First <Jess> thanks for the note. I've gotten some other thoughtful input seconding the sentiments. I should consider it anew.

As for the <favoritism>, it's true I didn't follow all the details of the <UNF> "drama" - so the nuanced meaning I clearly missed.

But given the "Night of the Long Axes", I thought I'd just bring out my trusty axe for a little grinding.

The thing is I've emailed, and even posted, encouragement for photo submissions to be adopted:

https://zanchess.wordpress.com/2015...

https://zanchess.wordpress.com/2016...

Some get used, many don't. I think they all should (obviously), and I believe the user base agrees.

But it's a whole new level of work to have to monitor and track the submissions - beyond the effort involved in digging out the portraits in the first place.

Clearly the process needs improving - and one does feel slightly "burned" which other submissions get leapfrogged over your own.

BTW- editors can't do the photos, only admins, afaik.

As for the historian business, I largely agree with much of <tpstar>'s sentiments as well, but I definitely felt the same "sting" <JFQ> did with the <<Historians> don't even begin to understand.> comment.

I think it likely more intended for me than for <JFQ>. I accept it, though. I fully acknowledge not understanding the full dynamics of the site. I'm not sure I'd even want to know it fully, to tell the truth. I tend to "live" within the confines of the public forums - avoiding even member forums, a deliberate and conscious decision.

<<User: Tabanus: Berlin, Germany, Births, 1874-1899> "Berlin, Germany, Births, 1874-1899" is a standard geneaology reference.>

No it isn't, unless you say which geneaological reference was used.

E.g. ancestry.com

http://search.ancestry.com/search/d...

< There are thousands of such, most of which are not available for free, and cannot be linked to. The editor who wrote this, luftforlife, used me as a source for this reference. Is this hard to understand?>

No need to adopt an abusive tone, <luft> or no-<luft>.

You're the editor, you should fix the edit. Be it a paid site, or freely available - the idea is to give a complete ref. Not just one that is clear to you as expert.

There's a real underlying problem which should get mentioned.

<Tab> deleted his personal forum.

Normally, this should be within a user's rights and prerogative. The trouble is that <Tab>'s forum was used for so much historical research that it's deletion basically invalids a lot of references and work (I'm thinking of some very detailed work with <PmD> that I peaked in on).

That's one reason the <User: Tabanus> reference made no sense - it might have (I suspect) actually once linked to the specific forum where the info was source. <Tab> deletes the forum, and the link goes stale.

<Anyway, luftforlife seems to have left this site, and if you prefer no refs, or bios at schoolboy level, it does not matter.>

No, I like refs that can't have the carpet yanked out from under them.

First, about uploaded photos, you are right that the process needs to improve. The way it works now is that I get an email from a member, drag and drop the photograph into Photoshop, then resize it or otherwise clean up, and save to an upload directory. Then I run an rsync command to get the file on the server. Then I move the file to the correct directory. Now I have to make another file with a .txt extension that indicates the source of the photo and other information, if known. The entire process for one photo could take between 15 and 30 minutes.

If I did 10 of them at once the average time per photo could be cut down a great deal. Whether or not a great deal of Photoshop work is required before using them also affects the time greatly.

Perhaps one day an upload feature could be provided to editors (you are right they can do nothing now), but that would require some very careful fine tuning so that it would reject images that don't meet basic specifications in terms of size, color depth, etc. Many of the submissions we receive (including a few of your own) we simply could never use.

I do have all of your submissions and appreciate them; many have been uploaded and the rest will eventually be reviewed.

Eat a Snickers!

<Tabanus>, I for one value your contributions to the site in times past, for which you were deservedly rewarded with the power to edit player pages.

But when in the course of contributing you became impatient and abused that power to *vandalize* pages that vexed you, you also lost the site's confidence. You are now, it would seem, in disgrace — also deservedly.

However, I believe that for all his faults as an administrator, Daniel is not unforgiving. And disgrace fades as new events drive it from memory.

