# Database was a bit user hostile.



## erneboy

I have edited the title as the DB is no longer quite so difficult to use.

I want to whinge.

I have just been posting a stellplatz on the campsite database and found it user hostile to coin one of my favourite americanisms.

Firstly, the box for the text is at the top of the page so I wrote all about the site. When finished I moved on down the page to find that there are a stack of tick boxes which covered most of what I had written meaning I had wasted all that effort.

Secondly I could see nowhere to put co-ordinates in, other than OS which only applies in the UK and is not used by most people anyway as lat/long works everywhere.

Having thought I was finished on page one I moved on to the next page only to get an error message saying I hadn't ticked the box about disabled toilets. I had ticked the box which said there were no toilets on the site, but that was not sufficient. OK, I clicked to go back to rectify my non error only to find that the text I had spent ages over had now disappeared. So I quickly dashed off a half assed attempt and moved on again.

On page two there was a Google map of Europe. Nowhere to put co-ordinates I so I had to search the map to find the town then the site. If I could have used co-ordinates I would have been there in a flash.

I know those of you who are experts will be familiar with the format and will not have the problems I had. However I suggest that unless people use it frequently enough to remember how it works they will always have difficulties. This could be eased by making the format logical, tick boxes first and then the text box to cover anything else and allowing input of co-ordinates on page one to find the site on the map on page two. 

As I said it is "user hostile" (Pron. hostil). I do admire those who struggle through this process to add sites. I won't be in a hurry to do it again, Alan.


----------



## DABurleigh

Yes, I've tried to make others guilty (Carol, mainly, hiya Carol!) but they come back with "Life's too short to work it out".

Dave


----------



## erneboy

That's how I feel about it Dave. I don't post everywhere I go but if I find something worth posting then I do. I had forgotten what a palaver it is. 

The last one I did was for an LPG site in the Mosel because there were none in that DB and finding LPG locally was a little tricky, of course I knew where it was so I wasn't posting it for my benefit. That was not so hard to do but having to look for the site when I had the co-ordinates was a pain in the ass.

Now the title of this post is showing "&quo" whatever that is about, Alan.


----------



## Telbell

I agree- not only is it user hostile but I don't find it very user friendly :wink:


----------



## DABurleigh

Hmmmn. You made me guilty Alan because I know of an LPG spot on the Mosel that isn't in the database. Then I couldn't figure out what to call it - it's not a Stellplatz nor any other category. But darned useful to know as they are like hen's teeth. So I searched on your entries but couldn't find one either ....

Dave


----------



## peejay

Hi Alan, thanks for the feedback, it can take a little while to enter info if you're not familiar with the process, but there is always room for improvement....

From my point of view as Campsite Database Admin footsoldier I can only answer a few of your gripes and try and make it a bit easier for you to submit a few more entries in the future, we need as many quality entries as possible - 'It will only be as good as the members make it' as they say :wink:

_"Firstly, the box for the text is at the top of the page so I wrote all about the site. When finished I moved on down the page to find that there are a stack of tick boxes which covered most of what I had written meaning I had wasted all that effort."_

The box is fairly straightforward in that its a general description of how you found the site etc as you say. The tick boxes are there for a good reason and that is so the search and filtering process works efficiently when doing a specific search for particular facilities. Perhaps a brief heading at the top of the comments box might help make this more obvious?

_"Secondly I could see nowhere to put co-ordinates in, other than OS which only applies in the UK and is not used by most people anyway as lat/long works everywhere."_

Thats because the coords are automatically submitted in the process on the second page.

_" Having thought I was finished on page one I moved on to the next page only to get an error message saying I hadn't ticked the box about disabled toilets. I had ticked the box which said there were no toilets on the site, but that was not sufficient. OK, I clicked to go back to rectify my non error only to find that the text I had spent ages over had now disappeared. So I quickly dashed off a half assed attempt and moved on again. _

To be fair that option is in big red letters as a mandatory entry but perhaps we ought to look into having an error message for incomplete entries on the current page.

_"On page two there was a Google map of Europe. Nowhere to put co-ordinates I so I had to search the map to find the town then the site. If I could have used co-ordinates I would have been there in a flash. "_

You can enter your coords in the search box near the top of the map to take you directly to the location but you must delete the coords before verifying and submitting the location, this is only a 'get around' at the moment and you're right, its not perfect, I'll mention this to Nuke to see if he can improve this part of the process

_"I know those of you who are experts will be familiar with the format and will not have the problems I had. However I suggest that unless people use it frequently enough to remember how it works they will always have difficulties. This could be eased by making the format logical, tick boxes first and then the text box to cover anything else and allowing input of co-ordinates on page one to find the site on the map on page two. "_

Theres only one answer to that, use it more frequently and get more entries in :lol: 
Seriously though, when Nuke sees this i'm sure he'll comment on whether the changes you mention are do-able and feasible.

Personally, I would say that 'user-hostile' is a bit ott.

Cheers,

Pete


----------



## erneboy

Thanks for a comprehensive answer Pete.

I appreciate the effort it must have taken to set the DB up. I was not aware that it had been put together by an individual member. If I had been I would have been a little gentler in what I said.

I was pointing out a few perceived deficiencies which might make it difficult for those who are unfamiliar with it.

You are telling me it's fine when it becomes familiar, that's OK.

I will not be posting enough sites for it to become familiar to me. I suspect many members are in the same boat.

Shouldn't it evolve. Regards, Alan.


----------



## peejay

No probs Alan.

Nuke did all the coding etc, I just help out.

You're right to point out the things you're not happy about and hopefully your suggestions will help to make it more user friendly if Nuke can implement your suggestions.
It certainly should evolve to the benefit of our members but the database content will only improve if we all make the effort to post more entries. :wink: 

Thats me off me high horse, promise.  

Pete


----------



## ChrisandJohn

*Re: Database is user hostile.*



erneboy said:


> I want to whinge.
> 
> I have just been posting a stellplatz on the campsite database and found it user hostile to coin one of my favourite americanisms.
> 
> Firstly, the box for the text is at the top of the page so I wrote all about the site. When finished I moved on down the page to find that there are a stack of tick boxes which covered most of what I had written meaning I had wasted all that effort.
> 
> Secondly I could see nowhere to put co-ordinates in, other than OS which only applies in the UK and is not used by most people anyway as lat/long works everywhere.
> 
> Having thought I was finished on page one I moved on to the next page only to get an error message saying I hadn't ticked the box about disabled toilets. I had ticked the box which said there were no toilets on the site, but that was not sufficient. OK, I clicked to go back to rectify my non error only to find that the text I had spent ages over had now disappeared. So I quickly dashed off a half assed attempt and moved on again.
> 
> On page two there was a Google map of Europe. Nowhere to put co-ordinates I so I had to search the map to find the town then the site. If I could have used co-ordinates I would have been there in a flash.
> 
> I know those of you who are experts will be familiar with the format and will not have the problems I had. However I suggest that unless people use it frequently enough to remember how it works they will always have difficulties. This could be eased by making the format logical, tick boxes first and then the text box to cover anything else and allowing input of co-ordinates on page one to find the site on the map on page two.
> 
> As I said it is "user hostile" (Pron. hostil). I do admire those who struggle through this process to add sites. I won't be in a hurry to do it again, Alan.


