even a "Save" will not take you back to the correct page, that has aroused so much ire. Is that the deliberate intent, as a forerunner perhaps to establishing the database as a "pay per view" format?

    One major revision, however IS of concern, and that is the loss of Secondary Unit (and Service No.) information. i would hope that an upgrade would provide MORE information, not LESS.
    An example:
    Name: RANSLEY
    Initials: R
    Nationality: United Kingdom
    Rank: Lance Corporal
    Regiment/Service: Royal Engineers
    Unit Text: Labour Coy. Royal Engineers.
    Secondary Regiment: Labour Corps
    Secondary Unit Text: transf. to (291081) 702nd Coy.
    Age: 44
    Date of Death: 08/11/1918
    Service No: 114709
    Additional information: Husband of Elizabeth Sarah Ransley, of 35, Bellot St., East Greenwich, London.
    Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead
    Grave/Memorial Reference: III. B. 3.
    Cemetery: AWOINGT BRITISH CEMETERY
    Can that Secondary Regiment information be restored urgently, as many Rolls of Honour often quote only one Service number, and thereby a casualty will not now be so readily identified.
    One suggestion for your IT Head to consider is:
    Yours in hope that the links can be restored, Kevin

    I did get a reply, almost identical to the one that has been posted here several times, but the main reason for posting is that I am in the process of updating the Roll of Honour for Acton, W3. The original RoH was mislaid for over sixty years and only found 10 years ago. I started with agrave marker from WW1 found in local Church, updated their RoH and Vicar asked me to do the same for 2 other local Churches, which led to Acton, blah, blah, blah.
    The point is that my primary start point has always been the CWGC site. As I had only previously been involved in the update of the RBL Hockley Rolls of Honour, I had found 50% more than local sources. I have referred to local newspaper archives which indicated that the 700 Names in the Acton RoH was incomplete.

    Now, all this furore with the CWGC made many people talk about the superiority of Geoff's Search Engine. So I put it to the test this weekend. I used the WW1 site and simply put in "Acton" in the Search field and came up with over 1000 entries. Over the last 2 days, having stripped out all the CL Actons, B Actons etc and the "known" Names, I have emerged with another 28 pages (8 Names to a page) of Names NOT on the Acton RoH.

    THERE IS NO FACILITY FOR A SEARCH ON A TOWN NAME IN THE CWGC Why not???
    What improvements did the new format provide? It doesn't match up to Geoff's so I suspect that despite the reply I got

    Thank you for your email concerning recent changes to the Search Facility on the CWGC website. You may have already noticed that we have temporarily reverted to the older version due to some of the technical problems you and others have noted. However, when the technical issues have been sorted, we do intend to change the Search Facility, which I note has caused problems to people who are running linked databases.

    I do not believe that your suggestion regarding the retention of two systems is workable for the CWGC. I should also say that this is the first time I have been made aware that links have been made directly to the Commission's website. If there are any formal agreements in place, I am not aware of them. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for the organisation to make changes it believes enhances the system. I can assure you that there was a wide consultation with users earlier in the year, which was included on the website. I do not know whether any of the members of your groups participated in that consultation. The enhancements of the new system respond to some of the points raised during that consultation.

    Your comments about the new system have been noted and will be looked into and corrected where possible. We aim to place the new system on the website when we are assured it works as expected. I hope this information is helpful.

    Yours sincerely
    David Stacey
    Director Information Services
    Commonwealth War Graves Commission
    2 Marlow Road
    Maidenhead
    Berks
    SL6 7DX

    Tel: 01628 507147 (Direct)
    Fax: 01628 507186

    It seems to me that the CWGC are displaying the same petulant attitude of a little kid who cries that "It's MY football and I'm taking it home 'cos I can't get MY website to do what Geoff's does, so I'm going to break his, so there!!"

    There are so many dedicated researchers out there ADDING to the database FOR the CWGC. I am tiny by comparison, yet even I have Christian Names to offer the CWGC to replace bare initials, as well as corrections and additions. I will not withhold what I have obtained because it may assist others, but I do feel that the CWGC have acted in a manner that I would not have expected, to destroy the work of many hundreds of individuals who seek no profit, but wish to ensure that others know as much as possible about those who gave the supreme sacrifice of their lives.
    One further point, as Geoff mentioned, the use of his website being greatly increased, so I hold up my hands here, but what it has allowed me to do is pull out records for Acton WW2 of over 600 Names (yes, Clacton etc but still a great start point) and I have also pulled Chiswick records for both WW1 and WW2. That has solved most of a problem I had with a WW1 Acton entry for Thomas Henry Clemas. In WW2 both his son Harry and Harry's wife Margaret were killed in the London Blitz in their home in Oxford Road Chiswick, with the fathers address in Wales.

    Why can't the CWGC MATCH Geoff? It's the same bl00dy data!! I would never have got all this just with the CWGC site.

    Geoff, I can't thank you enough, and if the CWGC destroy the usefulness of your site, they will have lost my respect in the way they handle their public relations. What a pity the fine work of their gardeners and masons in maintaining the upkeep of thousands of cemeteries is being undermined by +_)(*&^%$£"!

    Apologies to all for the rant, Kevin
     
  3. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    Seems to me they are not even reading the emails sent in....That email looks the same as the one someone else was sent.

    I still stand by my previous comments of Ends and Bells !
     
