EBU P2P software

[NickRW]

Has anyone here tried uploading some P2P data to the EBU site? I think it is extremely flaky with only 2 weeks before the go live date:

 

1) One of our members has a double barrelled surname. We know him by only the second surname, but the EBU has his full official surname. Despite the fact that we have his correct EBU number, the software rejects data for him. Admitedly I can change his name in our database - frankly I don't want to - and nor does the member concerned ever use his full name at the club.

 

1a) When you get such a reject you can manually make the match that the software could and should have done anyway = however, sometimes, when there is a reject, it stops processing the other names (or at least that is the appearance in my browser) - so even if I do make the match manually, I still cannot complete the upload

 

1b) Sometimes the software rejects this name and says so, asking me to click on the red X by the name in order to make a match manually - excpet that it doesn't give the red X to click on.

 

2) Non members for whom we have no EBU number and cannot find one in the EBU database are rejected (correctly enough). When I go to process these as a "Non member" the software asks for an address and postcode etc. I simply don't have this imformation for non members, cannot find it at midnight and, in some cases will never be able to get it as we never see the person again.

 

This comes on the back of the EBU asking for our member list - which we sent in January. It took until early this month for the EBU to even reply to this and begin working on sorting out the missing/incorrect addresses/EBU numbers. This has now been sorted, but the unnecessary delay there makes me wonder if these other matters that have come to light will be attended to any quicker - especially as I have raised the points above 2 days ago and not received any reply.

 

Has anyone else trialed this software? What are your thoughts?

 

Nick

[Vampyr]

I haven't tried the software, but I would just like to note what a well-spent £700,000 this project is.

[blackshoe]

I haven't tried the software, but I would just like to note what a well-spent £700,000 this project is.

Sounds like a government project. :)

[NickRW]

Ah, sarcasm.

 

I don't really care how much the EBU has spent on it - or the degree of similarity between this and government projects. What I care about is the fact that I have to upload this data at midnight+ and simply cannot do it with things the way they are.

[gnasher]

I haven't tried the software, but I would just like to note what a well-spent £700,000 this project is.

Sounds like a government project. :)

You must live in a very well-governed country.

[Blue Uriah]

Has anyone here tried uploading some P2P data to the EBU site?

Yes. Almost 250 clubs now have access and we have received over 200 test submissions. There are bound to be a few issues with a project this size but most people seem to be happy.

 

I think it is extremely flaky with only 2 weeks before the go live date:

 

1) One of our members has a double barrelled surname.  We know him by only the second surname, but the EBU has his full official surname.  Despite the fact that we have his correct EBU number, the software rejects data for him.  Admitedly I can change his name in our database - frankly I don't want to - and nor does the member concerned ever use his full name at the club.

So what you're saying is the name you tell us doesn't match the name we have on record. Obviously we won't accept this. Why would this surprise you? We don't want people being credited with points and so on that they didn't earn.

 

1a) When you get such a reject you can manually make the match that the software could and should have done anyway = however, sometimes, when there is a reject, it stops processing the other names (or at least that is the appearance in my browser) - so even if I do make the match manually, I still cannot complete the upload

 

1b) Sometimes the software rejects this name and says so, asking me to click on the red X by the name in order to make a match manually - excpet that it doesn't give the red X to click on.

This sounds like it may be a bug. It's not one I can replicate or anybody else has mentioned but these things happen. I have emailed you separately for more information.

 

2) Non members for whom we have no EBU number and cannot find one in the EBU database are rejected (correctly enough).  When I go to process these as a "Non member" the software asks for an address and postcode etc.  I simply don't have this imformation for non members, cannot find it at midnight and, in some cases will never be able to get it as we never see the person again.

This is just a case of you not understanding the options - you don't have to put in all the details for a guest at your club. An updated 'help' section should come online soon and you may wish to look at that so you can see how it all works.

 

This comes on the back of the EBU asking for our member list - which we sent in January.  It took until early this month for the EBU to even reply to this and begin working on sorting out the missing/incorrect addresses/EBU numbers.

Actually, we replied to your first submission on January 15th. It then took you over three weeks to resubmit, by which time we had several hundred other clubs to deal with. I'm sorry if there was a delay but it was only fair to deal with submissions on a first-come first-served basis and you were at the back of the queue.

 

This has now been sorted, but the unnecessary delay there makes me wonder if these other matters that have come to light will be attended to any quicker - especially as I have raised the points above 2 days ago and not received any reply.