I've also found the database difficult to use, both to input and to search.
Next time I try I'll also try to note what problems I find and give feedback.

Chris


----------



## ianhibs

DABurleigh said:


> Hmmmn. You made me guilty Alan because I know of an LPG spot on the Mosel that isn't in the database. Then I couldn't figure out what to call it - it's not a Stellplatz nor any other category. But darned useful to know as they are like hen's teeth. So I searched on your entries but couldn't find one either ....
> 
> Dave


And I've found an all singing all dancing genuine aire in a useful location in Spain but its categorisation has defeated me too.

Ian


----------



## gaspode

Hi all

Hmmm...........
Well, yes, the campsite database isn't the most user friendly piece of software but there are reasons for some of the points raised.

GPS data
Initially there was a facility for members to enter the GPS position directly into the first screen however Nuke had to withdraw this facility because the majority of sites entered had wildly incorrect data because members either simply put the wrong coordinates in or entered OS data instead etc. We were finding that some 60% or more of entries had to be rejected. Now it is mandatory to use the map to locate sites and the failure rate is much lower as a result, we do however still get a fair proportion of submission with either the wrong GPS position or no GPS data at all. :roll: We do our best to locate these sites prior to approval - and we manage to sort over 90% of them but it's very time consuming for the Admin staff. If any member wants to enter a site and is unable to locate it on the map, just enter the coordinates (if known) into one of the text boxes or describe where it is (with as full an address as possible) and the admins will do their best to locate it for you.

Disabled Facilities
It was decided some time ago that (especially considering the MHF demographic) that the provision of disabled facilities was an important field to include. As a result it's now mandatory to complete this field. Also the field isn't just for toilets, other disabled provisions should be noted, preferably with some explanatory text if possible, it's very important to our less able members.

Please also remember that the format of the database is limited by the forum software, it's been optimised by Nuke several times and is now much friendlier that it was.

LPG Stations
These can't be included in the campsite database, there's a separate database specifically for them <<HERE>> It's similar to the campsite database but much simplified.

Finally, thanks to everyone who does take the trouble to enter sites, the database is one of the most useful aspects of MHF if used properly, it's also the part of the site that takes most admin time. Sometimes Mike and myself can spend several hours a day checking and approving new entries so please do try to be as comprehensive and accurate as possible when submitting new sites.


----------



## whistlinggypsy

> Hmmmn. You made me guilty Alan because I know of an LPG spot on the Mosel that isn't in the database. Then I couldn't figure out what to call it - it's not a Stellplatz nor any other category. But darned useful to know as they are like hen's teeth. So I searched on your entries but couldn't find one either ....


Hi Dave, I wonder if you would mind sending me details of this LPG spot along the Mosel, been their many times but find LPG hard to find, (I did look at LPG database but only found two and 1 of them was mine and one fron erneboy) we are going to the Messe Dusseldorf next week then a trip down the Mosel and Rhine ending up near Berchtesgaden (Eagles Nest) and Kirchdorf in Tirol for the Hot Air Balloon Festival.

Regards

Bob


----------



## DABurleigh

Bob,

I've entered a couple in the database earlier this evening but they await approval:
> Kobern-Gondorf LPG garage <

> Cochem LPG point <

You could also ask Paul (coppo) which he used.

Dave


----------



## erneboy

Thank you all.

I think that to some extent the point of what I was saying has been missed.

Simply, 

Most members are not familiar with the DB and it would be easier to use if it was rehashed slightly. Easier to use might equal more entries. I think this is well demonstrated when we see how entries are currently made. We see strings of notifications of new entries all from the same person, that looks to me as though someone has finally cracked it and just gets on with it while they remember how, or we see the same people, those who know how, posting most of the entries.

Last year I found news of several new and under construction LPG stations in Spain. Rather than fight my way through the illogical process I sent them all to Olley who was kind enough to post them and give me credit. 

So, put the tick boxes first so that people don't start by wasting time writing information only to find that it's covered later anyway.

In order to save having to search a map allow GPS co-ordinates on the first page. By all means require verification by a map or Google Earth on page two.

Don't refuse the first page info which has already told you there are no toilets because you want to know if there is disabled access to toilets you have already been told do not exist.

If you do have to send some one back to page one don't delete the text they have already written and make them write it again.

At several points when entering this site this evening I thought, "Oh just give up, it's not worth the bother".

There is feedback here from more than one other member which supports what I am saying. I would like to see more entries, as I said earlier looking at the LPG database (described here as "much simplified") illustrated to me just how few people bother to post in these DB's. Is that because they are unhelpful or because they find it difficult to do?

I won't labour the topic any more because I never intended, even accidentally, to be critical of anyone. I still don't want to do that.

Regards, Alan.


----------



## DABurleigh

Oh, sod it. I just realise from Bob's post that I've put two LPG points in the Campsite directory. Pardon me for being unclear on when an MHF Resource is different to a Directory is different to a Review.

Dave


----------



## gaspode

Hi Bob

I've just transferred the LPG site entered by DABs as a campsite into the LPG database <<HERE>>

In the meantime, I see that he's just put another LPG station (Cochem LPG point) into the Campsite database. :roll:

Dave - can you please re-enter this one into the LPG database (see previous post) as I don't have the time to transfer it ATM.


----------



## nukeadmin

read this post with interest

the campsite database is an evolving thing, it started off as a minute aspect of the site, but after me being hassled by Peejay, Dabs and others I enhanced it and as it became better utilised I added more facilities

As Ken has said we had manual gps co-ordinates but they became a nightmare as the code to try and validate the entry was complicated to the extreme and so could never be sure it was correct and tbh the vast majority of entries never used co-ordinates and instead wanted to simply click on a map so that is where the map interface came in for location.

the one thing that I could try and code in to make it slightly better would be a check of mandatory fields prior to going to next page so that is something I will take onboard and try to do

always happy to accept feedback on every aspect of MHF, usually there is a reason things are done in a certain way but sometimes a little tweak here and there improves things for the majority


----------



## erneboy

Thanks Nuke. Could you also change the order of things on the first page, put the tick boxes first, so that people don't waste time writing text and providing information which might be duplicated later.

Would it be very difficult to fix the toilet glitch so that if one ticks to indicate there are no toilets the software does not continue asking about disabled toilets? Alan.


----------



## whistlinggypsy

Thanks Dave, erneboy and Ken,details now entered.

Bob


----------



## erneboy

Can I edit a Stellplatz entry I did yesterday, some of the info is not included. Thanks, Alan.


----------



## spykal

erneboy said:


> Can I edit a Stellplatz entry I did yesterday, some of the info is not included. Thanks, Alan.


