New website

[Andrew McHarg]

That's irresponsible. An old system should always be backed up. I can't see the new system ever being as good as the old one. This is a CS loss.

Andrew

As usual, you make sweeping comments without qualifying anything you write. Only once do I recall you actually being specific about something on the new website (the history archives) which was quickly fixed. Since then nothing contructive has come from you whatsoever, despite myself (and others) answering many of the concerns people have had as best we can. And, as I've alluded to before, it's actually a fact that none of the features that existed on the old website have been removed from the new website, as you seem to be suggesting. You also fail to see the big picture (which I have also written about in the past) that the changes to the website have not only been for the benefit of front-end users, but mainly - in fact - for the benefit of people who give up a hell of a lot of their own time to keep Chess Scotland running for little or no remuneration. Many of the backend facilities (that you cannot see) now exist to allow us to distribute the significant load of maintaining the website and keeping the content good and relevant across a wider array of people, as well as creating a system so that when some of our current contributors step aside (as is inevitable) it's much easier to pass the job onto someone else (i.e. they don't need programming experience or a crash-course in web design).

Obviously I appreciate that not everyone is going to like the new website and there will be differences of opinion regarding the way that things look etc. But, we are listening to the feedback, as I can demonstrate with a few of the changes we have made since the website was launched:

1) The Google ReCaptcha has been removed from the login box of the website as the feedback we received was that it's a little OTT. I agreed, and we removed it.

2) The results page had a long list of results (unlike the old file structure) and it was difficult to find the ones people were looking for. I agreed, and we have introduced a tree menu file structure into it to make it easier to find results.

3) The website has had some problems working on Samsung Galaxy phones due to a technical issue. I have spoken to those who have experienced this problem and a fix has been identified and will be implemented shortly.

4) George suggested the website had a lot of white space, that the font appeared large and there was too much space between rows of text. Others have suggested that the font is slightly too light. I've written this feedback down and our plan is to review it and make some subtle changes to the font.

5) Another of George's pieces of feedback suggested that scrolling down to find what he wants was a more obvious requirement on the new website than it seemed to be on the old and asked if we could budge everything up a bit. I don't really agree that this is an issue, but I accept it's a subjective thing. Unfortunately we are limited in this regard as it would be difficult to rearrange everything to make it look more squashed. But I did move the Upcoming Events module up on the left-hand column so that it's easier to access without scrolling particularly far down.

There are other things, but I'm not going to list them all. The point I'm making is that we are listening to feedback and taking action where we agree with the feedback to make the website better for the users. And we will - of course - continue to do this.

Now for some more facts. The website took approximately four months to create, from start to launch. This included my time and the time of another programmer. Obviously we weren't working on it full time; we have other jobs as well. Months since launch have now past with no serious technical malfunctions or performance issues. As you should be able to imagine, the process of undoing all of this just to revert to the old website would be extensive, time consuming, and - despite what you may think - a technological leap backward. And, short of the new website having a complete meltdown, it's not something that I would personally consider doing. So your suggestion that someone seconds your motion to take this step is remarkably asinine. As Andy said - this simply won't happen.

So, perhaps instead of your continued negative comments you could instead write some constructive feedback that perhaps we can do something about?

[mclarke]

Hi Andrew, on the grading results, it used to tell you the age of the juniors (J11, J12 etc). Would it be possible to add that back in as its quite useful.
Thanks,
Martin

[JMcNicoll]

Hi Andrew, on the grading results, it used to tell you the age of the juniors (J11, J12 etc). Would it be possible to add that back in as its quite useful.
Thanks,
Martin

I don't know which grading results you are looking at but they still do on this years, also that is a function more of the grading program rather than the website, as far as I am aware.

[amuir]

Andrew

If you compare the front pages of
new style : https://www.chessscotland.com
old style : https://www.chessscotland.com/documents/...itions.htm

old style
1. has nice pictures of GMs
2. no large grey box : you are currently logged in as xxxxx , Logout, update details, my games, my stats
3. nice compact bullet points with over 20 items on screen , better blue (new style has only 8 items on screen, weaker blue)

If these 3 items were fixed this would please me.

[mclarke]

Hi Andrew, on the grading results, it used to tell you the age of the juniors (J11, J12 etc). Would it be possible to add that back in as its quite useful.
Thanks,
Martin

I don't know which grading results you are looking at but they still do on this years, also that is a function more of the grading program rather than the website, as far as I am aware.

Hi John,
Sorry, wasn't particularly clear! I'm meaning when you do search players under grading. The search results show Nat rank, Club, Forename, Surname etc. It used to also include their age too. I was hoping we could add the age back in.
Hope that makes sense,
Martin

[Andrew McHarg]

Hi Andrew, on the grading results, it used to tell you the age of the juniors (J11, J12 etc). Would it be possible to add that back in as its quite useful.
Thanks,
Martin

I don't know which grading results you are looking at but they still do on this years, also that is a function more of the grading program rather than the website, as far as I am aware.

Hi John,
Sorry, wasn't particularly clear! I'm meaning when you do search players under grading. The search results show Nat rank, Club, Forename, Surname etc. It used to also include their age too. I was hoping we could add the age back in.
Hope that makes sense,
Martin

Hi Martin

If you click on the "Search" radio button then it shows the player's age status (J11, J12, etc). The default radio button is "Ranking". The old website had these the other way around (Search was default), but actually we realised most of the time when people are searching for players it was with a view to finding out their grade, rather than anything else. So ranking was more appropriate.

Hope it helps.

Let me know if you need more info.
Andrew

[Alex Gillies]

Hi Andrew, on the grading results, it used to tell you the age of the juniors (J11, J12 etc). Would it be possible to add that back in as its quite useful.
Thanks,
Martin

I don't know which grading results you are looking at but they still do on this years, also that is a function more of the grading program rather than the website, as far as I am aware.

Hi John,
Sorry, wasn't particularly clear! I'm meaning when you do search players under grading. The search results show Nat rank, Club, Forename, Surname etc. It used to also include their age too. I was hoping we could add the age back in.
Hope that makes sense,
Martin

Hi Martin

If you click on the "Search" radio button then it shows the player's age status (J11, J12, etc). The default radio button is "Ranking". The old website had these the other way around (Search was default), but actually we realised most of the time when people are searching for players it was with a view to finding out their grade, rather than anything else. So ranking was more appropriate.

Hope it helps.

Let me know if you need more info.
Andrew

I think its important to still have the grading's and number of games etc shown on same line as the name and J age - ideally on the ranking page

[WBuchanan]

The diagrams in posts with chess content don't seem to display - is this in progress
Cheers

[Ianbrownlee]

let me repeat what i've already said

I love the new website both as a moderator and as a poster. It takes a bit of getting used to, like a new car but once you are used to it, it is far better and easier to use. Technically it addresses any potential issues a modern website is expected to do and congratulations to Andrew and Andy H for getting us to this stage. We now have a sold basis to build on and im sure the tweaks which are being suggested will be acted on.

[Alan Bell]

I have rarely liked change to any website I use frequently (e.g. Chessbase) but I know from experience that I am likely to change my mind after a period of familiarisation. Chess Scotland website followed this pattern for me and I am very happy with it now, appreciating the improvements rather than focusing on the changed look.