If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
But it seems they have spent almost no time " re-learning the system " or " reinventing the wheel ". All the ED's have done their jobs and kept all the members' services coming, without all the documentation. The system seems to be pretty well designed and seems to be running pretty much on its own ( credit to Troy Vail? ).
For the sake of documentation that everyone has gotten along without for years, CFC should shell out $ 10,000 of their hard-earned surplus for a new site?
Bob
and that could be why the website is needing updating now, time spent just keeping the balls in the air is not time devoted to improving the system, just my guess.
Its like asking an electronic technician to fix a circuit board without a wiring diagram, it can be done but wastes alot of time.
How about a product search that shows things we don't sell anymore?
- Which also has nothing to do with the ACTUAL equipment store
- Not to mention what you get if you click on the "books and equipment" page
How about an entry page that has to give you instructions on how to use the website?
How about the right sidebar, which is laid out so poorly that the address can't even be properly formatted since the text space is squished?
How about how at the top you can click on Français and get a broken link page?
How about the About Us page which throws a ton of info at you in one big paragraph, then has contact information (hello contact us page!) - and then the mention of the Pugi Fund (which might actually be good info to be right on the about us page).
Why the heck is the site called the "Legacy" site anyway?
The Canadian Open / Closed pages request bids/sponsors but provide no information of the rich history of these two events - ie, no reason why you SHOULD bid on or sponsor such an event.
The CYCC page is actually fairly decent, just out of date. Oh and the random bright green colour that occurs nowhere else on the site. (Hello CSS!)
The CFC Handbook page is not too bad, but it badly needs a built-in search, maybe a PDF version.
Chess Clubs - again, the inconsistent colours, and also not in alphabetical order anymore. <-- That's REALLY unprofessional looking!
Crosstables/Ratings - way too much advertising! And it's stuff we don't even sell anymore!
The actual ratings / crosstable pages don't have the menu bar or really any link to anything except - of course - the Product Search! Incidentally when I ran a webstats study on the site several years ago, I found over 75% of visitors to the site never see ANYTHING other than these two pages.
FAQ is almost completely irrelevant and is missing several FAQs.
GLs look good 2006 and older, but the newer ones are a jumbled mess.
Links - the colours again (another new kind of green!)
Memberships and Rating Fees - not too bad, but under Benefits again we have a big paragraph thrown at us. A list would be nice, since that's what it actually is.
Olympiad page is nice, one of the best on the site. But it should make clear that it was the 2008 team that has their pictures there.
Contact Us page is HORRIBLE. The first three have no name, no picture, just titles. Yeah THAT looks professional.
Schools page - again links to a version of the store that doesn't exist anymore. And even better, this one has a DIFFERENT left sidebar than the rest of the site!
News - poor old news, way down at the bottom and not updated in 6 months.
Fix all that and you might have a start on a reasonable website. And that took me almost a half hour to go through, I'm sure there's more.
I'm just sick today and can't do anything other than use my laptop in bed so it's not like I have anything better to do :p
Hi Chris,
I gather you were not too fond of the site?
On the other hand it would also appear that you have made a great deal more use of the site than I ever attempted to do. My usage consisted of regular consultation of the crosstables, an occasional look at the ratings lists, some exploring to find GLs, and infrequent perusal of other miscellaneous areas of the site. For all these I found it tolerable, though like you I found the content frequently terribly outdated and occasionally misplaced.
If I'm not mistaken, most of what you complain about has to do with content maintenance - misplaced and dated as John Cordes has said. This has more to do with our contract with EKG and the limited 3.5 days Gerry allots to CFC for all " normal " operations, than website design or program coding - he has no time to update the website or rearrange it to make it more organized.
Here is a list I have sent to Stijn to be done:
1. “ Contact Us “ – a) there are 18 Ontario governors shown, and Ontario is only entitled to 17, according to Gerry. OCA President Chris Mallon must recall one of the Ontario governors;
b) the governor Can. Champion and runner-up have to be replaced – Jean Hebert and Mark Bluvshtein;
c) I submitted a picture of myself to the Governors’ List, but Gerry had some technical problem posting it and said he needed some expert techie help on what was the problem. Here is the picture attached again;
2. Top Females – Hazel Smith ( 2015 ) is still missing ( Yuanling Yuan, who had been missing, has been added however );
3. Home Page – Canadian Champions – all needed to be updated to show 2009 Champions ( still showing 2007 & 8 champions );
4. Home Page “ Store “ advertisement:
The home page shows:
Sale
Most books and software 50% OFF.
No backorders.
While supplies last.
Free shipping on orders over $100.
Go to the CFC store.
I thought this was an item from a long time ago, when CFC was selling its own inventory of books when we were just setting up our arrangement with Amazon. Is this still current? Are we still selling off some of our own CFC past inventory?
I know we are still in the equipment/supplies business, with FEN as agent to deliver on our contracts - but does it still include books, since the reference is to our “ store “ ?
5. Olympic Team, etc. information not labelled to show its relevant date ( one can wrongly think it is current information ) - you mention this - I mentioned it to Gerry some time ago I believe, but forgot to put it on this list ( you also mention it ).