Hi Alan

Yes you can, once an entry is in the database you can edit your own entries. Go to the entry and look for the edit icon







( at the bottom of the page on the main entry) click on that and edit away... when you get to the map part you can just close the page if the site is already shown in the correct place.

Mike


----------



## erneboy

I just entered another Stellplatz and didn't find it much easier.

Page one is not so difficult if you are familiar with it, but the order is illogical. I put the town name and post code on page one.

When I went to page two I was faced with a map of Europe on which to mark the location. It had not narrowed the search based on the information given on page one. Perhaps that is impossible. 

Above the map there is a "search map" box. I put the GPS co-ordinates in there and clicked search, nothing happened. I tried the town name and post code separately and together and clicked search, nothing happened. I ended up having to search the map and zero in on the site. The search map facility did not work.

Please regard this as constructive feed back from an infrequent user, Alan.


----------



## DABurleigh

While nuke is looking here and subsequently tweaking, "my entries only" in the campsite map only works for the UK.

Dave


----------



## erneboy

I just went to read the entry I made a few minutes ago and noticed a typo. A quick edit I thought, but the little pencil symbol is not there. It was not there this morning when I asked how to edit a previous entry although when I went back later it had appeared. A glitch?

I will try again and report back, Alan.

Edit: No, still not there.


----------



## spykal

Hi Alan

Thanks for the feedback. We don't get upset when someone tries to help us improve the entry system. Do keep it coming. 

The whole of the database and the software that created it, including the use of the Google Api and mapping was developed over the last few years by Nuke with the help of volunteer admins like myself who look after the campsite database. In the beginning it was just a list of campsites now it is so much more than that. Many,many hours have been spent discussing the best ways to get the info we require for the datbase from the member submitting it...the system has just evolved to where it is today... I am guessing that if we had sat down and started all over again it would maybe be a little better that it is. .... so I have no doubt that Nuke will take note of your suggestions.

By the way I have just added the Stellplatz to the database ... it looks a grand spot. :wink: 

Mike


----------



## erneboy

Why no editing pencil Mike? Four attempts now, Alan.


----------



## spykal

erneboy said:


> I just went to read the entry I made a few minutes ago and noticed a typo. A quick edit I thought, but the little pencil symbol is not there. It was not there this morning when I asked how to edit a previous entry although when I went back later it had appeared. A glitch?
> 
> I will try again and report back, Alan.
> 
> Edit: No, still not there.


All entries have to go through one of us admins for approval, and we are not always available ...mind you I do seem to be spending an amazing amout of time here :roll: ...anyway until the entry is approved by one of us it is in limbo ( so to speak) ... I have just approved it so you should be able to go to it and edit it now. :wink:


----------



## spykal

erneboy said:


> Why no editing pencil Mike? Four attempts now, Alan.


Make sure that you are not looking at a cached version of the page...close your web browser and restart it to make sure that you are looking at a newly created webpage for your stellplatz.

Mike


----------



## H1-GBV

The LPG database sounded very useful, but the first link to it took me to an almost blank page (http://www.motorhomefacts.com/modules.php?name=Gas&file=map) Eventually I spotted a little map on the RH edge, covering the whole of Europe. I zoomed in on Norfolk, but couldn't find any stations, filtered by LPG and got the whole of Europe again.

The second link took me to a lovely map of somewhere in Germany. When I pressed "view LPG map" I got back to the blank page.

Am I doing something wrong, or is there a fault on the system?

Thanks - Gordon


----------



## erneboy

Thanks Mike, but still no pencil, Alan.


----------



## ianhibs

While Nuke is having a look at this (thanks!) I just thought I would put in my two penn’orth in no particular order.

1. What is the top left field for?
2. Similar names do not appear to the right of the “name” box.
3. Do we really need the ordinance survey field as you’ve got to enter the map co-ordinates via Google anyway?
4. Can we have a blank option in the Region list field? For foreign locations, you don’t always know it and when you complete the entry you will find that it has defaulted to the first entry in the list which is wrong.
5. In general, why not just put the open ended stuff (the note fields) at the bottom of the form.? It would make a lot more sense as you’d know what you’ve covered already.
6. Yes indeed, the edit icon is often not seen. Sometimes it’s there, sometime’s not.
7. The mapping function works very well once you’ve done it a few times. I think all that’s required is a bit more explanation.
8. Can we please have a category for Spanish aires?

Ian


----------



## DABurleigh

I asked pejay yesterday to relay your 4 to nuke. It took me ages to find out what region of Germany I was in. I would guess most just give up or enter the wrong one.

Dave


----------



## jarcadia

Whilst the database is under discussion does it have a set procedure for updating info on a particular site? Looking yesterday evening I could see no way to update the information for Veules Les Roses. Rita had input the info in 2007, we were there this June and some things have changed. I put the info under a new review but I don't think it is really satisfactory. I understand that this database is going to be available for purchase, so should it not have the most up to date info on the "front" page not tucked away in a review? 
It also says if there are errors tell us, no way that I can see to actually do this!
Brian


----------



## erneboy

The little pencil symbol at the bottom right of the page allows you to edit your own entries, if it is there. See Spykal's post a few back. That symbol seems to come and go, Alan.


----------



## EJB

Expansion and new technology seem to be the forums priority 8O 
Please can some consideration be given to the present technology so that it is all more user friendly  Please?

This thread seems to highlight the problem.

I would like to enter some campsite reviews but it's too much hassle :roll:


----------



## peejay

Hi Ian,i'll try and help with a few if I can......

_1. What is the top left field for?_

Not sure what youmean, can you elaborate please

_2. Similar names do not appear to the right of the "name" box._

Do you mean the 'Campsite Name' box? I've just tried it and it appears to work ok.

_3. Do we really need the ordinance survey field as you've got to enter the map co-ordinates via Google anyway?

I'd agree, not needed.

4. Can we have a blank option in the Region list field? For foreign locations, you don't always know it and when you complete the entry you will find that it has defaulted to the first entry in the list which is wrong.

As Dabs said, I pm'd nuke about this last night. Its a good idea.

5. In general, why not just put the open ended stuff (the note fields) at the bottom of the form.? It would make a lot more sense as you'd know what you've covered already.

That would be up to Nuke, dont know how easy that is to do. What I would like to see, is a proper more prominent heading for these boxes and at the top instead of 'General Information' and 'Attractions nearby' at the bottom, which is where it is at the moment.

6. Yes indeed, the edit icon is often not seen. Sometimes it's there, sometime's not.

This is a known bug, the edit icon doesn't appear if you select the entry directly, but it does appear from within a list after a search. I think its on Nukes 'to do' list.

7. The mapping function works very well once you've done it a few times. I think all that's required is a bit more explanation.

I would say theres a fairly comprehensive explanation of how it works at the top above the map.

