< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 478 OF 478 ·
|Oct-05-15|| ||zanzibar: Thanks (as always) <Retireborn>. |
I'm looking a little more in these matters, and hopefully will report back later.
|Oct-05-15|| ||Tabanus: <TheFocus: Some of the best historians left.> And some of the worst too, apparently. <And for good reason.> What reason, exactly? Please enlighten me.|
<with little fanfare> And who is it with a lot of fanfare that you would like to go? Yourself? I've tried the last few months to (make CG) correct your pages up and down with "unnormalizations". And with some success, I have imagined.
I get the feeling that I'm not welcome here. If that's the case, just tell me and I'll go.
Btw I refuse to take the blame for <crawbf> not taking the 5 min. time it takes to correct the dates and re-submit. If that's what you are longing for.
|Oct-05-15|| ||TheFocus: <Tabanus> <What reason, exactly? Please enlighten me.> No. I accept that they all had their own reasons, same as I.|
<<with little fanfare> And who is it with a lot of fanfare that you would like to go? Yourself? I've tried the last few months to (make CG) correct your pages up and down with "unnormalizations". And with some success, I have imagined.>
I don't know who you are quoting here about 'fanfare.'
You are the best historian on these pages. And the work you have been doing is exceptional and unequaled.
<I get the feeling that I'm not welcome here. If that's the case, just tell me and I'll go.>
Don't go. It would be too big a blow to the Bistro.
<Btw I refuse to take the blame for <crawbf> not taking the 5 min. time it takes to correct the dates and re-submit. If that's what you are longing for.>
I have no clue what this means. All I know is he has taken some time off.
|Oct-05-15|| ||Tabanus: <TheFocus> The fanfare etc. was from zanzibar.|
Btw I'm not a historian at all. I just collect information from the sources listed in my forum header (which everyone else can do) and piece it together. With lots of work, incl. on the language.
Well, and empty Bistro does not necessarily mean fewer tournament and player bios. But boring it is.
|Oct-05-15|| ||Tabanus: Oh, but I do have used my education and professional training. I hope this does not scare anyone away.|
Let me explain: The majority of TI tournaments before 2000 are now in quite good shape. I have been through them almost all, corrected mistakes (mainly cosmetic), plus made or updated links, added missing games, standardized Site and Event, corrected the CG standings, etc. etc.
The main work was done already. Not always 100% correct, but it was done. Many of the introductions are unsourced, but are very well written, and do they all have to be sourced? That's probably to ask for too much. I think it's good enough that a few tournaments or matches each year have proper sourcing.
In short, carry on with the good work!
|Oct-05-15|| ||MissScarlett: The editor notes section has become a deluge of location amendments by one zealous poster. Why are these being recorded and by whom?|
|Oct-05-15|| ||zanzibar: Yes, I used the term "with little fanfare" as a compliment to some contributors who rarely visit the Bistro, but who contributions I thought worth mentioning.|
Funny how a compliment was repackaged.
I suppose I was thinking of all my prolific Bistro writings when I mentioned the fanfare stuff. If there was any thought of others, it was secondary.
But, I can't help but note a measure of irony in the fanfare of this announcement:
<I get the feeling that I'm not welcome here. If that's the case, just tell me and I'll go.>
What prompted that?
Somebody complaining that the volume of traffic in the Bistro was rather thin? Or the lack of mention of the few obvious contributors to the Bistro of late?
* * * * *
<Let me explain: The majority of TI tournaments before 2000 are now in quite good shape.>
I must be dreaming. This would be fantastic, but you must forgive me for having a slight dose of skepticism without rechecking.
(And to raise the issue of how to ensure such correctness is maintained).
* * * * *
Perhaps this is a good time to reraise a concern I've mentioned before -
What about the bio info for contemporary tournaments - the ones <CG> introduces into the database without even the thinnest of introductions/biographical background (beyond the player lists)?
