The forum will be offline for an upgrade from 7AM UK time on Friday. See the About this Website board for more details.

 

 

Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

thetrenchrat22

New CWGC website

Recommended Posts

stiletto_33853   
stiletto_33853
17 hours ago, reesy said:

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?

 

Reesy,

I think you are on the right track, notice the CWGC supporters area at £30 per annum. If this is intended as the viewing area for these images then it sort of defeats the object of developing a site to get schoolchildren more enthusiastic and is yet another money grab, using taxpayers money to do the initial work, you just could not make it up. 

Lets hope they are somewhat better than the Friends of The National Archives for everyone's sake. This group recently claimed to have sorted out the officers files, well thats not my experience, sure they have added christian names which makes matters a little easier searching. However, many a file has say three officers files combined in one file, papers from two officers all mixed up and erroneous Regimental listings, i.e. over 100 Rifle Brigade Officers files in December 1914 Army List alone listed as Connuaght Rangers, so much for the claim.

 

Andy

Edited by stiletto_33853

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
voltaire60   
voltaire60
1 hour ago, stiletto_33853 said:

 

Reesy,

I think you are on the right track, notice the CWGC supporters area at £30 per annum. If this is intended as the viewing area for these images then it sort of defeats the object of developing a site to get schoolchildren more enthusiastic and is yet another money grab, using taxpayers money to do the initial work, you just could not make it up. 

Lets hope they are somewhat better than the Friends of The National Archives for everyone's sake. This group recently claimed to have sorted out the officers files, well thats not my experience, sure they have added christian names which makes matters a little easier searching. However, many a file has say three officers files combined in one file, papers from two officers all mixed up and erroneous Regimental listings, i.e. over 100 Rifle Brigade Officers files in December 1914 Army List alone listed as Connuaght Rangers, so much for the claim.

 

Andy

 

      Andy- Call me suspicious and paranoid, but I am beginning to smell the unmistakable scent of rattus rattus. Have a look at the "Lives of the First World War" threads and what IWM want to do with the stuff they have- It's all beginning to make sense in a conspiratorial way- IWM- Give us your pics and docs., then licensed out to WGC-and me,thee and Joe Public get charged for what we have already provided for nowt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaySearching   
RaySearching
18 minutes ago, voltaire60 said:

 

      Andy- Call me suspicious and paranoid, but I am beginning to smell the unmistakable scent of rattus rattus. Have a look at the "Lives of the First World War" threads and what IWM want to do with the stuff they have- It's all beginning to make sense in a conspiratorial way- IWM- Give us your pics and docs., then licensed out to WGC-and me,thee and Joe Public get charged for what we have already provided for nowt.

 

Oh ! Not unlike a photographic project I won't mention

Please donate all your headstone photos so we can put them behind a donations paywall and charge joe public for a copy 

 

 

Ray

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John_Hartley   
John_Hartley
5 hours ago, BillyH said:

so even the newspapers of the period sometimes made mistakes.

And so do modern day authors!

 

In one of my books, I have a photo of a man. I was entirely confident that I knew who he was. That was until someone else looked at the photo and spotted things that should have been obvious even to me that confirmed it could not be him.

 

And no - I have no idea either how the man came to be misnamed in my files or, indeed, who on earth he actually was.

Edited by John_Hartley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stiletto_33853   
stiletto_33853
1 hour ago, voltaire60 said:

 

      Andy- Call me suspicious and paranoid, but I am beginning to smell the unmistakable scent of rattus rattus. Have a look at the "Lives of the First World War" threads and what IWM want to do with the stuff they have- It's all beginning to make sense in a conspiratorial way- IWM- Give us your pics and docs., then licensed out to WGC-and me,thee and Joe Public get charged for what we have already provided for nowt.

 

Cor,

Nothing like a good old conspiracy theory:D However The IWM made no bones about it being charged for after 2018 and I am sure Brightsolid will want to make money, Ker-Ching! One of the reasons I have not put anything up on the site. The IWM and copyright, hmmm that would be a good subject for someone's thesis, ho hum.

Should the IWM or rather Brightsolid get involved with the CWGC then there is a problem as quite a few pictures I have seen there are most definitely not right, similar to Ancestry Family Trees. Hell there is even my family tree on there done by a relative in Australia with not one picture captioned accurately. I am afraid this is the problem with family folk lore. We have seen on this site and other sites people claim this is a photograph of so and so, to be proved wrong.

 

Ray, with you on that one, one of the reasons I have spent a long time photographing the headstones in my area of interest (Belgium 95% done, France about 75%) as I do give a good few families help with their relations of which a vast majority of them know nothing about their relative.

 

John, very true.

 

Andy

Edited by stiletto_33853

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnboy   
johnboy

I have not seen any soldiers pics on CWGC  yet. have any been posted? or am I ahead of myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thetrenchrat22   
thetrenchrat22

from an earlier post

The CWGC’s new website will have a facility to upload photographs against individual casualty records but this is not available at the present time.  We intend to launch this function in the next couple of months

I
>
>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnboy   
johnboy

So a lot of fuss here about something that has not happened wait till it starts getting pics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ss002d6252   
ss002d6252

Time will tell what the CWGC site turns out like. I'm sure it will be well discussed over the next few months.