8. Can we please have a category for Spanish aires?

Can't see a problem with that, over to Nuke. :wink:

Pete_


----------



## peejay

jarcadia said:


> Whilst the database is under discussion does it have a set procedure for updating info on a particular site? Looking yesterday evening I could see no way to update the information for Veules Les Roses. Rita had input the info in 2007, we were there this June and some things have changed. I put the info under a new review but I don't think it is really satisfactory. I understand that this database is going to be available for purchase, so should it not have the most up to date info on the "front" page not tucked away in a review?


You can ammend your own entries to keep it up to date Brian.



> It also says if there are errors tell us, no way that I can see to actually do this!
> Brian


All you need to do is pm a moderator, or one of the csdb team which is myself or olley.

Pete


----------



## tonyt

jarcadia said:


> Whilst the database is under discussion does it have a set procedure for updating info on a particular site? Looking yesterday evening I could see no way to update the information for Veules Les Roses. Rita had input the info in 2007, we were there this June and some things have changed. I put the info under a new review but I don't think it is really satisfactory. I understand that this database is going to be available for purchase, so should it not have the most up to date info on the "front" page not tucked away in a review?
> It also says if there are errors tell us, no way that I can see to actually do this!
> Brian


Picking up on Brian's comments here - as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, it's only the original review poster who can edit the original review?

As Brian said, some of these original reviews are now getting old and need changing/updating and in some cases I guess the OP has long gone.

Do we have a plan to get the original reviews updated/corrected?


----------



## peejay

erneboy said:


> The little pencil symbol at the bottom right of the page allows you to edit your own entries, if it is there. See Spykal's post a few back. That symbol seems to come and go, Alan.


Alan, as an example, if you select your 'Gillendfeld' entry from the recently submitted entries list on the front page, it will take you directly to your entry but the little pencil icon won't appear.

If you do a search on 'Gillenfeld' it will show your site as a search result and you will see the pencil icon and you can ammend it from there. If you select the entry, then the icon dissapears.

Hope that explains it properly, its not ideal I know, but as I said, its a known bug and Nuke is looking into it.

Pete


----------



## peejay

tonyt said:


> Picking up on Brian's comments here - as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, it's only the original review poster who can edit the original review?


Tony, yes, only the originator or admin staff can edit entries.



> As Brian said, some of these original reviews are now getting old and need changing/updating and in some cases I guess the OP has long gone.
> 
> Do we have a plan to get the original reviews updated/corrected?


If the originator is gone or hasn't updated the entry then I think the only way is to rely on members reviews to keep the entry up to date, unless you can suggest an alternative.

Pete


----------



## jarcadia

Pete 
Why not allow members to update the original? You already have system in place to check any data entered before being published. If I was to enter a "new" entry there would not be a problem, it seems to me that we are being sensitive. over the original person who entered the data. As I've been told on the forum in the past we don't "own" the data once it is on the site. I would suggest that a PM to the orignal member would be in order when the DB is updated.

Brian


----------



## peejay

Thanks Brian, it would be up to Nuke but personally I'm not sure I'd be in favour of everyone having access to the original entry, it would have to be strictly controlled and would probably multiply the workload for the mods who accept the entries in the first instance. I would say it's far better to keep the review system we currently have but perhaps the latest one could be made more prominent and in view alongside the original entry. I don't know whether this would be do-able and thats just my opinion. 

It would be interesting to hears others views and opinions and/or about this as well...

Pete


----------



## spykal

jarcadia said:


> Pete
> Why not allow members to update the original? You already have system in place to check any data entered before being published. If I was to enter a "new" entry there would not be a problem, it seems to me that we are being sensitive. over the original person who entered the data. As I've been told on the forum in the past we don't "own" the data once it is on the site. I would suggest that a PM to the orignal member would be in order when the DB is updated.
> 
> Brian


Hi Brian

We cannot allow any member to edit any campsite, it would not be safe to allow that. You may ask why, all I can say is that sometimes we have had members who are determined to cause problems and trouble... can you imagine what would happen if they were allowed uncontrolled access to the database that has been built up by the members. Individual members can edit their own entries and any member can send in an update to any site by PMing a moderator or campsite admin.

Members do update their own entries and other members do send in reviews that contain information that updates what we already have about a site but we cannot force anyone to do it ... when we get a review of an existing campsite entry we often add the new info to the entry at the same time as publishing the review.

Every entry has "If you find any glaring errors with our listing for _site name _ please let us know " and I do occasionally ( very occasionally :roll: ) get a PM from a member who has taken the trouble to update us on something ... It does so depend on members volunteering some altruistic effort to enter a campsite or make a review of an existing one.

Mike


----------



## jarcadia

Pete / Mike 
I can see your point of view. As a compromise why not have a link where you mention errors etc that sends PM to the appointed moderators. In that PM we could indicate what has changed and it would be up to you to change the DB if you agreed. 
Full control for you, easy to operate for members and fairly simple to implement. 
Brian


----------



## peejay

You can do that already with a quick PM Brian, as it says at the top of the entry...

"Below is a Campsite review submitted by '----' of '------', If you find any glaring errors with our listing for 'campsite entry' please let us know"

....but i'm sure Nuke could look into the feasibility of adding a link to PM mods and admin staff.

Perhaps we should also change the text to "...glaring errors or recent updates..." or something like that




Pete


----------



## spykal

Hi Brian

One or two members have already worked out that the quickest way to get a message to us about an update or an error is to use the "If you have visited this campsite PLEASE add a review of the site by clicking REVIEW" and then add what they want to tell us there ... maybe we can come up with some better wording for that link. :wink: 

Mike


----------



## tonyt

peejay said:


> If the originator is gone or hasn't updated the entry then I think the only way is to rely on members reviews to keep the entry up to date, unless you can suggest an alternative.
> 
> Pete


No, that's fine Pete.

Maybe we need a more formalised process for inputting revisions?

All in all, I find the database extremely useful and relatively simple for me to use (sometimes a little patience is needed).

When you've got nothing better to do, can we please lose Sussex as a county OR lose East Sussex and West Sussex. Currently we have all 3. I know it but others might not.


----------



## ianhibs

Mike/Pete

I decided before commenting further on entering data to play around with a "dummy" entry. Well, not really a dummy as it was among a number that I intend to enter.

The name was "Charolles" and I filled it some of it without completing it with the final click. Imagine my surprise on receiving an email thanking me for the entry and my further surprise on seeing the address filled in (thanks). Unfortunately, I had made no comments and added no photos.

As mentioned many times that edit icon is keeping a low profile so why not delete the entire entry and I will do it again properly.

My intention was to pretend that I was a first time user and to see how I would find it. IMHO it is not working properly right now and most first time users would find it extremely daunting. In particular, the mapping feature simply was a no-go if you followed the instructions. Yes, just to check it, I put in Hampshire,UK and nothing happened. I've had this experience before so my workaround is to use the small map in the bottom right hand corner to drag myself to the first approximate position and proceed from there.

Furthermore, I entered the exact name of another entry submitted by me previously in order to see whether it would "appear on the right" on the first field. Zilch!

i do hope that you will find this constructive criticism and I appreciate the problem may be at my end perhaps. I will even go futher and volunteer to rewrite the instructions on mapping for your approval once I know that it's working as promised.