Why can't <CG> allow editors to jot down some basics instead of having it just be empty?
|Oct-06-15|| ||TheFocus: <Why can't <CG> allow editors to jot down some basics instead of having it just be empty?>|
You can note this as one of the reasons some historians/editors have bailed.
|Oct-06-15|| ||chessgames.com: <What about the bio info for contemporary tournaments - the ones <CG> introduces into the database without even the thinnest of introductions/biographical background (beyond the player lists)?|
Why can't <CG> allow editors to jot down some basics instead of having it just be empty?>
Originally the premise was to make this arbitrary restriction simply because the entire concept of editor-produced tournament articles was uncharted waters. The intention was to remove this restriction once we had confidence in the system.
I believe at this point removing that restriction is long overdue. I will update shortly.
|Oct-06-15|| ||Tabanus: <What prompted that?>|
I thought it was pretty obvious, with me as the almost only one writing here, while the rest are leaving. But let's see.
|Oct-06-15|| ||chessgames.com: Alright, it was a fairly easy change.
I tested it on PokerStars IoM Masters (2015) with a very sparse write-up. Seems to work fine.
With this modification, there is one change that now becomes urgent: some form of "check-out" when editing pages. For example, if one editor makes a change to a tournament it should be "checked out" for say 10 or 15 minutes. This will help avoid the ugly situation of two editors simultaneously changing the same article. Until the check-out system is implemented, just be mindful of that possibility.
|Oct-06-15|| ||Tabanus: <I must be dreaming.>|
Well I said "most". Some could need more work, some have no introduction at all, and a few are just plain horrible.
|Oct-06-15|| ||Stonehenge: < MissScarlett: The editor notes section has become a deluge of location amendments by one zealous poster. Why are these being recorded and by whom?>|
I have been updating site tags from Game Collections (from others, I don't have GCs). It would be handy if one could update site tags from Game Collections with one mouse click.
|Oct-06-15|| ||chessgames.com: <The editor notes section has become a deluge of location amendments> Do you want a logfile system or don't you? There should be a deluge of entries, because there has been a deluge of edits.|
The point of Editor Notes is not so we can peruse the Editor Notes at our leisure, it's to have a record of changes once you go to the game page.
Perhaps in the future we can implement search-features and filters and so forth to the Editor Notes area, to make it more useful as a research tool, but there's nothing wrong with what Stonehenge is doing.
|Oct-06-15|| ||zanzibar: To begin...
<<Stonehenge> It would be handy if one could update site tags from Game Collections with one mouse click.>
- - - - -
<<`Yes -- yes -- cried Ursula, pointing her finger at him.'> ...
`There you are -- a star in its orbit! A satellite -- a satellite of Mars -- that's what she is to be! There -- there -- you've given yourself away! You want a satellite, Mars and his satellite! You've said it -- you've said it -- you've dished yourself!'>
* * * * *
<chessgames.com: <The editor notes section has become a deluge of location amendments> Do you want a logfile system or don't you?>
- - - - -
<<yes> and his heart was going like mad and <yes> I said <yes> I will <Yes>. ">
|Oct-07-15|| ||twinlark: Hi guys
I've spent many thousands of hours over the years writing and updating player bios (almost all the long ones, and many others as well).
Please slap me upside the head if I'm wrong, but I find very little evidence of other bio writers' ongoing activity in this respect, and almost no evidence of a systematic approach to an area that is presumably of some importance.
To some extent I find this a bit discouraging. I'm extremely happy that so many historians and researchers have been adding to the body of tournament information, a project that has transformed this site into one of the wonders of online chess lore.
It's also one I'm happy to leave to people with hard copy sources of information, as I rely primarily on the internet for bios and can not add nearly as much as biographers resident in Europe and North America.
But it seems to my highly subjective view that all the emphasis in recent years has been on tournies rather than players, apart from Jessica and her team's project on historic players.
I wonder if a couple of people would like to take on player bios, updating results on current events for top players, filling out incomplete bios for the top players of the world, and the top players from the main chess playing powers of the world. I'm happy to share my source of information for research and to work out how to coordinate work and methodology and establish protocols so that we don't step on each other's toes.
