274 replies to this topic

[1RGLI]

One does wonder at the timing of such eventful changes as these to their system and the lack of any form of announcements are a clear indication of their intent on usage of the website content. Such changes to a large repository of information are rarely made on a whim, and clearly thought out, as to what has so far been achieved here today will now remain to be seen.

Mark.

[Peter Bennett]

Has anyone noticed that if you view or print the pdf copy of the certificate, the surname is repeated. Hence my grandad is Willie Bennett Bennett !

[kinnethmont]

Such changes to a large repository of information are rarely made on a whim, and clearly thought out, as to what has so far been achieved here today will now remain to be seen.

This is an absolute disaster and fiasco. I've lost 1000's of links to casualties. Those from the Canadian Great War site, etc no longer work.

They will have to restore the old system, surely??

[Martin Elliget]

They will have to restore the old system, surely??

Or make the new one work like the old one (see my post #50).

[Martin Elliget]

Just speculating for a moment, there may be a silver lining in this cloud. Perhaps the CWGC finally took notice of feedback that the search facility was badly in need of an overhaul. The first step might be to introduce a new engine whilst maintaining existing functionality. Yes, they failed slightly (!) in that area but perhaps, once the problems have been addressed / fixed (?), we can expect more powerful search features to be introduced. I'm trying to look on the bright side! I can hear Eric Idle singing that song..

[DMcNay]

perhaps, once the problems have been addressed / fixed (?), we can expect more powerful search features to be introduced.

And pigs might fly.

[skipman]

Interesting discussion



Here

Cheers Mike

[apwright]

Just noticed that the results from the new search feature omit the Secondary Unit information, so all those Labour Corps men, for example, appear only under their original regiment.

OLD:
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

NEW: (The red lines above are missing!)
Names: RANSLEY
Initials: R
Force: United Kingdom
Rank: Lance Corporal
Unit Text: Labour Coy. Royal Engineers.
Regiment: Royal Engineers
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 Reference: III. B. 3.
Cemetery: AWOINGT BRITISH CEMETERY

Adrian

[auchonvillerssomme]

I have emailed the CWGC webmaster and invited him to join the froum and comment on this thread. I can see your points now, I am in a position where I can quickly screen save or print the pages I want immediately - so I now understand the problems posters have where they save the links.

Mick

[Ian Murphy]

I have emailed the CWGC webmaster and invited him to join the froum and comment on this thread. I can see your points now, I am in a position where I can quickly screen save or print the pages I want immediately - so I now understand the problems posters have where they save the links.

Mick

Mick,

Many thanks for this action, I was about to ask if any forum member was connected to the CWGC and could summarily explain the changes and the logic behind them and allow a discussion to hopefully allow a return of the lost functionality. Your action will hopefully achieve the same result.

All the best,

Ian.

[seadog]

Well done the members who have contacted the CWGC, mind you with my experiences I would not hold your breath for a response. The more you think about this latest complete cock-up the more depressing it gets, for instance is there anybody at the CWGC who has the slightest idea how the database is used by thousands of people all they had to do was to read some of the topics on this excellent forum. But no, they just ploughed on regardless of any consideration for their clientele. The CWGC must reinstate the original search facility whereby the URL can be saved and also linked to third party web site such as Rolls of Honour etc. This whole situation is a complete mess and does nothing for the reputation of the CWGC. I exclude from this comment the fine work done at the sharp end, graves maintenance etc, but the administration aspect is a disaster at this time.

Norman

PS This is how it it affecting my local ROH, possibly I will have to delete this web page entirely.
http://stmichael.instabook.com/rollhon.htm

[Derek Robertson]

Martin,

Using your example:  http://www.cwgc.org/CasualtyDetails.aspx?casualty=2479710

In both Firefox and IE I get blank details on a Casualty Details page. This would have been my previous and prefered way of showing casualty details.
I've found that I can only now see an individual's details by using the identifier off the PDF - this seems very ungainly to what we had earlier.

Also there seems to be bugs in the system.
Type "Wellogate" into a cemetery search and it only shows the first page of casualties - try as I may there is no way I can open the final listing of casualties.
I suspect where there is one bug there will be more.

[seadog]

Derek, bugs?, the whole thing is a gigantic bug. How the CWGC could allow this to be implemented before the needs of the users were considered and the bugs were ironed out beggars belief. I congratulate forum members for being so calm when faced with perhaps years of their work being destroyed and with no concerns expressed by the CWGC who should hang their heads in shame.