Two whole days?

 

 

I haven't tried the software, but I would just like to note what a well-spent £700,000 this project is.

Thanks so much for the note, Stefanie. We think so too and appreciate the compliment.

 

Cheers,

Michael

[jeremy69]

I haven't tried the software, but I would just like to note what a well-spent £700,000 this project is.

 

I assume you mean the whole project not just the software but I would be keen to know how you arrive at this figure(or one even remotely near it). Do provide your data for this astonishing estimate.

[NickRW]

Has anyone here tried uploading some P2P data to the EBU site?

 

Yes. Almost 250 clubs now have access and we have received over 200 test submissions. There are bound to be a few issues with a project this size but most people seem to be happy.

 

Well, I am not happy with it and I am the unpaid muggins that has to use this software in the middle of the night when I should be in bed and going to work the next day.

 

Furthermore I am utterly unimpressed by the number of clubs you have processed so far or how many are still in your backlog. I was not the one dragging my feet here - the EBU is wholly responsible for its own situation.

 

 

I think it is extremely flaky with only 2 weeks before the go live date:

 

1) One of our members has a double barrelled surname.  We know him by only the second surname, but the EBU has his full official surname.  Despite the fact that we have his correct EBU number, the software rejects data for him.  Admitedly I can change his name in our database - frankly I don't want to - and nor does the member concerned ever use his full name at the club.

 

So what you're saying is the name you tell us doesn't match the name we have on record. Obviously we won't accept this. Why would this surprise you? We don't want people being credited with points and so on that they didn't earn.

 

I find your attitude here arrogant. The person concerned has his correct name, as used in our club correctly recorded together with his correct EBU number in my database. It is your records and software that are the problem.

 

When you say "Obviously we won't accept this" - obviously you WILL accept this - because you are wrong.

 

 

 

1a) When you get such a reject you can manually make the match that the software could and should have done anyway = however, sometimes, when there is a reject, it stops processing the other names (or at least that is the appearance in my browser) - so even if I do make the match manually, I still cannot complete the upload

 

1b) Sometimes the software rejects this name and says so, asking me to click on the red X by the name in order to make a match manually - excpet that it doesn't give the red X to click on.

This sounds like it may be a bug. It's not one I can replicate or anybody else has mentioned but these things happen. I have emailed you separately for more information.

 

As emailed to you, I am unable to reproduce this bug at this time - I have however, found another one and you have been sent the files for that.

 

 

2) Non members for whom we have no EBU number and cannot find one in the EBU database are rejected (correctly enough).  When I go to process these as a "Non member" the software asks for an address and postcode etc.  I simply don't have this imformation for non members, cannot find it at midnight and, in some cases will never be able to get it as we never see the person again.

 

This is just a case of you not understanding the options - you don't have to put in all the details for a guest at your club. An updated 'help' section should come online soon and you may wish to look at that so you can see how it all works.

 

So it is my problem that I don't understand all the options in software for which nobody has had the decency to train me on - and for which you have next to no help text less than two weeks before live date?

 

I might point out that I have to train 3 other scorers, less computer literate than I am - and I have about bleeping well 10 days to do this now - and you're saying better help text should come online soon. Lord help us.

 

 

This comes on the back of the EBU asking for our member list - which we sent in January.  It took until early this month for the EBU to even reply to this and begin working on sorting out the missing/incorrect addresses/EBU numbers.

 

Actually, we replied to your first submission on January 15th. It then took you over three weeks to resubmit, by which time we had several hundred other clubs to deal with. I'm sorry if there was a delay but it was only fair to deal with submissions on a first-come first-served basis and you were at the back of the queue.

 

No - you're now just simply lying. I actually sent the first submission at the end of Decmeber - even before you wanted them. I got no reply at all to that one - not even an automated reply. So I resent the details on the 4th of Jan - I think I eventually got something that looked like an automated response - but no actual evidence that the file had been looked at all.

 

I then, at least twice, sent updates to our details as more members came on baord. At least one of these was not so much as acknowledged.

 

The first time I got a sensible reply was early in this month. Your assertion that you were waiting as of the 15th Jan is a complete and utter fabrication. The fact is you made me wait over 2 months because of problems and/or incompetence and/or laziness and/or adminstrative overwhelm or whatever at your end. Be a flaming man about this and admit it instead of blaming me for your problems.

