Received the following information from SMRG friend Ken Nisbet:
"The Nairnshire Roll of Honour has now been published by the SGS at a cost of £12.00 plus postage. It contains details of the men and women from Nairnshire who are known who have served from 1914 - 1921 in the Navy Army and Airforce, including all those listed on the Auldearn Ardclach Cawdor Croy and Nairn war memorials and those who should be on the memorials but are not. As well as those who survived the war. Extracts of the war diaries for the 4th Battalion Cameron Highlanders for Neuve Chapelle, Festubert, Givenchy, Loos have been included."
The Scottish Genealogy Society should have it available on their website soon but in the meantime you can contact them by sending an e-mail to sales@scotsgenealogy.com - alternatively you can contact them at is 15 Victoria Terrace Edinburgh EH1 2JL
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Fife Family History Fair - Glenrothes, Saturday 3rd October
Fife Family History Fair is being held this Saturday, 3rd October, between 9am and 5pm in Rothes Halls in Glenrothes.
The Scottish Military Research Group will have a table among the exhibitors - please feel free to come along and have a chat with us and see what we're getting up to!
The Scottish Military Research Group will have a table among the exhibitors - please feel free to come along and have a chat with us and see what we're getting up to!
SMRG talk - Paisley
Adam Brown will be giving a talk to Renfrewshire Family History Society on the Scottish Military Research Group in Paisley Museum, High Street, Paisely on Thursday 15th October at 7.30pm.
Please come along and provide some moral support for him!
Please come along and provide some moral support for him!
Friday, 18 September 2009
Lost Aberdeen POW Camp found
From the BBC News website:
Remains of city's PoW camp found
The remains of what is believed to be Aberdeen's last surviving World War II prisoner of war camp have been found during work on a landfill site.
German soldiers were kept on Tullos Hill from about 1945.
There are believed to have been at least two other camps in Aberdeen, in Hayton and Peterculter, but they have both been built over.
Aberdeen City Council's keeper of archaeology, Judith Stones, said the find was "fantastic".
She explained: "Now we're taking care to ensure that no damage is done during the current works, and it's very exciting that some new discoveries are being made in the process."
She will give a talk, Archaeology, Rubbish and New Discoveries on Tullos Hill, at Aberdeen Maritime Museum from 1230 BST to 1300 BST on Wednesday 23 September.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
More on the CWGC
Over the last day or so the fuss I reported on in the last two blog postings has subsided, but hasn't entirely gone away.
There has been little to report on, but today there was some contact between David Stacey of the CWGC and a member of the Great War Forum.
June Underwood of the GWF had reported to the CWGC that there had been a tacit agreement from the CWGC that they were happy for people to link to their site. That is the agreement referred to in his reply, which is quoted below:
"Dear Mrs Underwood
Thank you for your further email about the CWGC database. It is very helpful to have a copy of the attached correspondence of which I was unaware. I will be researching to see how many other similar agreements there might be. I note that your website is freely available, but I would be interested to know whether there are others that in fact charge for the same information.
I was pleased to see that you had participated in the original survey. Afterwards, although you were not chosen, a sample of people were asked more detailed questions about the website, at which point such issues might have been raised (but were not). The survey was sent to almost 5000 customers and we received back over 1500 responses. The customers contacted were those who had most recently contacted the Commission at the time the list was extracted, and represented a complete cross section of our customers from the new user (some of whom had never used our website) to the regular visitor, many of whom used our website for "work" purposes. Of those who replied, 821 said they were happy to be contacted again and a number were then randomly chosen for a more detailed telephone conversation. There were several demands for a better search facility, and we have attempted to accommodate some of these.
Before re-introducing the new database, I will look further into the issues raised by the direct links to it. As another correspondent has suggested, it may be possible to keep the functionality of the earlier version, together with the changes to the new. I am considering inviting various individuals to a meeting to put their view to the CWGC in order to inform the debate, and I may be in contact again.
Yours sincerely
David Stacey"
It is encouraging to note that they will look into a number of the issues which have been raised by several members of both the Great War Forum and WW2 Talk.
Now, here's hoping that perhaps they might actually improve the search facility rather than saying they will and adding nothing!
There has been little to report on, but today there was some contact between David Stacey of the CWGC and a member of the Great War Forum.
June Underwood of the GWF had reported to the CWGC that there had been a tacit agreement from the CWGC that they were happy for people to link to their site. That is the agreement referred to in his reply, which is quoted below:
"Dear Mrs Underwood
Thank you for your further email about the CWGC database. It is very helpful to have a copy of the attached correspondence of which I was unaware. I will be researching to see how many other similar agreements there might be. I note that your website is freely available, but I would be interested to know whether there are others that in fact charge for the same information.