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaySearching   
RaySearching
4 hours ago, John_Hartley said:

 

 

In one of my books, I have a photo of a man. I was entirely confident that I knew who he was. That was until someone else looked at the photo and spotted things that should have been obvious even to me that confirmed it could not be him.

 

And no - I have no idea either how the man came to be misnamed in my files or, indeed, who on earth he actually was.

 

John

You could post the photo on a new thread the, forum pals like identity challenges

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David_Underdown   
David_Underdown
On ‎11‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 11:47, laughton said:

Our concern over here on the other side of the pond is the broken links, even within the UNKNOWN REPORTS submitted to the CWGC. For example in our report onf 2nd Lts. Clark and Noon we have the CWGC link:

 

http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/CLARK, ERNEST VAUGHAN

 

which now gives us a 404 Error page.

 

If you search on the new site the link is:

 

https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/744543/clark,-ernest-vaughan/

 

In this case it is merely the dropping of the hyphens in the link. Those that have hundreds and perhaps thousands of links in their research documents are toasted!

The old links were always a bit weird, and technically not valid URLs as spaces should not appear in a valid URL (they should be replaced by %20 ) - they would often be broken by automatic recognition of links as that would stop at the first space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medaler   
Medaler

Well, I have been favoured by a reply from CWGC.  Here it is for your thoughts and comments...........

 

Thank you for your recent comments regarding our new website and search capabilities.

The subject of crowd sourcing information is, I agree, one that is potentially fraught with troubles. We recognise that there are pitfalls both in terms of the validation of information submitted to us and obviously the reputation of the Commission. However the strategic decision stands and it is therefore a question of when and how it is instigated rather than if. This has been reiterated internally by senior management. The devil, as in so many cases, is in the detail.

The Commission remains committed to the principles laid down in it's Royal Charter but is also looking to raise its profile and more proactively engage with the public. The ability for members of the public to upload information is seen as one way of doing this. There will I am sure be further announcements in due course. Watch this space!

In the meantime if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Yours sincerely,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
voltaire60   
voltaire60
5 hours ago, Medaler said:

The Commission remains committed to the principles laid down in it's Royal Charter but is also looking to raise its profile and more proactively engage with the public. The ability for members of the public to upload information is seen as one way of doing this. There will I am sure be further announcements in due course. Watch this space!

 

     Worrying:

 

1)  "more proactively engage with the public"    Does this translate as "charge more money" ?  My bet is "Yes"

 

2)  "The ability for members of the public to upload information is seen as one way of doing this".    Which is vastly different from other members of the public being able to access it for free.

 

      Some clear statements about charging/ not charging, in-house or contracted out  pronto, I think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medaler   
Medaler
18 hours ago, voltaire60 said:

 

     Worrying:

 

1)  "more proactively engage with the public"    Does this translate as "charge more money" ?  My bet is "Yes"

 

2)  "The ability for members of the public to upload information is seen as one way of doing this".    Which is vastly different from other members of the public being able to access it for free.

 

      Some clear statements about charging/ not charging, in-house or contracted out  pronto, I think

 

If they had "engaged with the public" at the time, many of the dead would have been repatriated, and all of the headstones would have been different - I dare say that tens of thousands of the lads would never have had headstones at all. Set against a past which has seen them stubbornly, but correctly, defending the integrity of their database (even when we all know that there are some errors within it), it now seems that they are opening the floodgates by allowing the addition of new media to corrupt what they have.

 

Just my 'umble opinion, but I am really concerned by the implications of this.

 

Mike

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clk   
clk

Hi,

 

Taking it away slightly from the topic of conversation. I wonder if In general terms they would consider the forum as a specific interest consultation/reference group. I appreciate that the forum isn't geared up to formulate a quasi joined up reply, but wondered if they might be persuaded to post on the forum themselves, and invite views and representations from members that have a keen interest in their work, and may wish to comment on the direction of their proposed (future) developments.

 

Regards

Chris

 

Edited by clk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnboy   
johnboy

i think one or two membersare to do cwgc and post/ I suppose they can only express their own views and not those of cwgc/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaySearching   
RaySearching
19 minutes ago, clk said:

Hi,

 

Taking it away slightly from the topic of conversation. I wonder if In general terms they would consider the forum as a specific interest consultation/reference group. I appreciate that the forum isn't geared up to formulate a quasi joined up reply, but wondered if they might be persuaded to post on the forum themselves, and invite views and representations from members that have a keen interest in their work, and may wish to comment on the direction of their proposed (future) developments.

 

Regards

Chris

 

 

Brilliant idea 

 

Cannot see it happening though as they would certainly take some flack 

 

Ray

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BillyH   
BillyH
1 hour ago, johnboy said:

i think one or two membersare to do cwgc and post/ I suppose they can only express their own views and not those of cwgc/

 

eh?

 

BillyH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnboy   
johnboy

two posters on this thread give the impression they are to do with cwgc.

Edited by johnboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×