Bit of a server hiccup at 3:30 AM Pacific time. Happened when I selected the Chessforums link.

<Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@localhost and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

I like the butterfly analogy though, I can understand why you like to use it.

Of course, when I dig into a tournament, as done with <1st American (1857)>, I find lots of interesting sidelines in the literature. That explains the occasional deluge of posts - there's a theme underlying the somewhat erratic assemblage of topics.

And though it might suggest to some the erratic path of a butterfly, it's really a side-product of drilling deep for the research:

<Gibraltar> Tradewise Gibraltar (2016)

<morphishine> <Why was my posting suspended for this post?> You called another member an "obnoxious doofus". It doesn't matter what they did previously; if they committed an offense then report it; don't insult them. You've been here for ages, you know the ropes.

<Caissanist> <My apologies if this topic has been argued to death already, but is there a bug or something in the pulldown player menu?> There are a couple of things that people call bugs. One issue is the observation that <X> is not on the pulldown menu (but certainly should be) and then I point out that there is an option on your Chessgames Preferences Page called <Longer list of players on homepage> which will make the list much longer and include <X>. From time to time there is a bug with player that have Asian names; this too can be "fixed via hack" on a case-by-case basis. So in short you'll have to be a little more specific!

The list got a little too long in my mind to actually post.

Still, I have a few key items I think I like to advocate for, even if we've cycled over a couple of them.

A form of bulk submission, and bulk corrections come to mind.

Some might be able to benefit from a simple system like this:

<
for games in [ list of games ]:

change site to <Site>

change event to <Event>

>

You could use a cookie to store the list, or have the user make a collection.

This presumably would be much easier for the user than the current one-by-one method.

Plus, instead of flooding the Notes log, you just get one entry (listing the list of course).

That's one idea.

And the person who I think most likely to benefit isn't on your aforementioned list.

Of course, I think you're flooding the "tag-space" a little much. I've mentioned that I'd prefer to pack all the various ID's into a tuple.

A display program wouldn't care, the only drawback would be for searching with a text editor. But then regex's could easily be used (e.g. in emacs etc).

I'd expect a person wanting to use the id's to be at the level that regex's would be 2nd nature. Etc.

Of course, the info is the main thing. So, I'd still be happy with the move verbose ID format.

As for the game type, I haven't had a chance to look up with any PGN extension already uses it. I believe there is a "almost"-standard tag alread in use for that. Certainly that info is well deserving of a tag, so hooray for that idea too.

One other tag I'd like to see <CG> respect, is the <Source> tag. That's the wannabe historian in me, but, as you know, I've tried to use it for my submissions.

One word about that might be made. I'd propose a convention for a ref hierarchy.

What do I mean by that?

Suppose I got a Pillsbury game out of Pope's well written book (or Hilbert, or Davies, or Harding). Being the great historian he is, a primary source will certainly be referenced.

Then the Source tag should reflect the hierarchy of sources:

<[Source "<pope ref> / <primary ref>"]>

That is, if the submitter is fully diligent. Note that the game data might be altered by the top level source, and it reflects the actual move list.

Now... if <CG> alters a submitted game, it could just add itself to the top of the stack in order to reflect an alteration.

We were lax on that rule recently and it reminded me why we have that policy in the first place. Experience has shown that people will use this has a backhanded way to violate policies (especially attacks) under the guise of policy-discussion.

However it is permitted to discuss the posting policies if you sincerely do not understand.

To save some time, the oft-repeated question of "Why was (A) removed and (B) was not removed?" almost inevitably has the same answer every time: because nobody reported (B).