Ian


----------



## gaspode

ianhibs said:


> I decided before commenting further on entering data to play around with a "dummy" entry.


Hi Ian
It may interest you to know that Mike and I spent over an hour completing that "dummy" for you (as we often have to do for "real" entries). If you had entered a note to explain that it was not a real entry you could have saved us a lot of time and trouble. Surprisingly we get lots of entries with only a minimal amount of information, we always try to make them into acceptable entries but we can't enter any detailed information about the sites as we haven't been there. I assume that you'll now go back to that entry, complete the text fields and add the photos?


ianhibs said:


> As mentioned many times that edit icon is keeping a low profile so why not delete the entire entry and I will do it again properly.


We are aware of that bug but It's already been explained in this thread how to bring up the edit icon, if you can't manage to find it, just submit a review of the site and either Mike or I will move the text to the review itself.


ianhibs said:


> In particular, the mapping feature simply was a no-go if you followed the instructions.


Mike, Pete and myself have all checked the mapping page today and it works fine. Entering "Hampshire UK" will not work as it's not a town. If you enter the town name and country (or better still a decimal GPS location) it works fine.


ianhibs said:


> Furthermore, I entered the exact name of another entry submitted by me previously in order to see whether it would "appear on the right" on the first field. Zilch!


This function has also been checked today as already stated in this thread and it is working OK. Please type your town name in more slowly and you'll see the potential matches appear as you type - don't just enter the full name before checking the box on the right.


ianhibs said:


> Can we have a blank option in the Region list field?


This isn't necessary. If the region isn't known you have two options:
1) Google it - not rocket science.
2) Leave it blank and one of the admins will complete the field for you.

All entries pass through admin before approval and we always try to complete as many of the missing fields as possible, sometimes (as you've experienced tonight) we'll actually construct a useable entry from bare details. This however takes up valuable time and resources and effectively takes us away from other admin jobs, if members would please try to include as much detail as possible when submitting sites it would be very much appreciated.


----------



## DABurleigh

gaspode said:


> This isn't necessary. If the region isn't known you have two options:
> 1) Google it - not rocket science.
> 2) Leave it blank and one of the admins will complete the field for you.


Both points covered by Ian, me and Pete earlier in the thread. Needs fixing, Ken.

Dave


----------



## erneboy

I have to say that the mapping feature did not work for me as I did my last two entries. I started by trying decimal GPS co-ordinates, then the town name and then both.

It does look rather as though most things are fine for those who use it all the time and they are having difficulty understanding why infrequent users find it does not work well for them, Alan.


----------



## ianhibs

Ken

Smack hand job for which I apologise.   

My defence is that I never entered the dummy data by using the "Once you're happy,Click Here" link. I had no idea that this would involve you in all that work (much appreciated though) and it's given us all an insight into the time involved at your end of things.

For my next entry later on today I will forewarn you before I do anything. Despite everything you've said, I still say that the mapping feature is not working as intended at my end. I am wondering whether it's my browser (Firefox) so I'll try it in IE.

Cheers


Ian


----------



## erneboy

I use Firefox too Ian, let us know what you find please, Alan.


----------



## DABurleigh

There certainly are browser dependencies, Ian. The MHF campsite map used to be horrible panning and zooming with Chrome, but is now fine. However, whatever was done MHF's end to fix it, wasn't done to the LPG map, which remains frustrating from Chrome, as I found out a couple of days ago. 

The real problem is that whenever bugs are reported in the forum, you never get any feedback that they are acknowledged, nor whether they are fixable, nor how they stack up in the priority stakes to be addressed, nor when they are fixed. It takes two to tango.

Dave


----------



## erneboy

Dave, are you saying that there is a way to locate sites on the map in the MHF database? I have never managed to find that, it would be very useful instead of having to check each site and try to work out from the lat/long which ones are roughly in the direction I want to go. If so would you please tell me how to do it.

Last night I was looking at sites in Bavaria using Camping Car Infos, that is simple because you can see where they are on the map and choose to look more closely at those which are in the right direction, Alan.


----------



## DABurleigh

From top menu Reviews/ Campsite Map

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/modules.php?name=Campsites&file=map

Dave


----------



## spykal

erneboy said:


> Dave, are you saying that there is a way to locate sites on the map in the MHF database? I have never managed to find that,


Alan have you never used this map? :roll:

Campsite Map <<

It can be found under the "reviews" drop down.


----------



## spykal

DABurleigh said:


> The real problem is that whenever bugs are reported in the forum, you never get any feedback that they are acknowledged, nor whether they are fixable, nor how they stack up in the priority stakes to be addressed, nor when they are fixed. It takes two to tango.
> 
> Dave


Hi Dave

That sweeping statement is so untrue and upsetting . You may not have intended it but I took it to heart.

Mike


----------



## DABurleigh

No hurt intended in anyone's direction, Mike. But as an example I wish I could have the stamina of someone like Frank in pointing out and pursuing bugs. Ask him if he gets appropriate feedback. From a third person's point of view it seems more like Frank struggling to be Corporate but banging his head against a silent brick wall.

Perhaps I'm missing a prioritised outstanding bug list, like Alan is missing the Campsite Map and I missed the LPG map.

An apposite example speaks volumes. What are those having difficulty with the LPG map supposed to conclude from this thread, having just read-it from beginning to end?
http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopic-86392-0-days0-orderasc-.html

Dave


----------



## erneboy

Thanks Mike. I have no idea why I have not seen that before. It is just the job thanks. Quite like the Camping Car Infos map except that hovering over the site does not show the name, Alan.


----------



## spykal

erneboy said:


> Thanks Mike. I have no idea why I have not seen that before. It is just the job thanks. Quite like the Camping Car Infos map except that hovering over the site does not show the name, Alan.


Hi Alan

Yes it does.. it shows not only the name but also a link to the main entry in the database. Allow your cursor to hover over a site on the map and then it will change to a hand symbol with a pointing finger... double click and all will be revealed :wink:

Mike


----------



## erneboy

OK, where is this LPG map please. I go to Directories (why is the camp site map in Reviews and the LPG one in Directories) and click on LPG Availability Map, select Germany and all I get is a list for all of Germany, Alan


----------



## DABurleigh

Alan,

Yes, I pointed out my confusion earlier in this thread over when was a Resource different to a Directory different to a Review, which is how I'd missed the LPG database, too.

The LPG map I referred to is when geolocating a newly reported LPG point.

Dave


----------



## erneboy

Thanks Dave, so is there a map for LPG like the Campsite one, or do we just go through all the listings for whatever country in the hope of recognizing the name of a town near where we are? Alan


----------



## DABurleigh

It depends on what one is supposed to conclude from the link I posted within this post:
http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-894661.html#894661

Dave


----------



## erneboy

Thanks Dave, that works for me. I am asking questions which may already have been covered because I am slowly learning how all this works. That's why you keep having to refer me back to things you said earlier, at the time you said them I did not understand them. 