 

 

 

This has now been sorted, but the unnecessary delay there makes me wonder if these other matters that have come to light will be attended to any quicker - especially as I have raised the points above 2 days ago and not received any reply.

Two whole days?

 

Yes 2 days - comiong after 2 months of delays entirely due to your problems - and as I write now it still isn't right and I have 10 days to train 3 other scorers. How dare you make flippant, sarcastic remarks like "Two whole days". I might point out that the chairman of my club is 100% aware of the matters here and our continued participation in P2P is by no means something you should take for granted.

 

Regards

 

Nick Warren.

[jeremy69]

Quite strange to write as rude an email as the one above and end it with "regards".

I know nothing about your specific case but the bit about visitors and the amount of detail needed has been on the website sinece April 2009 saying that if you collect some detail then if they later join they wil get master points, player sessions etc credited and if you don't they won't.

If there is a clash of names as between double barrelled and not can't this be resolved easily if the player does not want the longer version used by him requesting this from the EBU. After all they didn't invent the name in the first place they were given it.

It seems ot me that you are looking for problems and coupling them with dark threats about not continuing P2P for your club before the scheme has even started.

[gnasher]

This is just a case of you not understanding the options - you don't have to put in all the details for a guest at your club. An updated 'help' section should come online soon and you may wish to look at that so you can see how it all works.

I don't know the details of the specific case, and I've never even seen the software, but I must say that the above appears to attribute blame unfairly. If the documentation is inadequate, you can't expect the users to understand what they're supposed to do.

[Blue Uriah]

This is just a case of you not understanding the options - you don't have to put in all the details for a guest at your club. An updated 'help' section should come online soon and you may wish to look at that so you can see how it all works.

I don't know the details of the specific case, and I've never even seen the software, but I must say that the above appears to attribute blame unfairly. If the documentation is inadequate, you can't expect the users to understand what they're supposed to do.

I wasn't blaming him, just saying that there wasn't anything wrong with the system or policy as he implied - rather he simply wasn't doing it right.

 

If our members can't use our software then that's certainly our fault entirely and as I said before we're putting some better help resources into place to hopefully fix that.

 

Cheers,

Michael, an arrogant lying incompetent lazy girl

[NickRW]

Quite strange to write as rude an email as the one above and end it with "regards".

It isn't strange to use sarcasm at all on someone who used it on me especially when that person is calling me a liar when it is his organisation misrepresenting the truth.

 

I suggest you but out.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

This is just a case of you not understanding the options - you don't have to put in all the details for a guest at your club. An updated 'help' section should come online soon and you may wish to look at that so you can see how it all works.

I don't know the details of the specific case, and I've never even seen the software, but I must say that the above appears to attribute blame unfairly. If the documentation is inadequate, you can't expect the users to understand what they're supposed to do.

I wasn't blaming him, just saying that there wasn't anything wrong with the system or policy as he implied - rather he simply wasn't doing it right.

 

If our members can't use our software then that's certainly our fault entirely and as I said before we're putting some better help resources into place to hopefully fix that.

 

Cheers,

Michael, an arrogant lying incompetent lazy girl

I see you're still being flippant and have not had the decency to publicly apologise for lying that I kept you waiting when the boot was on the other foot.

 

Nick

[jeremy69]

I suggest you but out.

 

At least you didn't end this one "Regards" Are you sure you want a solution to any problems or is it more satisfying to hurl around some insults and call people liars?

[NickRW]

I suggest you but out.

 

At least you didn't end this one "Regards" Are you sure you want a solution to any problems or is it more satisfying to hurl around some insults and call people liars?

I wasn't the one who started it. If you recall I said that I had been kept waiting 2 months - then someone from the EBU said that in fact they had been waiting for me - when this is an outright lie.

 

You should note that we were not asked whether we thought P2P is a good idea or whether we actually wanted it - in fact the majority opinion at our club seemed to be that it was and is a bad idea. What we were actually given as choice about, however, effectively amounted to, "the EBU is doing P2P whether you like it or not - are you joining us or do you want to clear off". Put like that a majority, in many cases reluctantly, decided to vote in favour - including me. However, it is up for review at the next AGM.

