230 replies to this topic

[Carole89]

Geoff,

Why have you not included search fields for initials and forenames in the WW1 version when they are there for WW2?

Cheers,
Carole.

[geoff501]

Geoff,

Why have you not included search fields for initials and forenames in the WW1 version when they are there for WW2?

Cheers,
Carole.

Short answer is nobody asked before!
I added initial searches to the WW2 engine and then forename was added, since many more names are recorded that way in WW2. Adding to the engine only slows it down. I have had other features like award searches, but nobody used it so I removed it to save resources. Some searches this evening are taking up to 10 minutes. I'm surprised I don't get any complaints on this. So If I add to it it may slow it down more. The UK WW1 data is the problem since there are so many records to index. I'm also surprised at the little feedback from searchers who's input fails, mostly due to bad data entry. Gives me a bad name However I've been giving away free software on the internet for 10 years - and the number of reports back from many thousands of downloads, is perhaps, 10. So no surprises. Fortunately I'm driven by the challenge rather than the fame! I have a few ideas for speeding it up. But there is a limited amount I can do other than buy my own supercomputer.

[Carole89]

It's a shame that adding fields slows it down - a field for age would have been another useful one.

I must add that the engine is fantastic.

I must confess though that I'm probably responsible for a lot of the searches with no results - often I'll put in combinations just out of curiosity to see if anybody matches them.  Hope you don't mind.

Cheers,
Carole.

[geoff501]

I must confess though that I'm probably responsible for a lot of the searches with no results - often I'll put in combinations just out of curiosity to see if anybody matches them.  Hope you don't mind.

Don't mind one bit, it's what it is there for. Besides, it's your carbon footprint (hehe).

[geoff501]

Why have you not included search fields for initials and forenames in the WW1 version

Initials added.
When entering initials, don't include spaces. For example to search for Charles Philip Arthur George Smith, enter CPAG in the initials field.
It will also find subsets of initials, so CP, CPA, PA etc. will also find this name. Initials are displayed on the records found pages.
Forenames may take a little while longer, since I think I have to rebuild some index files. A number of WW1 records have only initials, unlike WW2 which has many more records with full forenames.

[geoff501]

At the request of a forum member, I have added some options to the Unit text field. It is now possible to search for exact or partial matches in this field, so if you are searching for say 4th Bn you don't also get 14th Bn. etc.
I will update the WW2 engine shortly.

geoff

[geoff501]

At the request of a forum member, I have added some options to the Unit text field. It is now possible to search for exact or partial matches in this field, so if you are searching for say 4th Bn you don't also get 14th Bn. etc.
I will update the WW2 engine shortly.

There is a problem the way some of the CWGC unit details are recorded. A few records have double spaces, so if you searched for:
14th bn
It will not find records recorded as:
14th  bn
(there is a double space here - this is supposed to be fixed font but the forum does not show it that way for spaces)
I have just corrected the UK records, there were over 1000 such instances. The other nationalities may have this problem, until I update those records.
This problem was brought to my attention by a user of the WW2 forum, which has already been corrected.

geoff

[Chris_B]

Geoff,

Having been inactive for a while, I was gob smacked to find this search engine.  Only wish I had access to it when I started some of my researches three years ago trawling through CWGC looking at possible matches. It's a great tool, it should be one to bookmark for every PAL.  Does it show up elsewhere on the forum in a more prominent place?

[geoff501]

Does it show up elsewhere on the forum in a more prominent place?

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...st&p=903980

[geoff501]

The Search Engine has been off-line since the early hours of Sunday morning, but it should be back now.

There may soon be an extension to search for service numbers in the secondary unit field, but this is likely to be on a different search page to prevent the thing getting too bloated! There are about 10,000 in the index, mostly Labour Corps., but I think a few are missing from this index.
I'll post a link when this is running.

cheers,

geoff

[Jarvis]

Geoff, thanks for the engine update. Good to see a great idea being improved upon so professionally.

Regards. Jarvis.

[Neil Clark]

Geoff,

Bearing in mind I use this creation every single day, do you accept donations towards your very own SUPERCOMPUTER ? If so then perhaps a few of us should be dipping in our pockets to help you out. Why should YOU be left with these costs when so many others rely upon it ?

What kind of PC are we talking about for a good server? A fast Triple Core Intel CPU, Large hard disk, 4GB fast RAM or something even more expensive and complex ?

Your search engines are online 24/7 therefore I presume you have hosting costs too ?

As you know I have been for years now deeply involved in the (fortunately now fashionable) non-com situation. I use your search engines all the time in order to make convincing cases for MoD adjudication. Each one of my limited and humble successes (soon to be 34) are in part due to YOUR invaluable search engine and I freely acknowledge that fact here.