And your list of content/presentation updates and reorganizations ( all of which can easily be done on the existing site, given enough time ) adds more outstanding work to be done.
But, as I say, I don't see this as the argument for needing a new website.
All the ED's have done their jobs and kept all the members' services coming, without all the documentation. The system seems to be pretty well designed and seems to be running pretty much on its own ( credit to Troy Vail? ).
How quickly we forget 2007!
And I don't include "Getting infected - badly - once per year by viruses" to be part of running on its own.
It was a great site in 1999 when it came out (I think?), far superior to the old site. I have nothing against Troy or anyone else over the site. I think it's just a reflexive anti-change reaction. Just like when we converted Chesstalk to the new format, there was much screaming, but now most people prefer the new way.
I would be very careful about spending the "surplus" on anything until we can observe a couple of consecutive annual financial reports to be assured that the CFC is indeed finally running in the black.
For my purposes, I find the website adequate. One thing that needs attention is keeping the content current. The format is fine.
A differing opinion is given by Chris Mallon on CFC Chess Forum where he was talking about the site deficiencies:
" Jonathan Berry already did a fairly thorough job over on Chesstalk on the nitty-gritty technical stuff [ that is wrong with the CFC website ]. From an administrator's point of view, here are the problems:
It's is very difficult (ie requires significant web design knowledge) to do anything other than the most minor update to the site.
I'm not sure that this is going to change with a new website. You have to have the tools and knowledge to update any website. It is not as difficult as some people are making it out to be.
There is no common way to navigate the site (the menu bar does not appear on every page).
Run it through any web authoring software and that should be easy enough to fix.
There is a lack of branding, and advertising is either not present on pages, or TOO present (see Ratings page).
The site requires ASP support which (in general) means a Windows server, which (in general) are more expensive. The CFC gets a horrible deal on webhosting, but there isn't much better out there until they dump ASP.
You can have ASP support for $20 per month though I would suggest the $30 web commerce package which also includes ASP. You get professional hosting and if there is a problem, a phone call any time 24 hours a day resolves it quickly.
There are cheaper alternatives in GoDaddy and PowWeb but having someone local to yell at if things go south is worth the extra ten dollars or so a month.
The site is extremely vulnerable to hackers. See recent multiple infections, as well as same thing last summer. (No Google list back then!)
And the #1 Problem!
The site doesn't look even remotely professional. It's been hacked together by too many different people using different programs etc. Imagine you are a potential sponsor and you decided to check out the site? All I can say is, Ack!
The site is not that bad. It is functional. I don't think sponsorship will hinge on how fancy the website is. As Jonathon Berry pointed out Google is pretty spartan and look how that turned out for them.
If you really have to have a new website design then go here:
Get a professional web hosting company that doesn't overcharge. You won't have to worry about the virus attacks.
Could it be fixed? Probably. It would probably cost more than a fresh design though, so why bother? "
What do you and Alex, as two of the status quo supporters, have to say about Chris' list?
I guess my concerns would be:
1. does it take an inordinate amount of staff time to deal with the site becausse of its deficiencies?
2. are any of the current member services incomplete because of deficiencies ( for example, are participation points now in the rating calculation system or not? I heard they couldn't code it in );
That is not in the website but rather in the application that calculates ratings. Its a separate thing.
3. are there any projected important immediate services needed, that cannot be added to the existing site - and can someone list them?
4. what are projected services/information the CFC sees as needed for the long-term future which cannot technically be added to the site - and can someone list them?
5. if there is currently missing documentation ( which I understand is like an instruction manual ) which prevents necessary upgrading from being done, is it still possilbe to have the creators do the manual ? or is it too costly? What is the cost for this in relation to getting a whole new site? ( if we don't spend the money on a new site, we have some $$ to deal with the existing site, if it is not cumulatively too great )
It seems to me CFC needs to address these questions for us all, so we can know whether in fact we need to junk a site that has been running well ( subject to the recent hacking ), and still seems to be running well, and is providing what appear to be all needed member services. The fact that 2/3 of those voting in this poll want to keep the existing site shows that the CFC has a big selling job to do to explain to people why the new site is necessary.
Bob
More like a big snow job than a selling job. When someone starts talking to you about branding, squeeze your wallet in your hand because it is in imminent danger of being emptied.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Sunday, 20th September, 2009, 07:25 PM.
1. I take it that you see no reason that CFC cannot continue on with the existing website.
2. You mention ASP support - I do not understand this technical issue. But Stijn de Kerpel, CFC V-P has posted:
"Another problem is as Chris has stated is that it requires ASP support - which is (from what I understand) something very few providers provide support to anymore - which makes it all the more difficult when we ask someone to find the problem and solve it, or even to do some enhancements."
Has he got a critical concern here, that means we should move to a new website?
3. What do you see as the most difficult aspects of continuing on with the existing website?
I think it is that those wanting the change have not shown decisive reasons why we cannot continue with the existing site .
And further, we are talking about spending about $ 10.,000 of CFC's hard-earned surplus here - so those happy with the current site and services from it have to be convinced that spending the money is necessary, not just a " nice " thing to do to make CFC more up-to-date.