I was pleased to see that you had participated in the original survey. Afterwards, although you were not chosen, a sample of people were asked more detailed questions about the website, at which point such issues might have been raised (but were not). The survey was sent to almost 5000 customers and we received back over 1500 responses. The customers contacted were those who had most recently contacted the Commission at the time the list was extracted, and represented a complete cross section of our customers from the new user (some of whom had never used our website) to the regular visitor, many of whom used our website for "work" purposes. Of those who replied, 821 said they were happy to be contacted again and a number were then randomly chosen for a more detailed telephone conversation. There were several demands for a better search facility, and we have attempted to accommodate some of these.
Before re-introducing the new database, I will look further into the issues raised by the direct links to it. As another correspondent has suggested, it may be possible to keep the functionality of the earlier version, together with the changes to the new. I am considering inviting various individuals to a meeting to put their view to the CWGC in order to inform the debate, and I may be in contact again.
Yours sincerely
David Stacey"
It is encouraging to note that they will look into a number of the issues which have been raised by several members of both the Great War Forum and WW2 Talk.
Now, here's hoping that perhaps they might actually improve the search facility rather than saying they will and adding nothing!
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
CWGC Search changes - update
The situation with the CWGC I reported on yesterday has taken a few new twists and turns today.
The CWGC reported on their Twitter feed that they were experiencing "technical difficulties" - they later reported that these had been resolved. It also seemed that the search facility had been restored to the way it was. Perhaps they'd been listening to us! Actually, no they hadn't.
It turned out that their new search engine was full of bugs anbd flaws, and had so many errors they had to remove it.
It also became clear that they were going to change the search engine, whether we like it or not.
The following was posted on the CWGC website today:
"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.
I'll come back to that statement later.
The threads on both the Great War Forum and WW2 Talk had some interesting discussion, and I recommend taking the time to have a read of them. Many people had emailed the CWGC to express their dissatisfaction, and lo and behold, someone got a reply from them! Sadly, it doesn't make for encouraging reading, and only highlights that iut appears that the CWGC haven't a cluewhat kind of people actually use their search facility. You can find the reply on both threads linked above, but here it is in all it's glory:
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
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berks
SL6 7DX
Tel: 01628 507147 (Direct)
Fax: 01628 507186
Let's take a look at some of these comments shall we?
"extensive consultation" - from what anyone can gather this took the form of a survey which was available on the CWGC website. I know enough about surveys and statistics to know that you can take whatever information you want from them. I wouldn't class this as "extensive" - there was no communication with any dedicated users, and certainly no discussion with Geoff, who runs an excellent and far superior search engine to that of the CWGC. I'm sure he'd have been happy to consult with the CWGC to try and improve on their frankly disappointing search facility, but sadly he wasn't given that opportunity.
"easier for people to search" - there has been no change to the search facility. How does that make it easier? Making it weasier would make it possible to narrow your search down to a specific month, or even day.
Want to see who else may have been killed the same day as your grandfather? After all, they may have been mates of his. No chance of doing that with the search as it currently stands, or as it will be in future.
This is not making it any easier to search.
"Greater security of our database" - this statement concerns me somewhat. I don't really understand what they mean and until someone from the CWGC can explain it I think we have a right to be concerned by it.
"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." - well, this is just nonsense, isn't it? I can point them in the direction of dozens of users of their site who don't consider it an improvement and find it somewhat less than useful!
As for the email from David Stacey, there are a number of points that merit further discussion.
"This is the first time that I have been made aware that links have been made directly to the Commission's website." - Seriously?!?! I find that very hard to believe. Do they live in a bubble? I expect not, but okay, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't know anything about the people using their database. As my friend John Duncan has stated on the GWF "If this gentlemen is unaware of external websites linking into the CWGC site then he is not the man for the job".
"formal agreements" - This confuses me. I'm sure many people were unaware that there should be any kind of formal agreement. Does this conflict with this part of their Terms and Conditions? I quote:
This material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for personal use or for internal circulation at an educational establishment, provided it is not altered or used in a misleading context and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is acknowledged as the source of the material.
I don't have an issue with his statement that they are free to change things if they wish. We can't stop them, obviously. However, I don't accept that there was "extensive consultation" and I certaily don't believe that anyones comments will be looked into.
Still, we can always voice our opinions, so if you'd like to do so, then feel free to email David Stacey. Or write him a letter. Here's his details again:
David Stacey
Director Information Services
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berks
SL6 7DX
Tel: 01628 507147 (Direct)
Fax: 01628 507186
david.stacey@cwgc.org
Oh look. A direct telephone number. Why not give him a call? Tell him what a bad idea their "revamp" is. I'm sure he'd love to hear from you. But please, keep it polite.
