274 replies to this topic

[Martin Elliget]

CWGC seems to have just implemented a new search interface (I was using it at the time). Unfortunately no additional search options seem to have been added - just a change to the "look and feel". Also I notice that the syntax previously used for URLs has changed. Previously it was:
http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_detail...asualty=2479710

It's now:
http://www.cwgc.org/CasualtyDetails.aspx?casualty=2479710

Links previously posted to forums, websites, etc. will now not work. Would have been nice if they kept it the same.

regards,

Martin

[apwright]

It's also broken the version of Geoff's Search Engine that we In From The Cold Project volunteers were using, so we can't link to specific results if necessary any more.
And you can't just type in the first few letters of a surname and get a nice list of all names beginning with those letters. Now you have to choose just one at a time from a sparkly new drop-down menu. Yuk!

Why is so much "Progress" these days a step backwards?

Adrian

[Paul Reed]

That's a shame as it will make both of Geoff's Search Engines redundant now.

[welshdoc]

It may be just because its new and has some bugs, but its absolutely rubbish, what a waste of time and effort. Specificaly when ones tries to "search again" you cant. Otherwise prettier but no apparent improvement in funtionality.

BRING BACK GEOFF

[Chris_Baker]

I'm sure Geoff can reconfigure his database crawler and rebuild without any problem at all. Not that most of us can use it, of course.

The redesign seems OK to me as far as look and feel goes but (1) why oh why didn't they take the opportunity to add some decent functionality, and (2) why on earth change the URL format? Unimpressed.

[rjaydee]

This is an improvement Rubbish.

[Chris_Baker]

And you can't just type in the first few letters of a surname and get a nice list of all names beginning with those letters.

I can. Using Firefox, if that makes any difference.

[Paul Reed]

Over at the WW2 forum many people are tearing their hair out as they were using the old CWGC unique URL's as a place marker for their database research. Quite a few peoples hard work has been wiped out in an instant - and I am sure it will affect researchers here.

The entry for each search also appears not to be unique anymore, and so expires, so you can't link to a casualty anymore. Try clicking the link in the second post; it has expired and is empty. Crazy!

[Chris_Baker]

If that is the case, Paul, Geoff's crawler won't work either. It relies on a unique database match (to the number at the end of the URL).

[Chris_Baker]

It gets worse. I just tried to search for my great uncle Albert Baker. Just entered his name and from and to 1917. Came up with "zero or too many matches".

[John Hartley]

It's also broken the version of Geoff's Search Engine that we In From The Cold Project volunteers were using,

Adrian

Geoff's engine didnt link to the live database but to an older version tucked away somewhere. It is possible that CWGC has pulled it - in which case IFCP is seriously bolloxsed.

I'll get in touch with him and see what's what. Email tO IFCP volunteers as soon as I know something useful

John

[Stephen Nulty]

Whilst I agree with the points above about i) the lack of additional functionality and ii) the change of URL format, the fact that previous links no longer work shouldn't really be criticised too much.

Although we all do it, it is simply not good practise to include so-called "deep links" in posts or on our own web sites as there is no guarantee how long they will remain live. Any of us who has a web site would quite reasonably change the page structure of our own sites without worrying too much about anybody else's links to those pages, so we shouldn't be too harsh on the CWGC chaps for doing this. Much better practise is to simply include the Home Page as a link and then (if necessary), details of the search to be carried out.

(Lights blue touch paper and retires to safe distance)

[Paul Reed]

Sorry, Stephen, I don't agree with that. With the establishment of their database, CWGC established a practice that each casualty would have their own unique page. There were all sorts of good reasons to do that. Why they have changed that practice, which is odd in its own right, is mind-boggling, especially as it was done without any announcement.

I must say Chris' search result for A Baker is worrying - it will make searches for those with common names nigh-on impossible.

[ShropshireMad]

This is an improvement Rubbish.

Agreed.

[SteveE]

I must say Chris' search result for A Baker is worrying - it will make searches for those with common names nigh-on impossible.

That doesn't appear to be a problem, just tried the same thing searching for A Baker and from/to 1917 and returned 79 hits.  Just a shame that they couldn't improve the search criteria to include a Regiment option.

Steve

[Chris_Baker]

Odd. It gives me 79 now too. Is this a stable release or are they playing with it as we speak, I wonder?

[steve morse]

Adrian

Geoff's engine didnt link to the live database but to an older version tucked away somewhere. It is possible that CWGC has pulled it - in which case IFCP is seriously bolloxsed.

I'll get in touch with him and see what's what. Email tO IFCP volunteers as soon as I know something useful

John

Hurry up
May have something to do with the change or URL. On first sight, it looks better to me (hides quickly)
Us volunteers do not mind the extra work involved in listing the 'possible non-comms', then checking online at the new CWGC page and then, and then , and then!!! (Not much we don't )
Steve M

[auchonvillerssomme]

It works exactly the same apart from an additional functionality it didn't have before, you can search on heading within cemetery.

Mick

[jay dubaya]

I wasn't aware that an 'improvement' was needed, was it broken? did it need fixing?

[SteveE]

It works exactly the same apart from an additional functionality it didn't have before, you can search on heading within cemetery.

I'm pretty sure you could do that before as well, I can't see that they've actually added anything.  It's just a re-hash of the original.

Steve

[auchonvillerssomme]

No you couldn't. You could only search on the heading within names.

And thanks to that facility I now know who were the first and last casualties recorded on Thipeval, I couldn't do that yesterday.

18/07/1915 MALCOLM, ROBERT Private S/3220 Gordon Highlanders
06/07/1918 WHITEHOUSE, ARNOLD EDWARD Private 9839 Worcestershire Regiment


Mick

[steve morse]

Functionality

It does look more inviting, so probably easier to use for the great unwashed.

[seadog]

I must admit that I have no idea what the CWGC are doing or in fact why!. The most annoying thing for me is that for the second time they have changed the link URL which means that if you are using these links they will require amendment to the new URL yet again. Why can these people not inform the users that changes are being made instead of just doing it and leaving us in the lurch? I must admit that I have little faith or confidence in the CWGC ability to maintain any form of internet facility and to me the whole thing reeks of crass amateurism and little or no regard for the users.

Norman

[auchonvillerssomme]

The joy of language, ever evolvoing  

Mick

Am I missing something? It works just as well as before, if not slightly improved.

Mick

[Paul Reed]

No you couldn't. You could only search on the heading within names.

And thanks to that facility I now know who were the first and last casualties recorded on Thipeval, I couldn't do that yesterday.

18/07/1915 MALCOLM, ROBERT Private S/3220 Gordon Highlanders
06/07/1918 WHITEHOUSE, ARNOLD EDWARD Private 9839 Worcestershire Regiment


Mick

Mick, you are wrong on that. It was perfectly possible with the old database, as I had done it many times.

This isn't the same database as there is now no longer unique entries for casualties.