I have nothing wrong with the format of the site - it's the content and the implementation that I have a problem with. I realise that the implementation is not something the average person sees, but that doesn't mean it isn't important.
I think it is that those wanting the change have not shown decisive reasons why we cannot continue with the existing site .
And further, we are talking about spending about $ 10.,000 of CFC's hard-earned surplus here - so those happy with the current site and services from it have to be convinced that spending the money is necessary, not just a " nice " thing to do to make CFC more up-to-date.
Bob
Bob, I think the $ 10,000. figure is not being taken seriously by those "in the know". When you divide it by the roughly 1,800 PAYING members it works out to around $5.50 each. It's not only the money but how much per member.
From an organizational point of view, how many new members would a new web site generate? Would it result in a 50% increase? Maybe 25%?
When I used to do chess organizing, I had to convice myself a change would result in an increase in membership as well as maintaining most of the current members.
What's the downside if things don't work out as hoped? Could a new site take up more time on updating than the current one and result in higher labour costs? In what way would a new site pay for itself?
Re: A New CFC Website?? Security Weakness Is Critical
Hi Carl:
Here is another opinion against yours - CFC member and IT specialist Steve Karpik feels that a new website is necessary. He states:
" I believe there are compelling reasons to rebuild the web site. First and foremost is security. We’ve already seen the CFC web site compromised at least once. Beyond the fact that this is embarrassing to the organization, security breaches like these pose a risk to CFC members visiting the website. Potentially your computer could become a zombie in a large attack net or personal information like credit card numbers etc. could be harvested by criminals. Second is the work required to maintain the web site. Newer approaches to web site construction make it easier for the day-to-day maintainers of the web site. In the first generation of the web, web editors had to be technically savvy knowing basic web coding syntax. As the technology has evolved, less and less technical knowledge is required of web site maintainers and more focus can be put on content. Thirdly, a redevelopment of the web site affords an opportunity to rethink what the communication objectives of the web are.
Of the three points I raise above, the most important one is that of security. In my work managing the development and maintenance of million dollar web site projects, I have experienced situation in my work not unlike that which the CFC faces. Management cannot necessarily see how a rewrite of the web site code is worthwhile. Customers aren’t clamoring for it. Tweaks can be done to the appearance and content to keep the web site functioning. But then everything comes to a crashing halt when hackers compromise the web site. Sometimes the consequence is just embarrassment, sometimes it does serious harm to the business running the website because of organization losing credibility with its customers especially if they web site visitors have their information stolen by hackers. "
Any comments ( or has anyone else got a view on Steve's analysis )?
Bob, thanks for asking. I do have a lot to say on the matter, but since I am not technically proficient in computer stuff, I will defer to Vincent Chow on many questions. I will ask Vince for his thoughts and report back. In the meantime......
I asked Vince for his thoughts on the matter, and received the following:
Hi Bob,
I didn't read all the messages on chesstalk.
At this point there is no way to please everyone.
It is important to separate 2 issues; the google listing and the new website. Getting a new website doesn't remove the warning from google. You need to get a new domain name or contact google and have them remove it. A new website may be an improvement, but is it necessary?
All that stuff about the errors in the code is true, but doesn't mean anything. It was written by MS Frontpage years ago and is not well-formed XML. e.g. <b><i>bold</b></i> is wrong, <b><i>bold</i></b> is the correct way. If the page looks right there is no need to change it.
Adding CSS is more modern and is what Joomla uses. I would caution against too much CSS because it is not standardized so IE and Firefox and the Mac browser all see CSS differently and sometimes odd pages are formed.
I don't think people understand what they had with the joomla webzine! (BTW GoDaddy.com offers 2 Content Management Systems - Joomla and DotNetNuke). I created the skin on it, but you can change the skin to any look that you like. The menus can be anywhere, the layout and graphics can be anything etc. The most difficult part are the ratings and crosstables pages and the database. They are already done and it is much better than the legacy one.
My suggestion is to get a specs (requirements) sheet. Adapt the webzine. Get a free skin or make a custom one. The legacy site should remove the interactive pages which are the main targets of attack. Or just monitor them. Depending on the requirements this should be about $500-$1000 as a guess. Wait to see if Google removes the warning. If not get a new domain name and move the website to the new domain. Another couple of hundred bucks.
Finally, if writing a new site. It depends on the requirements. How many static pages and how many interactive pages. How to link to the CFC program or write a new CFC program? $5000-$10000 isn't a bad estimate (the internal CFC program not included).
Vincent.
I asked Vince for his thoughts on the matter, and received the following:
...
The most silly thing in this writing is that we wasted one year and some amount to not implement all this nice thoughts.
Last year motions:
"Be it resolved that the President be authorized to explore and negotiate options towards rating system upgrades to a maximum cost of $ 15,000 subject to Executive approval."
"Be it resolved that the President be authorized to enter into negotiations towards an online magazine subject to Executive approval."
P.S. You don't want to go with godaddy. Insanely slow, terrible customer service, and they actually block some scripts from running if they think they'll use up too many resources.
Tweet
Comment