 

Worse, the EBU seemed to be self congratulating themselves about how much consultation they had done. Utter rubbish. Clubs had been surveyed - some did not reply - some did not actually talk to their members very much - even if they did do so, details of what was involved were scant at the tmie of the consultation and the opportunity for contrary views had to find independent means of being aired. And in the end EBU members did not have a vote, much less the non EBU members whose pockets were being raided and forced to come on board whether they wanted it or not. Nor did even the clubs have a vote - instead it was decided by a hardly overwhelming majority of the inner core.

 

So, if you detect an air of bad feeling about this then you know where it is coming from. I don't like it, I don't like the way it has been done and I certainly will not stand for being called a liar by representatives of the organisation that have presided over this situation.

 

In the meantime - do I want it fixed? It is not up to me to want it fixed or not - the core of my specific problems with it seem to have been handled - and as a representative of a club that voted in favour of joining the de facto scheme I will do my best to make it work - subject to the fact that, as I said, the whole thing is under review (and was anyway even before this blew up). In the end our final decision whether to stay or go will almost certainly turn on other matters than this.

 

Nick

[Cyberyeti]

As a member of a club that has effectively ceased to exist in the EBU's mind due to P2P, and from a county where almost nobody wanted it, the consultation was a joke.

 

Various people are now scrabbling around trying to find a club that will have them, that they don't really want to join, but have to for the privilege of playing in various competitions as non affiliated clubs can't even hold heats of county competitions.

 

This has been a complete fiasco, and I can't see any upside for the general member whatsoever.

[WellSpyder]

Nick

 

I can understand the frustrations of trying to make this all work from the perspective of a club that was happy with the old way of doing things - particularly since as you suggest this will mostly fall to volunteers who would rather go to bed after a bridge session than spend time fighting with on-line systems. But to a third party reading this exchange it does rather read as if you have set up a straw man to shoot down. For instance, I haven't seen anywhere the suggestion from the EBU that they were waiting for you for two months - just a comment that they did reply to the earlier submission of details, and that when you re-submitted there were at that time a lot of other clubs' details to deal with. That sounds to me like an acknowledgment that at that stage, at least, there was a delay at the EBU end, albeit an understandable one and one that doesn't sound as if it was as long as you are suggesting.

 

I also think you are being a bit hard on the EBU about the consultation that took place, since it is hard to know what else they could have done. Clubs were certainly consulted, and individuals were able to input their views via their clubs or their county associations (who finally voted on the scheme). I don't think you can really blame the EBU for how or whether clubs consulted their own membership.

 

DISCLAIMER: I should point out that I am not particularly in favour with what the EBU are doing here - I have been dismayed to find that their approach to club affiliation is threatening the whole existence of my club, for instance. But I do accept that P2P is happening and we all have to live with it, and given that, I am in favour of trying to make sure it is as much of a success as it can be.

[WellSpyder]

As a member of a club that has effectively ceased to exist in the EBU's mind due to P2P,

Another one! As someone in the same boat, I was going to say "join the club", but realised this could be confusing in this context...

 

Various people are now scrabbling around trying to find a club that will have them, that they don't really want to join,

Yes, I think this is a very unfortunate effect of what the EBU is doing. By effectively banning some clubs, and creating a situation where others do not want to affiliate, they are leaving a lot of would-be members out in the cold - not to mention those who were previously members of a county and the EBU but not of a club. (Although this is still an option, the focus on clubs rather than counties as the main unit making up the EBU means that it requires making special arrangements at additional financial cost.) I do wonder whether a number of current members who do not play much club bridge will actually cease to be members of the EBU next season almost by accident.

[TMorris]

My understanding was that you could still become (not sure but assume also "remain") a direct member of the EBU if your club was not affiliated. I guess the EBU would not have this as a preferred option but still.

[Cyberyeti]

My understanding was that you could still become (not sure but assume also "remain") a direct member of the EBU if your club was not affiliated.  I guess the EBU would not have this as a preferred option but still.

You can, but that doesn't necessarily allow you to play in county competitions with qualifiers in clubs.

[jeremy69]

You can, but that doesn't necessarily allow you to play in county competitions with qualifiers in clubs.

 

You can join directly and then join a county also directly. This would give you the right to play in their competitions including qualifying heats in clubs. You would not, however, be allowed to play in events which demanded club membership such as the NICKO or Garden Cities Trophy unless you were also a member of that affiliated club.

[jeremy69]

the EBU seemed to be self congratulating themselves about how much consultation they had done. Utter rubbish.

