End of the Search Engine? - CWGC Search Changes

Perhaps external requests like those made at the Geoff Search Engine were causing problems for their server hence the decision to change to the session key method?

Unlikely. My search engine does not make any demands on their website. Only you do that if you should choose to select a hyperlink from my results page.

You remember hyperlinks don't you? One of the founding principles of the World Wide Web.

 

For any IFCP volunteers out there, I've just updated my search widget to use the new tacky pdf links. Available from the usual sources. Look for build 17.

When I think of my unique contribution to this project.....

Keep going guys, well get the job done whatever.

 

Interesting post here. When I first started out, all these non-world-war records were available if you knew where to look.
Then they blocked them.
Looks like they are indexed now (about time too):


New CWGC search interface - Great War Forum


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'

 

Geoff,

All I can say is keep up your great work. We all very much appreciate your time and effort that you have put into your search engine.

Long may it reign.

Regards
Tom

 

The old system is now back up and running, so I hope no one has spent too much time re0writing thelinks, as the pdf files are now not working, so back to as was so sto speak.

Phil

ps. good job I kept both links live for those that I had played about with.

 

I suspect they have reverted to the old database to address the many issues with the new one. I don't think it will be permanent situation... the new one will return in all its glory once they have "fixed" it.

 

Watch this space. Im certainly not going to do anymore than I already7 have in terms of converting my data.

 

Unlikely. My search engine does not make any demands on their website. Only you do that if you should choose to select a hyperlink from my results page.

You remember hyperlinks don't you? One of the founding principles of the World Wide Web.

That makes sense, perhaps it was for efficiency and security on their end then.

If they old system is indeed back, perhaps they only uploaded the new one as a beta test?

 

This has been posted on :: CWGC ::

Following extensive consultation with users of the popular CWGC website, we have made several changes to the “Search Our Records” section , which will make it easier for people to search our database of 1.7m Commonwealth casualties. However, a technical problem has affected these changes, which has required the temporary reinstatement of the previous search tool.
It is our intention to adopt the improved system, once the technical problem has been resolved. As well as providing a more intuitive system, the changes to the records search facility allow for greater security of our database but regular users may wish to note that one of the likely results of the security upgrade is that external websites will be unable to take advantage of the links to individual casualty details which are currently available
We are confident that these changes to the search facility represent a significant improvement on the previous system and that users will find the changes useful.
The key sentence being:

It is our intention to adopt the improved system, once the technical problem has been resolved. As well as providing a more intuitive system, the changes to the records search facility allow for greater security of our database but regular users may wish to note that one of the likely results of the security upgrade is that external websites will be unable to take advantage of the links to individual casualty details which are currently available


I wonder who the 'extensive' consultantion was with? Anyone on here?

 

Get off the Bus...


Springs to mind

 

It does, but if every member of this site emails them in protest over this, maybe they will think again? Maybe...

 

Can some one with a reasonable level of intellect draw up a draft message (My attempt would be too colourful) that expresses everyones concerns and post it on here? Then it can be cut and pasted and sent to them.

Is there an email addy for them or is the only way of contacting them by filling in the 'contact form' ?

Cheers
Andy

 

I think they did, but there was no mention of removing the unique URL for each casualty; I can't see anyone who was consulted on that who does research suggesting to CWGC that was a good idea, which is why I very much doubt there was much actual consultation on what happened yesterday.

 

A member of Great War Forum has a response from CWGC, which states:

Dear Ms Underwood
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.

This is the first time that I have been made aware that links have been made directly to the Commission's website. If there are any formal agreements in place, then perhaps you could let me know. If not, then it would seem 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 earlier in the year, which was included on the website. I do not know whether any of the members of your group 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. In the meantime, I am afraid I can give no assurance that the referencing of casualties on the database will remain the same and you may wish to consider other ways in which to retain your information.

Yours sincerely

David Stacey
Director Information Services
Commonwealth War Graves Commission

This section is quite absurd, and not a little insulting.

This is the first time that I have been made aware that links have been made directly to the Commission's website. If there are any formal agreements in place, then perhaps you could let me know. If not, then it would seem to me perfectly reasonable for the organisation to make changes it believes enhances the system.

Ref:

New CWGC search interface - Great War Forum

 

I haven't found a link to the 'wide consultation earlier in the year, which was included on the website', but I found their Corporate Plan 2008-2011. Note Objective 2 in spirit and in detail - it bears little relation to our glimpse of the future.

Found it. Sort of: Feedback responses
Click the link to the 'Web Review Survey 2009'. Stop when you get bored.

If anyone has a use for Mr Stacey's email address, it's on this page. It's not clear if he is a director of the information in the database or just the director of information about the database; I suspect the latter if he is issuing press releases. Do the rules of engagement permit shooting the messenger in the absence of other targets?