My own technique is obvious from the layouts and the references and sources cited in the bios. I would add though that once I think a bio is reasonably complete, I add a <[ latest update: date ]> datum at the bottom as a rule of thumb guide for the amount of recent information that needs to be updated next time a bio writer is contemplating whether a lengthy bio needs an update.
This <latest update> flag can save a lot of time by making it largely unnecessary to read through a bio as it signals that all that needs to be done is to interrogate the FIDE Player Card-linked databases for information about events in which the player has participated <since the last update>. The paragraph and sub-para structuring and labelling makes it easier to find where new data can be inserted.
It's not an infallible system, but it is a system in contrast to previous method whereby player bios were done on what seems to have been a largely ad hoc basis, often with deeply incomplete information.
|Oct-07-15|| ||epistle: I'd like to write Beronio's bio...|
|Oct-08-15|| ||Tabanus: <twinlark> Good luck! I'll stick to the old days.|
And share this - in a desperate attempt to raise interest - from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, May 10, 1906, p. 20:
<New York, May 9. - The first American Women's Chess Congress, which was begun Monday at the Hotel Martha Washington in this city, was concluded to-day, when Mrs. Charles H. Frey won the first prize and the championship, while Mrs. Frank W. Lynn, of Chicago, was placed second and Mrs. M. Wilkinson-Roberts Shaw, of this city, third. In the general tournament Mrs. E. H. Burgess, of Garden City, L. I., won the first prize and Miss E. Campbell, of Lakewod. N. J., secured second prize. Mrs. Charles K. Stoddard, of this city, and Miss Mildred L. Walker, of Brooklyn, divided the third and fourth prizes. Mrs. Winthrop Parker and Miss E. W. Tyler, both of this city, took the remaining two prizes.>
On the 2nd American Women's Chess Congress in Atlantic City - from Brooklyn Daily Eagle, May 26, 1921:
<Women Filtering the Lists. The women's tournament will doubtless attract quite a number of the fair sex who have not been given many opportunities to take part in an open contest such as this since the first American Women's Chess Congress held in New York several years ago. Mrs. Seaman, the new champion of the Women's Chess Club of New York, stated at the Staten Island Chess Club last week that it was her intention to be present at Atlantic City for the purpose of taking part, and that she expected other members of the club to follow suit. Mrs. Natalie Nixdorff, the secretary and for many years the holder of the club championship, had been in hopes of being able to match her skill with other players of her sex on this occasion, but is at present not quite sure whether she can arrange to be there or not. Mrs. Von Haebler, the Philadelphia woman expert, who was present throughout the masters tournament last summer and played many games at Marshall's Chess Divan on the Million Dollar Pier, is looking forward to participation in the forthcoming competition for her sex with much anticipation of pleasure,>
and see http://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/n....
|Oct-08-15|| ||gauer: Biographer Bistro (kibitz #8664) (Nov 22-23rd talks about how far back bio updates log-files were going) and Biographer Bistro (kibitz #9093) (I tend to generally agree on the policy of that post's idea of using last updated at/by" tags - but Chessgames Editor Guide was also suggesting to watch out with use of time-sensitive information which might change once in a while) also talk about this Biographer Bistro (kibitz #12389) recent topic. |
Regardless of whether an editor takes an approach of writing biographies mostly pertaining to their favorite nation(s') series (like particular Interzonals from year-to-year or players in a continent federation's top list, there are probably quite a few other ways to focus on editing biography or game data, depending on how the editor chooses to apply their research. Your biographies generally look great as well, but often I particular might just <skim> a biography part if I only want to read kibitzes, look up a rating chart, or browse games from a pid listing - when I'm not thinking about as much as doing edits.
|Oct-08-15|| ||Tabanus: What should I request the name of Mrs. Frank W Lynn to be, when her name was Anna Belle Barnes before marriage?|
Anna Belle Lynn? Or shut up and leave as is?
|Oct-08-15|| ||MissScarlett: <Do you want a logfile system or don't you?>|
I want one fit for purpose, not a mess of pottage.
