< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 336 OF 336 ·
|Nov-22-14|| ||chessgames.com: <I have emptied the bio of all the dubious stuff, but CG should look into it and give whoever inserted it a serious warning at least> Will do.|
|Nov-22-14|| ||chessgames.com: <Ah, but while I'm here, I want to raise the topic of stub games again.> Our new feature of leaderboard editing was designed to make stub games obsolete. The final results of an event can now be known and displayed even if some of the games are missing. However, first it requires that you get it into the Tournament Index.|
This puts us in the pleasant position where we can retain very famous forfeits like Fischer vs Spassky, 1972 but for the run-of-the-mill forfeit/bye/missing-game there's no need to clog the database with needless zero movers.
|Nov-22-14|| ||Tabanus: <SwitchingQuylthulg> <Ohio> and others: Thanks for the nice words, and I'm back.|
There is really no excuse for my behaviour, but it happens to me now and then. I've quit in anger at least two times before on the World Team, only to be back again.
<Chessical> Please ignore my temper and continue your work with good conscience. I was just fed up with all of you, with the internet, with the computer, with the hard work, with all of it. But three weeks from now I'll be away on a 1 month holiday. And I'll try to take it easy the next two years. I owe that not least to my IRL friends.
In short, I'm sorry. I still don't take the Game Collection Voting (oops! - have a look) seriously, but will accept what happens in there from now on.
<Paint My Dragon> I liked the way we worked together. Info from both newspapers, books and magazines.
|Nov-22-14|| ||zanzibar: <This puts us in the pleasant position where we can retain very famous forfeits like Fischer vs Spassky, 1972 but for the run-of-the-mill forfeit/bye/missing-game there's no need to clog the database with needless zero movers.>|
Sorry to keep dogging this issue - but the idea isn't so much for the server end. It's for your end-users, the consumers of the games who download tournaments.
Without stub games, their <CG> tournament PGN-download will always be inferior to, say, those of <Carolus>.
When I download <Carolus>'s version of <Biel izt 1993> I can see who won the tournament, and who got byes (and if the bye was scored), without referencing any outside source.
As for the space this should take in the database - it really should be minimal. The game result only for a very small fraction of the tournament games. No moves (maybe some comment, if allowed).
The header info should already be factorized out in the db structure as we know. What takes up lots of space in the PGN doesn't in the DB.
|Nov-22-14|| ||zanzibar: <Tab> Let me be first to welcome you back! |
(I was hoping for your eventual return.)
|Nov-22-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: <Tabz> Great to have you back. |
So you didn't go to Sochi after all. I had thought this was all just an elaborate smokescreen, as you were really Magnus' secret third coach. The Dane, The Hammer and The Spider! It all sounded so plausible.
Okay, take things easy for now; I still have bathroom fittings and paraphernalia to sort ... and Christmas presents to buy. Yawn.
|Nov-22-14|| ||SwitchingQuylthulg: <Tabanus> Welcome back!|
|Nov-22-14|| ||zanzibar: There were actually three legit games missing from <CG> for <Biel izt 1993>...|
From my program report:
<FIDE missing games (3 games not found in CG):
1993.??.?? (R12) 1-0 Oll, Lembit -- Topalov, Veselin (D44) 27
1993.??.?? (R13) = Salov, Valery -- Gelfand, Boris (D14) 11
1993.??.?? (R13) = Seirawan, Yasser -- Granda Zuniga, Julio E (D27) 12
... plus 14 stub games (N_moves .le. 5) not listed here (see stub.fide).
It's curious that only three games are missing, especially as each involves a "big" name. Hmm...
There are 465 games in my collection, but one is a near-dup with the wrong result (actually I should just submit the right moves with the right result for Dreev -- Gurevich (R2)).
So 481 - 14 (stubs) - 3 = 464 + 1 (dup) = 465 (collection count)
|Nov-22-14|| ||chessgames.com: I'm sorry to report that when researching the case of Peter Schuster I came up empty. |
Our logfiles only go back 1 year, and whoever edited that page, it must have been more than 1 year ago. You see, we keep 52 logfiles for everything and each week the 52nd falls off to make room for the new one. There are several old backups of the site so it's possible that I could find logfiles in a 6-month old backup that contain the information, but there's still no guarantee.