Norman

[Martin Elliget]

Seadog.

It is depressing but I wouldn't go deleting web pages just yet. Wait for the dust to settle. I just did a Google search of the text used in the old URLs minus the casualty ID, i.e.

http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_details.aspx?casualty

The result was 1.3 million hits, so you are certainly not alone in your frustration. Given that the whole CWGC database is around 1.7 million, that's a large percentage even factoring in duplication. On that figure, it would seem far easier and sensible that they change their search to be backwards-compatible rather than people collectively having to edit 1.3 million links, surely.

Martin

[Andrew Hesketh]

Given the redesign, this would have been a good time for CWGC to offer an 'advanced search' including the options that made Geoff's search engine such a boon. Perhaps it's not too late?

[Martin Elliget]

Using your example: http://www.cwgc.org/CasualtyDetails.aspx?casualty=2479710

Hi Derek.

As per one of my subsequent replies, the following URL syntax will work using the same casualty IDs as before (they haven't changed). Although it brings up a PDF file, not a webpage.

http://www.cwgc.org/PDFHandler.ashx?t=a2&ca=2479710

But I agree - the whole thing is ill-conceived and full of problems.

regards,

Martin

[Michelle Young]

Just tried a search, got the cemetery up I was looking for, clicked on the man I was looking for to get a NO Data Found message..................

Michelle

[Drummy]

On a positive note that may be of interest to forum members though appreciate not Great War.... when you search on cemeteries the list of burials now include all non world war graves in care of CWGC, some of the soldiers commemorated date back well into Victorian campaigns, random examples Pte 4832 R. Wray, Coldstream Guards who died 18th March 1885 and is buried at Khartoum War Cemetery, or another, Major Charles Gregory of the 49th Foot who died 30th November 1842 and is buried at Hong Kong Cemetery. When you consider the graves of many thousands of British Army/Royal Naval personnel pre 1914 are not officially maintained (and a thousand or more 14-18 graves in what ws undivided India for that matter), nor indeed is there any centrally roll of honour for British Armed Forces casualties pre 1914 or 1921-1939  it is pleasing to see that at least some NWG graves survive within CWGC sites and will hopefully be maintained 'in perpituity'

[Will O'Brien]

I'm so completely disenchanted by this . So much work on my research will have to be re-done & the IFTCP work hugely impacted.

[Stebie9173]

The URLs issue aside, I find the omissions pointed out by Adrian to be pretty mind-boggling, too.


Steve.

[seadog]

I sympathize Will, let us hope that common sense will prevail and the original search engine is reinstated. The trouble with this organization is that in my view it is answerable to nobody and does its own sweet thing without the remotest concern for its users. The whole IT strategy seems flawed and in need of urgent review. Perhaps having a knowledgeable lay person involved in the decision-making process would be useful, I am sure that there would be many on this forum who would step forward. One thing is certain the whole structure needs a good shake-up and refocusing to the needs and requirements of its (so far) loyal users.

Norman

[welshdoc]

I feel so gutted for all those who have had their data and websites ruined by this action. Im lucky as I have no idea about websites so all my bits and bobs are on paper. Lets just hope that some action can be taken to remedy things. Also prehaps the CWGC could ask Geoff how his search engines worked as these were a boon to researchers.

[1RGLI]

Google it.
One idea brought to the fore was that of google search engines saved data, with Google having a wish to text digitise all the worlds fine books, this little cwgc project could be a breeze surely. Anybody out there have connections with Google? as they could sweep the whole thing quickly and have it indexed correctly elsewhere ie on google itself. CWGC need to understand that they are not as big a fish s they might imagine, bigger fish are in the sea.

mark.

[punjab612]

Has anyone noticed that if you view or print the pdf copy of the certificate, the surname is repeated. Hence my grandad is Willie Bennett Bennett !

It also creates rather a large file 3.21Mb in the case of my Gt Uncle.  More storage needed if going to keep all files in this format?
Peter

[Peter Bennett]

I have just spoken to the CWGC at Maidenhead regarding the surname duplication issue (amazed I got through !) the lady's first words were "Don't Shoot The Messenger" Hopefully I brightened up her day with some constructive comments.

I hope callers are mindful that the person(s) responsible for the changes are not the ones answering the phones.

Peter