I spend a lot of time successfully surfing sites for similar info. If I was grading all the sites I visit from 1 to 10 for ease of use with 10 being the easiest to use MHF would get a low mark. I have been a member for several years and as my questions here show there are many areas of this site I did not know about.

For those who do all the work, please don't take that comment personally. It is not intended to be critical of anyone, it just seems that there are so many options that if you know all about it you can choose the right one or if you are lucky you will fall over it and all will be well. If you don't know and are not lucky with the option you choose well.....

For example I find the search facility very poor yet those who have figured out how to use it seem to rate it highly. When I want to search MHF I usually open a new browser and use Google which brings up the MHF threads very quickly. I find that much faster than using MHF which seems to return endless results bearing no relationship at all to my search query, Alan.


----------



## DABurleigh

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. "

"A little knowledge goes a long way"

I've never said the search facility is friendly, merely that it is accurate. It delivers what the user asks of it within its rules of operation. It certainly isn't telepathic, however.

Dave


----------



## erneboy

Thanks Donald. I was just saying Google works better than MHF does for me when I am looking for an old MHF post.

With reference to my last post, regardless of what I said MHF is still by far the best motorhoming site I know of. I am sure I save my annual tenner at least twice a week, Alan.


----------



## DABurleigh

"I was just saying Google works better than MHF does for me when I am looking for an old MHF post"

Whereas I would never use Google to look for anything in the Forums; it is crude compared to MHF's search facility surgical precision 

Dave


----------



## erneboy

Thanks Dave. I know you have posted guidance on that, do you have a link to that post so that I can try to learn to use the MHF facility please, Alan.


----------



## grouch

I've just submitted an aire and typed in details of facilities. However, the comments I put on were ignored and the aire was titled a campsite. (It is an aire exterior). I have now amended the details as a review of the site but surely if there is a section for you to put comments in it should be replicated on the detail page.


----------



## spykal

grouch said:


> I've just submitted an aire and typed in details of facilities. However, the comments I put on were ignored and the aire was titled a campsite. (It is an aire exterior). I have now amended the details as a review of the site but surely if there is a section for you to put comments in it should be replicated on the detail page.


It is not listed as a campsite

The *aire* is listed and titled with the title you gave it.. in other words just as you submitted it.

Mike

here is the link...

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/modules.php?name=Campsites&op=display_results&csid=5486

And I forgot to add that we spent quite some time locating it as there was no location given in the entry...


----------



## grouch

Yes. I agree with that. Although it is a bit ambiguous. However, the bit I put in about using the campsite facilities and walking through the campsite to get to the lake beach were not included. However, I have remedied this by putting it is the review. Thanks for putting in the extra details for me regarding address etc.


----------



## DABurleigh

Alan,

No, I haven't posted guidance beyond bits in threads such as this, which may or may not be helpful:
http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-177255.html#177255

There is some guidance from Frank here:
http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-261304.html#261304
(I'm the chap he refers to in the last post with my unhelpful to many though entirely accurate concise summary).

Going through an example in detail is the best way for people to "get it". This is interactive, however, and so best done with an IM link going (MSN or Skype, say).

If you want to see how emotional the subject can get, look up this thread:
http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-260785.html#260785
though if you follow this, be aware that the MHF search defaults were improved as a result of this.

Dave


----------



## spykal

No problem.. I will add the details now from your review , there were none at all in the original entry that was approved last night by myself and Ken ( gaspode)... It was only the fact that you had taken the trouble to add the pictures and it looked a nice place that we spent the 30 minutes or so sorting out the location and detail.

I will edit the name

it is now named "Bourget du Lac" after the nearby town name


----------



## grouch

That's interesting. I did put the comments in but then had to go back to put the month in so perhaps they were wiped out as an earlier poster said. It is a lovely place to stay.


----------



## spykal

grouch said:


> That's interesting. I did put the comments in but then had to go back to put the month in so perhaps they were wiped out as an earlier poster said. It is a lovely place to stay.


Hi grouch

Yes that is interesting and must be the reason it happened .. certainly it would be easy to do that while concentrating on getting another detail entered you would not have noticed the main general details had gone and we do get quite a few entries with no general details entered. So a bug that needs investigation and solving.

Thanks

mike


----------



## erneboy

Mike the same thing happened to me yesterday, you pm'ed to tell me. I had written a full entry and between clicking submit and your seeing it some or all of it had gone.

Thanks Dave, I will play with that this afternoon, Alan.


----------



## gaspode

Hi Grouch

I can confirm what Mike says, we both looked at your entry last night and there were no details whatsoever except a name, a couple of photos and the completed tick boxes. If there hadn't been any photos we would probably have just deleted it but as Mike says, it looked a good location so we spent some time on it.
Why the info you entered was missing we don't know but no doubt Nuke will read this thread and he's the only one who can debug or modify the application, Mike and I simply have to work with what we're given, same as everyone else. Nuke is aware that there are bugs in the software but being a one man band he has to prioritise how he allocates his time. Clearly he doesn't think the campsite database is a high priority ATM. Mike and I work with it daily and we regularly enter test sites when we get complaints but apart from the odd glitch we don't see any major problems and I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's hard to make de-bugging a priority when we can't replicate the reported errors.


----------



## nukeadmin

well what an emotive thread this has become in a day 

Those like myself who use the campsite database regularly find no issues with it (This could be because we are close to the coalface so to speak and overlook iregularities due to our knowledge of the entire process)

There are those who seemingly like nothing about the way MHF works, its terminology or its operation 

And there are those who want to contribute but find issues in the methodology

The problem as Ken states is that sometimes the bugs are not actually bugs, but actually an issue with the users computer configuration or we cannot replicate them

I have taken some notes from the thread

1. Introduce more validity checking prior to submitting the entry first page (to save having to go back and fill in again)

2. Make the system more intuitive / descriptive about what each field contains.

3. Source a better methology for bug tracking on MHF rather than me scouring forums for snippets here and there or forum posts in the bug section which do not allow for prioritisation / status reports quickly and easy for members nor myself.


For No.1 I have researched it and should be able to do this within the next couple of days (although busy this week coming as Ben is away on holiday) so don't hold me to this 

No.2 I have added in the code to do this so that when you click in a text box a hint message will appear next to it, but the positioning of this is doing my head in (technical term) but should get this done soon also

for No.3 I believe there is a project tracking module addon for our framework which I will look into

It is a thankless task running MHF lol and even more so for the mods / deputy admins who do a lot of legwork trying to sustain the high degree of accuracy our campsite database has amassed so they do get protective of it as do I but I guess we need to look at it from a complete beginner perspective and try and tweak it even more


----------



## grouch

I think this section is a very useful part of MHF. I am a bit computer illiterate and it would be a shame if, like me, others were put off submitting information. I will try harder next time.