As you will be aware I view your inventions as perhaps the most important developments since the CWGC bought out their own searchable online database in the late 1990's. In fact I acknowledge that YOUR search engine(s) is far superior to that offered by the Commission itself!

Have you ever considered free publicity in one of the periodic Family History publications? I'm sure there are literally tens of thousands out there who STILL aren't aware of your work. If your search engines cost you considerable sums to maintain it's perfectly reasonable to expect help from those who gain from it's use...

Quite remarkable !
NO 1 (look at my signature below)

[Chris_Baker]

Why doesn't CWGC pick up on this and either develop their own search engine to do what Geoff's does - or pethaps use Geoff as an adviser or something? Have there been any moves in that sort of direction?

[Terry Denham]

Chris

The big difference is that Geoff's engine uses a static copy of the data taken some time ago. It does not use the live system which is updated in real time and is used by CWGC for their everyday work.

CWGC would be concerned about the impact it would have on the performance of the live system as it is their working tool. That was the immediate reaction when I last mentioned it.

No doubt funding would play a part too!

[Siege Gunner]

I seem to recall that CWGC has formed some kind of partnership arrangement with one of the war grave photograph websites, so some form of cooperation with a third-party 'value adder' is clearly administratively possible.  I should have though that it was in CWGC's interests to get specialist researchers off their server, and that Geoff is therefore doing them a valuable service.  If Geoff's engine offers search parameters not available within the CWGC system, even if the searcher has access to features/functions closed to the general public, I shouldn't be surprised if some CWGC staff use his engine too.  If they don't want Geoff's engine accessing the live 'bang-up-to-date' database, I think the least they could do would be to supply him with frequent static updates and open a channel of communication with Geoff to discuss possible future cooperation and developments.  

CWGC may not have any cold cash to give Geoff, but I'm sure that the investment of a bit of their time and a few inexpensive consumables would amply repay itself.  As a further thought, if there are any areas of the CWGC database that are currently inaccessible to the general public for no other reason than cost or technicality (so not any area closed for reasons of privacy or confidentiality), and which are therefore not part of the static database copy Geoff currently uses, they could perhaps discuss providing Geoff with static updates that include those areas.

And if Geoff is willing and able to handle all that, yes, we should certainly rally round and contribute to his costs.  And, of course, give him a medal ...!

Mick

[Neil Clark]

Why doesn't CWGC pick up on this and either develop their own search engine to do what Geoff's does - or pethaps use Geoff as an adviser or something? Have there been any moves in that sort of direction?

Chris,
That is a question I have also often thought about. I'm afraid the answer isn't very positive - The CWGC still obtains considerable revenue from individuals requesting "fuzzy" and location reports. These reports generate quite considerable sums. A friend of mine found this out by making a FOI request, at first the commission pointed out that they are not subject to this legislation but when my mate pressed them and pointed out this was not in the spirit of the FOI laws, they relented and gave him an estimate (it ran into thousands). I find it quite intolerable that an organisation being funded with taxpayers money takes this line when asked to account for public derived funds and grants. It's really quite shocking and shows the Commission in a very bad light. And to those who say the commission isn't a public institution - it gets 70% of it's funds from the UK MoD (taxpayers money), that in my book clearly makes it a Public body/agency.

Years ago the Commission charged me £20 for a "fuzzy" search of their database. They provided me with one A4 page confirming the result.

I find it hard to believe that the commission has never been in direct contact with Geoff regarding his work. I also find it most odd that no one has ever added a link to his search engines on the CWGC website or at least offered to do so. Terry above confirms they know of his work. This makes it even worse, they can't rely upon a defence of ignorance.

Goeff's search engines denies them this revenue, it really is that simple - GREED !
Fuzzy searches on Geoff's search Engines are an absolute sinch thanks to his coding and regular tweeks.

I know that Geoff has in the past been looking for work. I simply can't understand why the Commission hasn't ever got in touch with him and offered him a position in that organisation. That would make immense sense in my opinon. The Commission may tell us that they are not aware of his work in this area but I simply don't buy that. The CWGC often read GWF content and they must have seen his work. Again the explanation isn't positive - Geoff is probably considered a threat by their own expert staff! His expertise in this area dwarfs their own efforts and they damn well know it, better to ignore the subject and act as though his work doesn't exist.