<There should be a deluge of entries, because there has been a deluge of edits.>
I regularly submit corrections/amedments but very few of mine are so recorded. I tried to broach this issue before, but let's make it explicit: by what process are entries to the editors' notes file made?
<The point of Editor Notes is not so we can peruse the Editor Notes at our leisure, it's to have a record of changes once you go to the game page.>
Well, leaving aside the issue of all the amendments that aren't set down for posterity, I would argue against the current practice; its purpose should indeed be as a research tool, so interested parties can have an overview of changes being made/suggested, enabling them to jump in and contribute where necessary. This scenario is only realistic if most of the bumph, the insignificant corrections, are excluded. Now there is a legitimate debate on what constitutes a significant change, but perhaps the whole idea seems too taxing already.
|Oct-08-15|| ||twinlark: <Tabanus>
Thanks for the response. I wouldn't want to take you away from your historical work.
|Oct-09-15|| ||chessgames.com: <Miss Scarlet> I understand your point; you'd like to see what Sargon's been up to lately, or see the status of your last batch of correction slips, etc. But that's impossible if you find yourself lost in an ocean of <"Munich, DEU" = "Munich GER"> style corrections, as far as the eye can see.|
But that's not an issue with the Editor Notes feature per se; it's an issue with this little interface that we have for viewing the notes, found here: Editor Notes.
If only you had a way filter that above interface, to search for edits made by Sargon, or searching for "users other than Stonehenge", it would be more useful for everybody. I can see that. One day we'll have that, I promise.
<I regularly submit corrections/amendments but very few of mine are so recorded. I tried to broach this issue before, but let's make it explicit: by what process are entries to the editors' notes file made?>
It's at the admin's discretion, but to be more specific: admins are instructed to make an editor note anytime that it is believed that the information could possibly be of value in the future.
Another way of saying the same thing: the more possibly controversial the change is, the more important it is to leave a note.
You might think such a broad brush would cover virtually every correction slip, but it's not true.
For example, here are some things we might not bother making editor notes about: (1) somebody points out that the Sacrifice Explorer claims a queen sacrifice, when it's only a couple intermezzo checks before the recapture. (2) Somebody points out that the city name of a game is misspelled or transliterated. (3) Two games that need merging, which are effectively identical in every way. (4) Some information is provided to replace a "?" field.
That last one might require an explanation. For example, if we change "?" into "Moscow RUS" based on some member's testimony ,I could imagine not leaving a note. However, if we change "Moscow RUS" into "St. Petersburg RUS", then a note is virtually mandatory. That's controversy.
There are some things which almost automatically invoke the creation of editor notes: if some source is cited to either ID a player or change/add moves, then we need the editor notes to jot down where we got our info. Sometimes there is no source but some very sound guesswork is performed; here we need a note so that if the information is ever reviewed, we've made clear what part is speculative.
I hope this clarifies our policies.
|Oct-09-15|| ||zanzibar: It may be a bit presumptuous for me to thank <twinlark>, but that's the kind of behind the scenes work I was alluding to in a previous post.|
It's amazing how much work the various volunteers have done for this site as they cycle through, truly.
|Oct-09-15|| ||zanzibar: As for log files, a couple of thoughts.
First, some corrections are really batch corrections - like normalization issues for a tournament (or more generally a collection).
It would be nice (mandatory really) to do these in one fell swoop, and therefore make just one log entry (listing all the affected games of course).
Of course, each individual game should have a backlink to the correction log, for tracing individual game histories. But a reviewer could then easily just skip over one log entry instead of sifting though dozens (or more) entries - all of which are basically the same.
The second thought dovetails with <chessgames> - to have some self-evaluation of a correction's importance entered.
Then one could differentiate between a trivial correction (like DEU -> GER) versus a controversial correction (where a significant historical judgement was made - like reassigning a game, etc.).
These measures could then be used in the filter software which we'll get (someday).
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 478 OF 478 ·
Advertise on Chessgames.com