Alternatively, why not email some of the other people involved with the CWGC? Here's some ore details:
Mr Peter Francis
Head of Communication
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berkshire SL6 7DX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 634221
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 507163
Fax: +44 (0) 1628 771208
peter.francis@cwgc.org
Mr Andrew Bishop
Director of Information Technology
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berkshire SL6 7DX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 634221
Fax: +44 (0) 1628 771208
Apparently Peter Francis is on holiday at the moment, but I'm sure someone is monitoring his inbox. And if they aren't, I'm sure it'll be full on his return...
One thing is clear - the CWGC have done themselves no favours with this. There are many members of both the Great War Forum and WW2 Talk involved in projects to try and have men missing from the CWGC Register brought "in from the cold" - they must be feeling incredibly let down right now, since this will make their work a lot harder. It also shows that the organisation they are working incredibly hard to help clearly doesn't give two hoots about them.
As I've typed this, a member of the GWF has stated:
I'm just going out but I've found a letter from Andrew Stillman, Records & Enquiries manager in Aug 2005 where he gives permission for us to use the links to CWGC. "The Commission is always pleased to support such causes which go hand in hand with our aim to reach as big an audience as possible"
Are they still pleased to support such causes? Doesn't seem like it...
The CWGC reported on their Twitter feed that they were experiencing "technical difficulties" - they later reported that these had been resolved. It also seemed that the search facility had been restored to the way it was. Perhaps they'd been listening to us! Actually, no they hadn't.
It turned out that their new search engine was full of bugs anbd flaws, and had so many errors they had to remove it.
It also became clear that they were going to change the search engine, whether we like it or not.
The following was posted on the CWGC website today:
"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."I'll come back to that statement later.
The threads on both the Great War Forum and WW2 Talk had some interesting discussion, and I recommend taking the time to have a read of them. Many people had emailed the CWGC to express their dissatisfaction, and lo and behold, someone got a reply from them! Sadly, it doesn't make for encouraging reading, and only highlights that iut appears that the CWGC haven't a cluewhat kind of people actually use their search facility. You can find the reply on both threads linked above, but here it is in all it's glory:
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
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berks
SL6 7DX
Tel: 01628 507147 (Direct)
Fax: 01628 507186
Let's take a look at some of these comments shall we?
"extensive consultation" - from what anyone can gather this took the form of a survey which was available on the CWGC website. I know enough about surveys and statistics to know that you can take whatever information you want from them. I wouldn't class this as "extensive" - there was no communication with any dedicated users, and certainly no discussion with Geoff, who runs an excellent and far superior search engine to that of the CWGC. I'm sure he'd have been happy to consult with the CWGC to try and improve on their frankly disappointing search facility, but sadly he wasn't given that opportunity.
"easier for people to search" - there has been no change to the search facility. How does that make it easier? Making it weasier would make it possible to narrow your search down to a specific month, or even day.
Want to see who else may have been killed the same day as your grandfather? After all, they may have been mates of his. No chance of doing that with the search as it currently stands, or as it will be in future.
This is not making it any easier to search.
"Greater security of our database" - this statement concerns me somewhat. I don't really understand what they mean and until someone from the CWGC can explain it I think we have a right to be concerned by it.
"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." - well, this is just nonsense, isn't it? I can point them in the direction of dozens of users of their site who don't consider it an improvement and find it somewhat less than useful!
As for the email from David Stacey, there are a number of points that merit further discussion.
"This is the first time that I have been made aware that links have been made directly to the Commission's website." - Seriously?!?! I find that very hard to believe. Do they live in a bubble? I expect not, but okay, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't know anything about the people using their database. As my friend John Duncan has stated on the GWF "If this gentlemen is unaware of external websites linking into the CWGC site then he is not the man for the job".
"formal agreements" - This confuses me. I'm sure many people were unaware that there should be any kind of formal agreement. Does this conflict with this part of their Terms and Conditions? I quote:
This material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for personal use or for internal circulation at an educational establishment, provided it is not altered or used in a misleading context and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is acknowledged as the source of the material.
I don't have an issue with his statement that they are free to change things if they wish. We can't stop them, obviously. However, I don't accept that there was "extensive consultation" and I certaily don't believe that anyones comments will be looked into.
Still, we can always voice our opinions, so if you'd like to do so, then feel free to email David Stacey. Or write him a letter. Here's his details again:
David Stacey
Director Information Services
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berks
SL6 7DX
Tel: 01628 507147 (Direct)
Fax: 01628 507186
david.stacey@cwgc.org
Oh look. A direct telephone number. Why not give him a call? Tell him what a bad idea their "revamp" is. I'm sure he'd love to hear from you. But please, keep it polite.
