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.
Some say it is old, dated and hard to maintain and upgrade due to lack of documentation.
Others say is has functioned fine for years and provides all the basic member services and so the CFC should not spend part of this year's surplus on a new website.
I voted "no" because to me, the CFC site, when up and running, has all I am looking for:
- ratings and crosstables
- news and upcoming events
- CFC Forum
- occasionally flip through CFC Handbook
And to me it seems like a waste to get a new site. Waste of time, money, energy.
What do you have to say then to Ed Seedhouse, who recently posted:
" A quick glance at the code shows an ancient table based layout with no document type declaration, no significant use of CSS, and over a hundred html syntax errors. A site straight out of the 1990's in other words.
No attempt should be made to fix this mess. It needs to be torn down and started over from scratch. "
What do you have to say then to Ed Seedhouse, who recently posted:
" A quick glance at the code shows an ancient table based layout with no document type declaration, no significant use of CSS, and over a hundred html syntax errors. A site straight out of the 1990's in other words.
No attempt should be made to fix this mess. It needs to be torn down and started over from scratch. "
I guess we can tell how he is voting.
Bob
You didn't say how much you were wanting to spend for the site. To have it built in Canada would likely be more expensive than having it "outsourced". You have to give an idea of the amount you want to spend and exactly what the end result should contain so people know what they are voting to approve.
It's true that cost could be a factor. But I don't think the CFC will get it for free - in that case everyone would likely be quite happy to go with it.
Kevin Spraggett has suggested it will cost $ 20,000, but President Eric has said of that that he is just pulling numbers out of the air. In another post, Chris Mallon has said he would do it for $ 10,000 ( correct me if I'm wrong on that figure Chris - I can't remember exactly where you made that offer ). So for the moment, I guess the best information we have is that it will be around $ 10,000.
I would note that the Lavin budget line for the defunct webzine and new website, if necessary, was $ 20,000. However, at the AGM, the governors indicated they wanted $ 10,000 of that hived off for a new " National Championships Bid Development Fund ". So the $ 10,000 left has to cover the new website, ongoing maintenance of the site for the year, and the new CFC E-newsletter. These are the numbers I'm using at the moment, subject to executive correction ( who are now working on a revised Van Dusen budget ).
Finally, I'd note that the President has already invited interested parties to submit bids ( though it is my view that they are not in position yet to enter into any contract for a new website ).
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 20th September, 2009, 01:19 AM.
What do you have to say then to Ed Seedhouse, who recently posted:
Well, it's just my opinion, not the voice of God or anything. I spent a decade or so doing web work for the Greater Victoria Public Library, from which I retired in April. Library sites are mostly awful and GVPL's is not an exception. My defence is that I had little to do with it directly, my web work being mostly for internal consumption behind the corporate firewall.
I think the current CFC site should either stay the same or be rebuilt from scratch. Partial fixes will do more harm than good. But first the CFC should decide on what it wants from it's web page and what it can and should do for it's members.
Better, IMHO, to leave it as it is than to "fix it up" without a major rethink of the whole idea of what a CFC website should be doing for the CFC and it's members.
Kevin Spraggett has suggested it will cost $ 20,000, but President Eric has said of that that he is just pulling numbers out of the air. In another post, Chris Mallon has said he would do it for $ 10,000 ( correct me if I'm wrong on that figure Chris - I can't remember exactly where you made that offer ). So for the moment, I guess the best information we have is that it will be around $ 10,000.
Kevin would pay that much to have a web site built in Portugal? Are you sure you understood him properly?
I wouldn't think it would matter which country the web site was built in, if it was built to specifications. You have to know exactly what you want and have someone put together the pieces. More and more companies are doing this with IT.
Even if you have the work done in Canada, you have to know how many hours it should take to put together what you want and then decide how much an hour you want to pay. If you figure IT guys in Canada are making 80K a year, if they can get it, then at 20K you're saying it will take 3 months of dedicated, full employment, by an IT professional to build a web site.
A fast google brought up this in B.C. I had never heard of them but suppose you can have a look around the site and at the rates. A case of looking around and getting prices from different suppliers.
My offer was only semi-serious. We don't really have time to do it so we'd overcharge for the work to make it worthwhile. It was just to make the point that $20k is vastly too high for what is needed.
I think you could get it done for less. If you were willing to keep the same basic "look" as the old site (ie not much need for new graphics) then perhaps MUCH less.
Some say it is old, dated and hard to maintain and upgrade due to lack of documentation.
Others say is has functioned fine for years and provides all the basic member services and so the CFC should not spend part of this year's surplus on a new website.
What do you think? Answer the poll.
Bob
I have a strong experience in websites. In my opinion the website is ok. Nice looking. We can get the information. For a chess federation this is ok for the next 10 years.
The code is not perfect? So what. It will not break like a car. If it works then it is like 75% of the websites and computer systems, ugly when we look at the code but ok on our screens. In the large companies and the Canadian banks you can not imagine how the code is very very ugly and old (90% from the '70 and '80) but work well and they keep it.
Lets keep the money for new projects, new web pages, etc.
What do you have to say then to Ed Seedhouse, who recently posted:
" A quick glance at the code shows an ancient table based layout with no document type declaration, no significant use of CSS, and over a hundred html syntax errors. A site straight out of the 1990's in other words.
No attempt should be made to fix this mess. It needs to be torn down and started over from scratch. "
I guess we can tell how he is voting.
Bob
Hi Bob,
I don't deny that Ed has his points regarding errors, code is ancient and that it may be worth more to rebuild from scratch than to attempt to fix it. However to me, the website has served its purpose. The only nuisance I've come across is trying to look up ratings and getting these errors, presumably due to high traffic, which probably has to due with all the coding, resources, etc...
Still, I'd rather have a site straight from the 90s with its errors, than to see CFC spend $ on a new website / fixing the old one. Too much money? Lower the tournament memberships back to $10. $20 is killing it for first timers / one timers. I see it at University.
I'd personally rather see them lower the regular membership rate. Be nice to the people who constantly support the CFC rather than the people who occasionally do!
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.
There is no common way to navigate the site (the menu bar does not appear on every page).
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.
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!
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 );
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
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 20th September, 2009, 09:32 AM.
A differing opinion is given by Chris Mallon on CFC Chess Forum where he was talking about the site deficiencies:
<snip>
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!
Bob
This comment about the site not looking professional is, IMHO, like so many other things: very much in the eye of the beholder. I have very little problem with the appearance of the site.
Tweet
Comment