Let's look at this as a good thing.
It motivates me to make a more permanent solution than rotating-logfiles. For example, each player biography could contain two new small fields <last_edited_by> and <last_edited_date> to supplement the logfile data. Arguably, this information could be publicly visible, or at least visible to CG Editors.
|Nov-22-14|| ||chessgames.com: And welcome back <Tabanus> — I'm so glad you decided to stay.|
|Nov-22-14|| ||ljfyffe: The spider is back on the web...this has to be good news!|
|Nov-22-14|| ||crawfb5: <Tabanus> Welcome back. All of us have had those "I have to leave the room now" moments from time to time. Glad to hear it has passed.|
I see the tournament promotions as works in progress. I'm not usually in a position to deeply research a nomination, so I have to place a certain amount of faith in the nominator. Of course a good initial product is desirable, but there are bound to be cases when someone else finds more information or spots errors. As long as they can be improved or corrected easily, I'm reasonably happy. YMMV.
|Nov-22-14|| ||Benzol: <Tabanus> I'm glad you changed your mind. Welcome back.|
Colleagues can I just ask how progress is going on the World Correspondence Championship tournaments?
|Nov-23-14|| ||Karpova: <chessgames.com: It motivates me to make a more permanent solution than rotating-logfiles. For example, each player biography could contain two new small fields <last_edited_by> and <last_edited_date> to supplement the logfile data. Arguably, this information could be publicly visible, or at least visible to CG Editors.>|
This raises a couple of questions/problems:
1) What would the public, or the editors, be supposed to do with that extra info? The first thing that came to my mind was this scene from Full Metal Jacket: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCNq....
2) The info is certainly enough to prejudge, but not always sufficient to judge. It may prevent editors from doing simple corrections (grammatical/orthographical errors, inserting links to player/tournament pages, year when title was awarded, etc.), since they are then held responsible for the whole of the biography.
3) How does it solve the problem at all? The first Schuster biography may have been done sloppily, but was it done in bad faith? Do you think that the editor hid behind his/her anonymity?
In my opinion, it would be sufficient, if the chessgames.com admins had access to all of that info. And I'm a bit surprised to read that you don't. You could investigate the matter in private first (i. e. contacting the editor and ask him/her), before casting stones. In addition, you probably have the tools to look for other bios/intros of the editor in question, and bring them to our attention.
I do not see how public pressure is of great help there. And I would certainly think twice, before doing minor adjustments in case of obviously wrong facts.
Just an example, sometimes I come across wrong dates for FIDE titles. Sometimes not all norms were actually acquired, or the title application took some time and FIDE awarded it not the year in which the norms were acquired, but the next year. And now, when correcting such a minor detail (based on the FIDE Player card), I should be held responsible for everything written in the bio?
|Nov-23-14|| ||OhioChessFan: <2) The info is certainly enough to prejudge, but not always sufficient to judge. It may prevent editors from doing simple corrections (grammatical/orthographical errors, inserting links to player/tournament pages, year when title was awarded, etc.), since they are then held responsible for the whole of the biography.>|
Yeah, I just changed a trifle in Alekhine's bio, and had the same thought.
|Nov-23-14|| ||WCC Editing Project: |
My dear <El Trejo>
I actually had a dream about you yesterday. Thank GHOD you are back.
Any chance of opening up your forum? I have a few recipes I'd like to share. Herring, squid and such.
|Nov-23-14|| ||WCC Editing Project: |
<Cg> Er.. I just read your post on editing logs, and I'd like to third the reservations raised by <Karpova> and seconded by the Honorable Member from <Ohio>.
|Nov-23-14|| ||SwitchingQuylthulg: I'm not sure what a "last edited by" tag would accomplish, either. Like <zanzibar> said, it's a pity we don't have a full edit history like Wikipedia's; that <would> help, not only with identifying bad edits and the editors responsible for them, but also with reverting those edits and setting things right again. (It would also make it easy to self-revert if an editor does something stupid by accident and then realizes their own error.)|
Besides, I suspect we wouldn't have so many qualms about improving other editors' biographies or tournament intros then - if the original editor (or somebody else) felt our edit was not an improvement, they could easily detect and undo it.