 

Well shareholders were asked and had to vote in favour before it could go ahead. Prior to this counties were asked, clubs were asked. Yes it is true that there was not a 100% reply rate. There never is. Is everyone happy? No, of course some will disagree with any new idea good or bad.

The constitution of the EBU since it was founded is not a direct one man, one vote system but rather uses counties as the vocie of the members. Perfect? Certainly not and a model that can be varied. In my view one man, one vote would be expensive and not especially productive but there may be a case for giving clubs a greater say.If you opposed the idea or felt the amount of detail was inadequate then you had the option of

a. asking your county to find out more

b. asking your county to resolve to vote against the idea (I don't think they did)

c. getting your club to lobby the county and then the EBU to provide more information.

 

There was a vehicle for airing your views. It just did not seem to be the one you thought it ought to be.

 

So given the core of your problems have been resolved please PM me if there are others on which you think progress can be made or ought to be made.

[Cyberyeti]

the EBU seemed to be self congratulating themselves about how much consultation they had done. Utter rubbish.

 

Well shareholders were asked and had to vote in favour before it could go ahead. Prior to this counties were asked, clubs were asked. Yes it is true that there was not a 100% reply rate. There never is. Is everyone happy? No, of course some will disagree with any new idea good or bad.

The constitution of the EBU since it was founded is not a direct one man, one vote system but rather uses counties as the vocie of the members. Perfect? Certainly not and a model that can be varied. In my view one man, one vote would be expensive and not especially productive but there may be a case for giving clubs a greater say.If you opposed the idea or felt the amount of detail was inadequate then you had the option of

a. asking your county to find out more

b. asking your county to resolve to vote against the idea (I don't think they did)

c. getting your club to lobby the county and then the EBU to provide more information.

 

There was a vehicle for airing your views. It just did not seem to be the one you thought it ought to be.

 

So given the core of your problems have been resolved please PM me if there are others on which you think progress can be made or ought to be made.

Fine, what can we do, most of our county's clubs voted against, our county reps voted against.

 

For a small club that plays when we have 8 and doesn't when we don't, but has been to the national final of the garden cities several times, and is organised to have zero maintenance, P2P has killed us off. It offers us nothing but trouble.

[jeremy69]

most of our county's clubs voted against

 

Doesn't your county have 29 clubs of whom at least 19 thus far have voted to affiliate next season? There are something like 85 county shareholders and a majority of them had to vote in favour before the scheme went ahead. I understand that your club doesn't feel best served but

a. there are ways to cope with it

and

b. I think you are slanting the facts to suit your argument

 

In many counties having one club which often wins, for example, county teams of eight qualifiers but doesn't often meet for real is perceived by others in the county to be a bit of a fix. My county had such a club about 15 years ago. It was very successful and played by the rules of the time but bred quite a lot of local resentment. The club I currently play for has been in the last 4 finals and won once, twice second and once third but is not affiliating. If I want to play I'll play for another affiliated club of which I am a member.

[Cyberyeti]

most of our county's clubs voted against

 

Doesn't your county have 29 clubs of whom at least 19 thus far have voted to affiliate next season? There are something like 85 county shareholders and a majority of them had to vote in favour before the scheme went ahead. I understand that your club doesn't feel best served but

a. there are ways to cope with it

and

b. I think you are slanting the facts to suit your argument

 

In many counties having one club which often wins, for example, county teams of eight qualifiers but doesn't often meet for real is perceived by others in the county to be a bit of a fix. My county had such a club about 15 years ago. It was very successful and played by the rules of the time but bred quite a lot of local resentment. The club I currently play for has been in the last 4 finals and won once, twice second and once third but is not affiliating. If I want to play I'll play for another affiliated club of which I am a member.

No, it just so happens that in our case we used to have 3-4 tables, but many of our players have moved out of the area as a couple of large employers have shifted some of their business elsewhere, and others have shifted jobs, but remain members. I certainly have not been a member of any other club for many years till I had to join one recently and very very rarely played at any other club. This is true of a majority of the regulars.

 

We are and have always been a genuine club, we have 9 regular players (one of whom won't make the longish drive to the club in the winter) and sometimes 8 are available, sometimes they aren't.

 

As I understand what was published in the county newsletter (which I think I've now thrown away), our county voted against, and the vast majority of clubs were against the scheme, but many affiliated as they felt they had no choice.

 

Having to play for another club (and potentially displace people who've been playing in the garden cities for that club for years) is worse than the alternative you describe anyway.