You don't need to leave. If you do, that's your choice, and I'll respect it. But it *is* your choice.

May peace be upon you.

Recently the beautiful people have put on a superb firework display!

It has been totally fantastic to watch!

The following phrase pops continuously into my brain:

<saffuna: I have a radical partial solution. Most of the off-topic comments are on the pages of little-known, OK unknown, players.

Why not block kibitzing on the page of any player who doesn't have at least one win in the database? That would eliminate a lot of them.>

Suppose someone has a valid comment on such a player's loss(es)?, or some additional biographical information, or links to pictures from a tournament, or...?

I think the right way to handle off-topic posting is with a light hand. After all, most of it is harmless, and some adds to the pages.

Let posts be deleted, I would say, only if they generate complaints. But when they do, prompt response is imperative. Much of the unhappiness I've seen expressed on this page has one ultimate source: Whistles are being ignored, or responded to so far after the fact that they are perceived as being ignored, and this makes members feel their concerns are not being heard.

<saffuna>: That seems like a silly rule to me. Why shouldn't people be free to comment on less active or successful players?

I think the only real need is to get rid of mindless comments like, "His name is <Butt>!" Apart from that, why not let people banter?

My personal guess is that we would actually make the situation worse by everybody's measure. People will just joke on the game page, and that page may actually be of great chess value while the player page almost certainly is not going to have any serious chess discussion anyhow. So that's pushing the trash from the hidden corner of the site, where only or or two people will ever complain about it, to the wide open where we might be looking at something as precious as a Capablanca game.

I have two "possibly interesting" ideas related to kibitzing which I can't resist making a note of here:

1) For Kibitzers that haven't been on the site for ages (say more than a year) - and posted something to a game - how about they get Email notified when someone replies on one of their games that they commented on?! Could this be useful to get some past members back maybe?!

2) A comments activity graph by year - show a graph of comments and perhaps annotated with causes of spikes like "featured in daily puzzle on (date)" as Spike notes.

1) 'humorous' only in your brain.

2) <off-topic posts>

This is the <Chessgames Member Support Forum. Here you may ask questions, notify us of problems/bugs, make suggestions to improve the site, and more. Please avoid using this forum for matters that would not be of public interest. You can always request support privately by emailing chess(at)chessgames.com.> Have a think about it before you're going to post again.

<This is the <Chessgames Member Support Forum. Here you may ask questions, notify us of problems/bugs, make suggestions to improve the site, and more. Please avoid using this forum for matters that would not be of public interest. You can always request support privately by emailing chess(at)chessgames.com.> Have a think about it before you're going to post again.>

My posts met all of those criteria, but they were censored anyway ... six of them retroactively a day after they were posted.

Silencing criticism. Is this how you inspire respect?

<Alien Math>: I have already said I am no diplomat. When I am fed up, I tend to say so very forthrightly.

But, diplomatic or not, my suggestions were sound:

1) Almost every significant trove of off-topic posts could be gainfully transferred to a special-purpose page, such as <Politics>, <Logic Puzzles>, <Sports>, etc., freeing the player pages for their intended purpose.

2) Prompt and respectful attention to Whistles would have resolved many problems that instead were allowed to escalate.

3) Transparency and impartiality in handling confrontations between members, when and as they arise, would avoid the sense (on the part of quite a few members) that favoritism is at work.

4) It is necessary to enforce rules as written and promulgated, or members will lose respect for them.

Is there anything controversial about any of this?

<1) Almost every significant trove of off-topic posts could be gainfully transferred to a special-purpose page, such as <Politics>, <Logic Puzzles>, <Sports>, etc., freeing the player pages for their intended purpose.

2) Prompt and respectful attention to Whistles would have resolved many problems that instead were allowed to escalate.

3) Transparency and impartiality in handling confrontations between members, when and as they arise, would avoid the sense (on the part of quite a few members) that favoritism is at work.

4) It is necessary to enforce rules as written and promulgated, or members will lose respect for them.>