----------



## erneboy

Nuke, I am sorry if you think I am being emotive or dislike everything about how MHF works. That is not what I think at all, MHF is, as I said just a few posts ago, the best motorhoming site I am aware of.

I can assure you I have not been emotive or annoyed at any time while contributing to this thread. There were things I didn't understand and things I could not get working so I commented on them, asked for guidance and suggested some changes which would improve things from my perspective which is that of a relative novice with little ability using a computer, Alan.


----------



## peejay

Nuke;

I know the jury is out about this one but can I just fight the case for a 'not sure' or 'dont know' entry in the drop down region boxes for France, Germany etc mentioned earlier in the thread...

A while back I spent a few days sorting out 100+ French entries which were in the incorrect region thanks to another member bringing it to our attention, otherwise we would have been none the wiser. I'm think a 'not sure' option would help to alleviate a lot of that happening in the future. 

I know Ken mentioned leaving it blank but if you do click on the box it will default to the first on the list unless you select another one which isn't ideal.

We could then just do a search for 'not sures' every now and again.

Seemples 

Pete


----------



## EJB

Supplying a service for a price is often a thankless task! 
However I, and I am sure the vast majority, consider that all the 'officials' do a fantastic job.
Sadly, being a technologically advancing site which marches on relentlessly is bound to leave many, many members behind, me included!

My random comments are obviously neither use nor ornament so I'll shut up :roll:


----------



## nukeadmin

Yep should be able to add in a blank option np for region


----------



## ianhibs

I've just entered Lac des Settons in the database and I may have found something of use to other members.

The box on the right opened up as promised and using the mapping feature was a dream. How can this be?

Well, I was using IE8 and not Firefox as usual. I have no idea whether this is a general problem or confined to my own setup. But, if you're having these sort of problems and using Firefox, I suggest you try this route.

Now is that being negative?

Ian


----------



## gaspode

ianhibs said:


> Now is that being negative?


No, that's certainly a positive attitude. :lol:

Unfortunately it's not the answer, I use Firefox exclusively and have never observed this problem - it works fine and alwyas has done. :?

Don't stop trying though, you may just drop on the solution eventually.

There are seven sites awaiting approval ATM, one or two good ones, a couple without any GPS data and several of them missing any addresses, phone numbers, post codes, Emails, websites etc. Looks as if Mike and I are in for a long night again doesn't it? My apologies to the submitters if they don't appear on the database for a while, this could take some considerable time.


----------



## Rosbotham

Can I add an extra one to the list of quirks? I just added a review of a site (NB review, not new site posting), and there's a mysterious drop down menu at the top of the page, allowing me to enter 0 thru 10. What's that for? It could be a "marks out of 10", but there's a "select number of stars" below the comments box which asks you to do that so if that was the case, it's redundant.

Would also support others' comments about deleting the boxes for entering OS co-ordinates. I submitted my first entry a couple of weeks ago, and being diligent I actually read up on OS co-ordinate format and found the relevant numbers for the site I was reviewing : only to find out it was a waste of time because the following page with googlemaps locators completely usurps it anyway. As a repeat user I know that now, but not as a first-timer.


----------



## carolgavin

gaspode said:


> ianhibs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now is that being negative?
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's certainly a positive attitude. :lol:
> 
> Unfortunately it's not the answer, I use Firefox exclusively and have never observed this problem - it works fine and alwyas has done. :?
> 
> Don't stop trying though, you may just drop on the solution eventually.
> 
> There are seven sites awaiting approval ATM, one or two good ones, a couple without any GPS data and several of them missing any addresses, phone numbers, post codes, Emails, websites etc. Looks as if Mike and I are in for a long night again doesn't it? My apologies to the submitters if they don't appear on the database for a while, this could take some considerable time.
Click to expand...

So if I understand this correctly, its certain of the mods plus possibly peejay and olley who approve the contributions for the database??
Also is it this database that you can purchase for the iphone as an app??

Perhapsies one is needing more people to deal with only this database????????????????????? I think you mods probably have enough to do and you are quite thin on the ground. How many are you now for 47,000 odd members plus the numpties and the spammers!!!!!!

I have submitted one site and found the most irritating aspect was the fact it wipes out all the text if you have to go back for any reason (a mistake or forgot to tick something) same as another poster all the other details I had added in the first text box did not appear in the final approved version which I was not happy about as I had (ok I admit possibly due to my own stupidty lol) had to go back about 17 times. On the 15th time I learned to copy what I had written so if I had lost it agin could paste the bugger in!!!!!

It hasn't put me off in fact will be entering a couple of sites from my travels in Engerland..........................just putting you on notice cos I have trouble with maps and don't understand the whole GPS lat/long thing!


----------



## grouch

Well. I am trying to put a wild camping spot in. It is in Region 39 Jura. However, there is nowhere you can select Jura. Suggestions please other than that I should give up!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## olley

carolgavin said:



> So if I understand this correctly, its certain of the mods plus possibly peejay and olley who approve the contributions for the database??


Hi carol, no neither myself or peejay can approve sites, we can however check and modify them after they have been approved.

I agree that if you don't tick a box, and get sent back, any info has been lost, and its a pain.

My own opinion for what its worth is that the submission form is to complicated, and puts people off. I feel that some of the fields are unnecessary and should be deleted. But thats only my opinion. :lol:

Olley


----------



## peejay

grouch said:


> Well. I am trying to put a wild camping spot in. It is in Region 39 Jura. However, there is nowhere you can select Jura. Suggestions please other than that I should give up!!!!!!!!!!!


You're getting your departments mixed up with your regions.

Dept 39 is indeed Jura, which is within the Franche-Comte region, select the Franche-Comte option from the drop down region box.

Pete


----------



## EJB

How do I edit a review I have submitted....Please


----------



## nukeadmin

k i have removed the OS Co-ordinate field and changed the order so that the text input boxes are at the bottom

still working on form validation and better descriptive text etc


----------



## peejay

EJB said:


> How do I edit a review I have submitted....Please


Use the search facility to find your entry, look for the little pencil in the bottom right hand side and click on that to edit.

Do not select the entry itself or the pencil icon will dissapear.

It was mentioned previously in this thread. :wink:

Pete


----------



## nukeadmin

k i think i have now rectified the bug that was preventing the edit icon appearing on the detailed entry view, can someone check please


----------



## peejay

Yep, works fine for me Dave. Nice one, what took you so long? :lol: 

Pete


----------



## nukeadmin

lol well this database is 5 or 6 years in the making mate


----------



## erneboy

The edit options is working for me too Nuke, thanks, Alan.


----------



## grouch

Just put in a wild camping spot. Was not asked for the month and year visited. Is this something new or have a yet again made a mistake.


----------



## EJB

Thanks Pete and Nuke.....it now works both ways.


----------



## sallytrafic

I like some of the changes recently made but why did you do away with the option to add OS grid refs? Some of us use maps. 

*Grouch* I only think its when you add a review to a campsite that you are asked for the visit date, the main entry always automatically carries a last edited date.