That said, I'm sure some editors would rather keep editing privately, and doing so does have genuine upsides. There's always someone who takes too much pride in their work and feels slighted by any change to it; knowing who just attempted to improve MY INTRO!!! WHICH I HAD PERFECTED YOU @$%#@&£ might encourage infighting, which we can do without.
|Nov-23-14|| ||Tabanus: <WCCEP> I'll probably open my forum in January!|
<crawfb5> <Benzol> <CG> Thanks! The drug I needed ;)
I put back the "List of WC qualification events" in my forum header and expanded it till 1993. While I was away, WCCEP added <zanzibar> to 4-5 interzonals. Else think it's the same list as before. Please check it for errors.
<Candidates Preliminary> is just a working title - it was "8-finals" or whatever you call it in English.
I grabbed "Moscow 1982" interzonal but only because it should be done. I'm not very keen on it. If someone else want it, please tell me before it gets too late!
I'll also try "Larsen - Portisch Candidates Quarterfinal (1968)", but don't know yet if dates can be found. It was played in Croatia.
<Switch> IMO if the voting was more critical, the game collections (which can be changed only by the creator) would have more worth (after voted in) as we could fall back on them. But perhaps there's a Wikipedish solution.
|Nov-23-14|| ||crawfb5: <Colleagues can I just ask how progress is going on the World Correspondence Championship tournaments?>|
I had some awaiting game uploads that I more or less gave up checking for and/or forgot. I suppose I should check again when I have the odd moment.
ICCF now has a single download file with the games from WC 1-25, although I doubt any of the missing games from the early events have been found.
|Nov-23-14|| ||chessgames.com: <Karpova> et al:
<The info is certainly enough to prejudge, but not always sufficient to judge.> I understand your point (even without the spine-chilling Kubrick scene).
This certainly isn't about singling anybody out. If I made a mistake on a biography and somebody fixed my error, I would like to know about it to prevent the same kind of mistake in the future. Perhaps I'd learn that a source I employ is unreliable, or learn that I'm prone to a type of clerical error (like switching the month and the day-of-month.)
I had thought initially that putting the editors' names on pages might help increase quality. I can appreciate the possibility that if an editor sees an overall bad biography, and can fix one tiny thing on it, they may be reluctant to do so as they don't want their name linked to the mess. That's not how we want this to work.
Of course I don't believe that anybody is acting in bad faith, or hiding under anonymity; this is about holding editors to a standard of quality.
<In my opinion, it would be sufficient, if the chessgames.com admins had access to all of that info. And I'm a bit surprised to read that you don't. >
We've been meticulously keeping logfiles that include the editor, the date, the page edited, and the number of bytes that the change entailed (added 58 bytes, removed 200 bytes, etc.) The next step-up would be to archive the exact difference between the old article and the new one.
These logfiles were kept in the standard logfile directory, which keeps 52 weekly files. The occasion when we had a desire to go back more than a year hasn't cropped up until now. It should have been predictable that sooner or later we would need to do that.
A lazy solution, which I suppose would suffice, is to make a policy where on January 1st of each year the logfiles are copied to a special directory to be archived indefinitely.
|Nov-23-14|| ||perfidious: My aim as a biographer is to improve what is out there and I've got no desire to claim credit or lay blame.|
Glad <Tabanus> is back aboard!
|Nov-24-14|| ||zanzibar: <Tracking edit changes for bios/etc>|
There are lots of solutions that offer full history tracking.
An easy lightweight solution...
Why not keep the most recent version, and patches (a la unix's diff/patch) to revert to any previous version. Each patch could be tagged by the editor and would allow any earlier edit to be restored.
Make these edit/patch lists semi-public and you have a cobbled, but workable, management system.
|Nov-24-14|| ||chessgames.com: <diff> will come in very handy, yes.|
|Nov-25-14|| ||zanzibar: A series of working note on <Biel izt 1993> are now available:|
http://zanchess.wordpress.com/2014/... (Dutch Press)
http://zanchess.wordpress.com/2014/... (Swiss Press)
http://zanchess.wordpress.com/2014/... (Tournament History)
http://zanchess.wordpress.com/2014/... (Zan press)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 336 OF 336 ·
Advertise on Chessgames.com