Jump to content

Aargh!


foxtrot_xray
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Bored because I couldn't work on my program at home, I decided to go through the datasheets of all the BM's I've found so far. To see if anyone's reported finding them after my log. Several have (may times!), and maky haven't. However, I saw one that made me bang my head against the wall. Specifically, read mine (second from last) and then the last one.

 

NE0476

 

D'oh. I knew it was below, my brain got flipped when I was typing, and didn't realize it until now. That just pisses me off. :anitongue: Heck. At least I got the "about 2 feet" part right! <_<

Edited by foxtrot_xray
Link to comment

foxtrot_xray,

 

Don't sweat it. We all make mistakes. I give you high marks for being so up-front about it. I normally go back a month later to confirm that an NGS report I have filed has been posted. That's when I usually notice the error. Several times I have found a mark but failed to change the radio button widget on the recovery form, so the narrative will describe the find, but it's printed under the contradictory 'MARK NOT FOUND." Deb Brown has kindly corrected my mistakes a couple of times.

 

That said, I have to fault the NGS for useability issues with their recovery form. They encourage you to page back and make changes in the previously filled-in fields when you're filing multiple reports. But this is just an invitation to not change things that need to be changed. The personal information should remain filled in, but other fields should be cleared (if that's possible). Also, like on these forums, there should be a preview screen of your narrative, preferably in a different font, to help you catch stupid errors like the ones we all make.

 

-ArtMan-

Link to comment

That's harsh.

Bet you know how to spell infirmary, though. Maybe even knew how to spell it in 1958.

ROFL! I didn't notice that. I don't feel half as bad now! :anitongue:

 

ArtMan - True, I've often wondered why they encouraged that. But then it did occur to me - that form (and submitting recoveries in general) aren't really for the 'everyday' user, so useability and UI interface was/is probably low on the list of things to worry about when that was done. (Now, having said that, I would not mind volunteering my time to them to get a batter form put together... the only reason I'd expect them not to re-do the form would be because "people are used to how it is now, it would cause them to re-learn data entry for it" or some such stuff..)

Link to comment
ArtMan - True, I've often wondered why they encouraged that. But then it did occur to me - that form (and submitting recoveries in general) aren't really for the 'everyday' user, so useability and UI interface was/is probably low on the list of things to worry about when that was done. (Now, having said that, I would not mind volunteering my time to them to get a batter form put together... the only reason I'd expect them not to re-do the form would be because "people are used to how it is now, it would cause them to re-learn data entry for it" or some such stuff..)
Will your "batter form" be more useful to the pancake maker or the scorekeeper? ;-)

 

Seriously, government agencies aren't usually well-equipped to accept volunteer work, but it wouldn't hurt to ask ... or to submit suggestions to whatever staff person might eventually tackle the assignment.

 

Also, if users are having to get used to new datasheets, I think a new (and improved) recovery form shouldn't be that difficult.

 

-ArtMan-

Link to comment
Will your "batter form" be more useful to the pancake maker or the scorekeeper? ;-)

 

Seriously, government agencies aren't usually well-equipped to accept volunteer work, but it wouldn't hurt to ask ... or to submit suggestions to whatever staff person might eventually tackle the assignment.

 

Also, if users are having to get used to new datasheets, I think a new (and improved) recovery form shouldn't be that difficult.

 

-ArtMan-

How the form is used really depends on the person using it. :blink:

 

True, somewhere someone mentioned that they already had one. Would like to see it and start using it. ;)

Link to comment

My "work around" for the recovery form is to page back and immediately delete the remarks. Then I go to the top of the form and begin with the new PID.

 

Changing the radio button for CONDITION is a problem for all of us, I'm certain. My solution is to group my entries with the Not Found's first, followed by the Poor/Disturbed, and then those in Good Condition. I type my notes in advance and cut/paste into the Remarks section. This allows me to put a line between the different condition categories. Often, I color-code them, as well. Red is Not Found, Purple is Disturbed/Poor, and Good is plain old black.

 

By not changing the radio button as frequently, I've been able to reduce the errors considerably. Hope this technique helps someone else.

 

-Paul-

Link to comment

...

My solution is to group my entries with the Not Found's first, followed by the Poor/Disturbed, and then those in Good Condition.

...

By not changing the radio button as frequently, I've been able to reduce the errors considerably. Hope this technique helps someone else.

 

-Paul-

 

This is the protocol I have settled on (except that I usually post the 'good' entries first).

Some days there are no 'good' entries. :)

Link to comment
My solution is to group my entries with the Not Found's first, followed by the Poor/Disturbed, and then those in Good Condition. I type my notes in advance and cut/paste into the Remarks section
Paul, Good advice as usual. I have tended to enter my submissions from easiest (least complex) to hardest. Yours is obviously a better and more systematic approach. Also, by writing in an external program — presumably a spell-check equipped word processor — you can use that program's tools to help compose a better report.

 

-ArtMan-

 

(edited to fix typo)

Edited by ArtMan
Link to comment

The person who had put together the web forms died suddenly last year (was it last year?). We haven't really seen any updates since that time, and I think the forms are pretty low priority at the NGS. For one thing, it isn't really "broke" so there is no overwhelming need to fix it. That said, I totally agree with everyone here about the hazards of using that form. As Artman mentioned, Deb has saved me on a number of occasions when I submitted a mark in the wrong status. I have also submitted reports on the entirely WRONG PID, which was just plain stupidity on my part.

 

I don't think the form was designed for amateurs or professionals--I think it was just designed by a programmer as the easiest way to get a data input sheet on the web. There is nothing special about it at all--it is just fields on a web page. Chances are that when you click submit it simply emails the information to Deb, and she then copies and pastes what she needs into the "real" program that updates the datasheets. If the data isn't emailed it may get put into a file somewhere that Deb reads, parses and then inputs. I have emailed and asked her about her process so when I get a reply I will post it here.

Link to comment
Is Deb Brown still the contact for fixing a submission? (Not to fix the one above, it's too old..) But I did need one fixed due to entering in the wrong PID, and haven't gotten a reply back..

 

I have had to send in some corrections too, I don't ever remember getting an email reply, but when I next check the PID it is 'magically' corrected.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...