Alternatively, why not email some of the other people involved with the CWGC? Here's some ore details:
Mr Peter Francis
Head of Communication
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berkshire SL6 7DX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 634221
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 507163
Fax: +44 (0) 1628 771208
peter.francis@cwgc.org
Mr Andrew Bishop
Director of Information Technology
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berkshire SL6 7DX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 634221
Fax: +44 (0) 1628 771208
Apparently Peter Francis is on holiday at the moment, but I'm sure someone is monitoring his inbox. And if they aren't, I'm sure it'll be full on his return...
One thing is clear - the CWGC have done themselves no favours with this. There are many members of both the Great War Forum and WW2 Talk involved in projects to try and have men missing from the CWGC Register brought "in from the cold" - they must be feeling incredibly let down right now, since this will make their work a lot harder. It also shows that the organisation they are working incredibly hard to help clearly doesn't give two hoots about them.
As I've typed this, a member of the GWF has stated:
I'm just going out but I've found a letter from Andrew Stillman, Records & Enquiries manager in Aug 2005 where he gives permission for us to use the links to CWGC. "The Commission is always pleased to support such causes which go hand in hand with our aim to reach as big an audience as possible"
Are they still pleased to support such causes? Doesn't seem like it...
Monday, 7 September 2009
Changes to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission search engine
Have you ever used the CWGC search engine? If so, have you ever posted the URL of your search result onto a website, email or any kind of document?
Well, that link is now utterly useless, thus leaving many people having to start from scratch with painstaking research, due to the CWGC "revamping" their search engine. I use that term carefully since there appears to be no improvement made whatsoever - no additional search facility, no new way of organising the search results.
There's more discussion on both the Great War Forum and WW2 Talk, but it's clear that many military and genealogical researchers are unhappy - particularly in the way there was no advance warning or announcement of the changes.
I've posted a message on the CWGC Twitter feed - I'll be interested any response that is received from them. I expect a standard response that it is not their job to assist researchers - that might be the case, but I feel this might be a bit of a public relations blunder from the Commission. Many of the researchers affected have assisted the CWGC in the past, adding missing names to the Debt of Honour register and they've been badly let down here through a lack of communication.
It also means that we have lost the excellent Geoff's Search Engine - many people used this since the serarch facility was far, FAR better than the CWGC. Geoff has posted the following on the page where the search was, and I think it deserves to be repeated here:
"If this has caused some inconvenience to your WW1 and WW2 research and you view it as a retrograde step, please contact the following, giving your views.
Mr Peter Francis
Head of Communication
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berkshire SL6 7DX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 634221
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 507163
Fax: +44 (0) 1628 771208
peter.francis@cwgc.org
Mr Andrew Bishop
Director of Information Technology
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berkshire SL6 7DX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 634221
Fax: +44 (0) 1628 771208"
I suppose this is a message that perhaps the old ways are sometimes still better - I printed all my search results of my research on to hard copy ages ago.
Well, that link is now utterly useless, thus leaving many people having to start from scratch with painstaking research, due to the CWGC "revamping" their search engine. I use that term carefully since there appears to be no improvement made whatsoever - no additional search facility, no new way of organising the search results.
There's more discussion on both the Great War Forum and WW2 Talk, but it's clear that many military and genealogical researchers are unhappy - particularly in the way there was no advance warning or announcement of the changes.
I've posted a message on the CWGC Twitter feed - I'll be interested any response that is received from them. I expect a standard response that it is not their job to assist researchers - that might be the case, but I feel this might be a bit of a public relations blunder from the Commission. Many of the researchers affected have assisted the CWGC in the past, adding missing names to the Debt of Honour register and they've been badly let down here through a lack of communication.
It also means that we have lost the excellent Geoff's Search Engine - many people used this since the serarch facility was far, FAR better than the CWGC. Geoff has posted the following on the page where the search was, and I think it deserves to be repeated here:
"If this has caused some inconvenience to your WW1 and WW2 research and you view it as a retrograde step, please contact the following, giving your views.
Mr Peter Francis
Head of Communication
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berkshire SL6 7DX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 634221
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 507163
Fax: +44 (0) 1628 771208
peter.francis@cwgc.org
Mr Andrew Bishop
Director of Information Technology
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road
Maidenhead
Berkshire SL6 7DX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 634221
Fax: +44 (0) 1628 771208"
I suppose this is a message that perhaps the old ways are sometimes still better - I printed all my search results of my research on to hard copy ages ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)