  4. geoff501

    geoff501 Achtung Feind hört mit

    A couple of comments. No one to my knowledge is running a linked database. Not even I do that.

    There is at least one formal agreement that has turned up between CWGC and a site owner allowing links providing no charge is made for use of the system. It's seems very odd to me that they require permission for links. Linking is one of the founding principles of the internet: don't copy data to which you don't have rights or copyright permission, but provide a link to the original data. I cannot think of any other organisation with a web prescence which requires a formal agreement for links. Its courtesy to ask, but the expected reply is always yes.

    Very odd I was not consulted?

    Let's hope Chris Baker can sort all the problems out for them.

    geoff
     
  5. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    I've not had a reply from them either.
    I did give some suggestions on how to improve their search function.
     
  6. geoff501

    geoff501 Achtung Feind hört mit

    I've not had a reply from them either.
    I did give some suggestions on how to improve their search function.

    A friend of mine has just received the following reply. I'm copying here since it is different to any other reply I have seen on this or other forums and gives some technical details of their design changes:

    Thank you for your email about the proposed changes to the CWGC database. Many views have been expressed during the last week about the changes and we will be taking them into account before making any final decision about technical enhancements. Unfortunately, the original enhancements failed to work correctly in a live environment, but the improvements will be:


    1. A more robust search mechanism, with predictive text entry for surnames and cemeteries that overcomes existing issues with hyphenated names and names with apostrophes; it no longer requires a user to know the exact name of a cemetery or memorial to find that location.

    2. A search engine that no longer returns nil results should a user enter a space behind a name or initial; the system no longer allows the entry of additional characters – full stops etc.

    3. Redesign of all templates within the search our records facility to ensure all information is presented in a clean and easy to read format.

    4. Links to additional information and functions (like the ability to sort data in a table or click on a cemetery name for further information on that location) have been made clear.

    5. A revised printing function that allows the user to download and print that page – be it a casualty report, certificate or picture – as a PDF.

    6. An ability to search within a cemetery or memorial report for a specific casualty or other criteria.

    The original implementation appears to change the link that other databases have with the CWGC one, the problem being that the vast majority of these links were created without the knowledge of the CWGC. The CWGC can only take responsibility for its own database, but as I state above, we will be considering the wider effect of any changes made.


    Yours sincerely
    David Stacey
    Director Information Services
    Commonwealth War Graves Commission
    2 Marlow Road
    Maidenhead
    Berks
    SL6 7DX
     
  7. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    I foresee a long career in Local Government or the Civil Service for Elven.

    Oh? I know I'm late, but couldn't resist :lol:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0viO-Dm52sM/RyGa80GFAUI/AAAAAAAADik/4CWFqj1pP58/s320/yes+minister

    Forgive the removal of some most entertaining posts - back to the CWGC now eh chaps ;).

    ~A
    Tch, a typical stalinesque erasure of collective memory.

    Keep on with the good work, over here all our WW1 and African Colonial Wars graves are recorded by DoD with the help of the Veterans Association. Remains have been transferred from Africa on occasion per the request of the families involved. We don't have an online resource for this, at least as yet. WW1 Vets day is still commemorated, and fresh flowers in monuments are a common sight.
     
  8. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    The original implementation appears to change the link that other databases have with the CWGC one, the problem being that the vast majority of these links were created without the knowledge of the CWGC.


    Yours sincerely
    David Stacey
    Director Information Services
    Commonwealth War Graves Commission
    2 Marlow Road
    Maidenhead
    Berks
    SL6 7DX

    I still find that underlined statement very odd from a Director of Information Services. Do they not read their own server reports? :unsure:
     
  9. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    Is there any news at all?
     
  10. geoff501

    geoff501 Achtung Feind hört mit

    Is there any news at all?

    I've heard nothing. Get out those 'Yes Minister' DVDs while you're waiting. Za is usually right.
     
  11. geoff501

    geoff501 Achtung Feind hört mit

  12. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    Thanks Geoff,

    A friend of mine who is a GWF pal has also been keeping me updated.
    Fingers crossed then we should know something about CWGC's intentions within the next fortnight.

    Meanwhile, back to the grindstone... only half-way through WG.

    D
     
  13. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    I thought that there was a meeting scheduled with CWGC at the end of this week past ... any news at all about this?
     
  14. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    No news on the outcome of any meetings, but I hear that the site will be changing again around 11th November.
     
  15. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    Thanks Paul for letting me know about that .. means I will have to have everything done by then.

    D
     
  16. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    No-one seems to know how it is changing, however!
     
  17. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    Exactly.
    Contingency planning well under way, but cutting and pasting 1000's of records is not what I wanted to be doing right now...I even had to put an apology on my site ref late responses to enquiries.

    Shouldn't complain though - it could be worse, not faced with the mountainous task that is Ramacal's RA project. :huh: And if I had the time, I would be offering to help with that in any way ...
     
  18. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    Anyone read the latest posts on GWF?
     
  19. AndyBaldEagle

    AndyBaldEagle Very Senior Member

  20. geoff501

    geoff501 Achtung Feind hört mit

    Anyone read the latest posts on GWF?
    Yes, they still let me in there! Some nebulous waffle, guess we'll know what is to happen only when it happens.
    I'm not a consultant or a web designer. I don't muck about I get the job done. I spend most days of the week producing software that has to work.
     
    dbf and Drew5233 like this.

Share This Page