Nothing ever changes for the better if we don't probe these organisations and tell them plainly what we expect from them. Nothing will ever change or improve if we all give them an easy ride and keep telling them how wonderful they are without knowing anything about the organisation. Most people come into contact with the Commission after visiting one of their cemeteries. I am happy to concede here that this area of their work is excellent and the performance of their gardeners brilliant (many in house horticulture staff have been disgracefully sacked and given their old jobs back working for the minimum wage with private contractors). This is the kind of employer they have become. I realise that a large amount of their staff have worked for the commission for many years. This is often a hindrance rather than an asset as they tend to get very complacent. Some staff are so entrenched in their positions that they consider Private researchers like us as interfering amateurs. They become very territorial and won't put up with others challenging their little empire. They take this line knowing full well their own limitations and lack of skills/knowledge. But when it suits them, they use us to find and pay the costs of researching the non-coms. It stinks!

I regret to say that most of the good work done by the commission was done many years ago. Since then the organisation has become complacent and stale. It could certainly do with an influx of new blood which would in turn generate new ideas etc...

I dare say my comments here will upset some people but my view is well known by most people who know of me. I am firmly of the belief that nothing will ever improve unless we all stand up and tell these organisations what we want them to spend OUR money on. I have in the past been accused of being a "Commission Basher" . This is nonsense! I have had some really good successes by appying constant pressure to organisations like this. There are too many YES men out there who think the CWGC should never be probed and challenged like this. My comments here follow naturally from the question posed by our great leader Chris. I think I am entitled to make these judgments bearing in mind the vast contact I have had with the Commission over the years both good and bad. I started my non com work years ago before it ever became fashionable (my peer is John Morecombe the true pioneer of this work). I often used to argue with people as to the extent of the non com problem. Thankfully the truth is now out and more of us are now getting involved (Chris Harley etc..) in what I think is the most important aspect of Great War research. The GWF has done enormous good and has become a hubb for people doing this vitally important work (thanks to T.D & co). There are still very few of us and we STILL pay the full costs even if a casualty is eventually approved by the MoD adjudication panels. Most of my gripes are not directed at the CWGC but to the Naval Historical Branch who it would appear have absolutely no real interest in doing a proper job. Their adjudications often make no sense and are harsh to the point of unfair. I have 2 cases still waiting for appeal 5 years after submission. Thasnkfully the MoD (Army) is now providing a superb non-com adjudication service and are making timely & sensible decisions all of the time (A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF YEARS OF MOANING FROM MYSELF AND OTHERS KNOWN TO ME)!

I freely acknowledge that there are some very good staff members within the commission on the clerical side mainly. It is the Middle and Senior managers I take issue with and to whom my comments here are directed.

I don't wish to speak out of turn or cause mischief for no good reason however it's in the public interest to question motives etc, we do afterall live in a democracy where free speech and freedom of association is important. For years now I have questioned the sense in having private volunteers do non-com work unpaid and unfunded. My protestations in this respect has always fallen on deaf ears. The Commission simply ignores difficult and probing questions even if they are legitimate and reasonable in the circumstances.

We all owe Geoff a huge debt of gratitude. His work is truly peerless... Perhaps we should all put him forward for a new years honour? Second thoughts perhaps not, he's not a disabled black lesbian! IS HE ?

Neil

[geoff501]

There may soon be an extension to search for service numbers in the secondary unit field, but this is likely to be on a different search page to prevent the thing getting too bloated! There are about 10,000 in the index, mostly Labour Corps., but I think a few are missing from this index.
I'll post a link when this is running.

http://www.hut-six.co.uk/cgi-bin/numbers.php

[Simon Jones]

Geoff
Thank you!!!
Simon

[geoff501]

Happy Birthday, Search Engine (my cake making skills only go as far as carrot cake in a bread-maker, nearest I could get to Flanders mud).
43,000 searches in the first year.
No candle, don't want to attract attention; there is a Bavarian sniper with a hunting rifle in the area.

 carotcake.jpg   28.34K   0 downloads

[skipman]

Congratulations on  birthday,you make exceedingly good mud.

[martinb]

Tying to find Geoff's search engine for WW1 1914-1918 Casualties but getting nothing on the link I had although can still ge the WW2 site.


Has it been moved - or shut down??



Am reasearching the war casualties for the twin villages of Trimley st Mary and Trimley St Martin and found it a useful tool  .

[skipman]

" Has it been moved - or shut down?? "

Am afraid it has been closed, though, as you know, the ww2 engine still works. Hopefully a new CWGC search engine will appear soon, and be as good if not better than Geoff's wonderful machine.

Mike

[Kenny Hoflack]

it's a shame it no longer works

[martinb]

Kenny Hoflack, on 01 December 2011 - 06:34 PM, said:

it's a shame it no longer works

Has anyone got a timescale when the CWGC search engine will be up and running??

[dean1]

Hi all, i printed off a batch of names from Geoffs search engine, one of those was - James 57639 08/11/1918.
I cant for the life of me find him on CWGC, his entry should have 'Sheffield ' in it. Anyone see him ??

Dean.