When its all settled down let us know because I carry a couple of printed copies of the blank pages to act as an aide-memoire if I have no internet access at the time.


----------



## erneboy

Frank, lat/long is international and so is the data base. I think removing the OS option makes sense, Alan.


----------



## Rosbotham

sallytrafic said:


> I like some of the changes recently made but why did you do away with the option to add OS grid refs? Some of us use maps.


Possibly partly as a result of my earlier comment. The googlemaps page provides the same info and it's relatively easy to work out where it is using the OS co-ord system from that. I wouldn't be so crass as to suggest OS co-ords are outdated, but from a driving standpoint they've pretty much been obsoleted by on-line maps & satnav.

My peev was that because the system was asking for them (without highlighting they were optional), I went to the trouble of reading up into how they worked, worked out the co-ords of the site I was posting, only to discover on the 2nd page it was a waste of time because googlemaps pinpointed it in any case! (To a casual user without knowledge of the 2nd page, it's a natural conclusion when faced with that question on 1st page to assume that's how the database derives location so it's important). I fully support removal of the OS co-ords!

Edit : one small issue on the maps : on the campsite database display (i.e. display, not data entry), is there any way of the googlemaps plug in defaulting to a higher zoom-out level. 9 times out of ten the map seems to comprise of the campsite and an un-named road, and it's necessary to zoom out 3 or 4 times to work out which (part of the) country the site's in...e.g. Peedee's latest review of Oakleaze, takes 3 zoom outs before Cirencester appears on the map.


----------



## nukeadmin

> I know the jury is out about this one but can I just fight the case for a 'not sure' or 'dont know' entry in the drop down region boxes for France, Germany etc mentioned earlier in the thread...


Done 
I have added an "unknown" option at the bottom of France / Germany / Spain and Italy country region dropdowns


----------



## sallytrafic

erneboy said:


> Frank, lat/long is international and so is the data base. I think removing the OS option makes sense, Alan.


Yes but Lat/Long is absolutely no use if you are in UK and you don't have GPS or an internet connection. The vast majority of MHF users spend most of their holidays weekend breaks in the UK.

There are 1400 campsite entries in the MHF data base for UK
There are 1179 campsite entries in the MHF data base for France
There are 204 campsite entries in the MHF data base for Spain

Camping and Caravan Club absolutely define all their campsites by their OS grid ref.

When I and two others went through the campsite database adding GPS coordinates and correcting positions the OS ref was invaluable.


----------



## spykal

sallytrafic said:


> Yes but Lat/Long is absolutely no use if you are in UK and you don't have GPS or an internet connection. The vast majority of MHF users spend most of their holidays weekend breaks in the UK.


Hi Frank

I can see what you are saying but the vast majority of MHF users neither have an OS map or understand how to use OS references ...

Maybe, just maybe, when Nuke has sorted out all of the other problems he could look at a routine for automatically inserting the OS reference into a campsite entry, it is very easy to convert the decimal Lat & Long into an OS reference .. that would keep everyone happy.... but expecting the average MHF user to enter an OS reference or even to know what one looks like is maybe expecting too much. Ok Nuke could leave the OS entry in but with a large "optional" description next to it but I want to see an entry system which Mr Average can cope with easily with while at the same time entering enough info to make the entry worth having.

Mike


----------



## DABurleigh

"but I want to see an entry system which Mr Average can cope with easily with while at the same time entering enough info to make the entry worth having. "

That's a pretty succinct definition of the requirement. I'll buy that.

Dave


----------



## Rosbotham

Seconded by Mr Average...


----------



## carolgavin

olley said:


> carolgavin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I understand this correctly, its certain of the mods plus possibly peejay and olley who approve the contributions for the database??
> 
> 
> 
> Hi carol, no neither myself or peejay can approve sites, we can however check and modify them after they have been approved.
> 
> I agree that if you don't tick a box, and get sent back, any info has been lost, and its a pain.
> 
> My own opinion for what its worth is that the submission form is to complicated, and puts people off. I feel that some of the fields are unnecessary and should be deleted. But thats only my opinion. :lol:
> 
> Olley
Click to expand...

Well thats a bit daft Olley hunny!!! Why have database people if they cannot approve entries to it??????????? Would save the mods an awful lotta hassle cos frankly some of em sound quite stressed!!!! 8O 8O 8O 8O


----------



## gaspode

carolgavin said:


> Well thats a bit daft Olley hunny!!! Why have database people if they cannot approve entries to it??????????? Would save the mods an awful lotta hassle cos frankly some of em sound quite stressed!!!! 8O 8O 8O 8O


 :lol: :lol: :lol: 
Hi Carol

Approving campsites (or any other submissions) isn't a job that the mods have to do, it's just me and Mike (Spykal) that do it. Once sites are approved and in the database then Olley and Peejay have charge of the housekeeping and maintenance of the entries. There are a number of reasons why it's done in this way. Approval of any submissions requires access to some of the "back office" functions of MHF which the other staff may not be able to reach, also if too many staff try to do the same job it can lead to problems, even with just two of us doing the approvals we occasionally find that we're working on the same entry at the same time which can turn out to be a wasted effort.

Unfortunately at this time of year when everyone is just returning from their annual break we often get a surge in the number of entries submitted which puts us under some pressure - and before you say that there's no urgency - try telling that to the member who submitted a site yesterday and it still hasn't appeared in the database - patience isn't a common trait among MHF members. 8O :lol: :lol: :lol:

The net result is that sometimes Mike and I spend all our time on line approving campsites. We could just accept any old rubbish but we do try to keep the standards high and when members submit sites without locations, websites, phone numbers, full addresses etc. (which is most of the time), rather than reject them we do our best to find and include those details. As a result it can take quite some time to approve a campsite entry.


----------



## nukeadmin

ok latest update

I have removed the fancy WYSIWYG editor box for General Information entry

I have added in pre submission checks for all the mandatory fields to ensure they have been filled in prior to going to the next page, if any of the fields haven't been populated then it shows a popup message telling you which fields haven't been filled in and it even highlights the box in yellow


----------



## gaspode

Well - something is definitely having an effect, I don't know if it's the alterations that Nuke has made or just that members are being more careful with their submissions after reading this thread.

When I started on tonights batch at about 8.30 we had 9 sites waiting in the queue and I've managed to clear all but one of them in less than an hour and a half - that must be a record. 8O 

What's more they were mostly of a very good standard with very few errors so keep up the good work folk. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## DABurleigh

What do you expect? We're all scared now! ;-)


----------



## carol

DABurleigh said:


> Yes, I've tried to make others guilty (Carol, mainly, hiya Carol!) but they come back with "Life's too short to work it out".
> 
> Dave


Hiya Dave jut found this -grandchildren staying due to being enforced to stay home

I did find it too much of a pain and the app is a bit like it too but I have done a few of those but as we are away on THS in summer I can't put them in very well

I hope to put aires in if we do get away for our holiday - but we have to see what Rapido will do

I will try to do better honest

Carol


----------



## olley

nukeadmin said:


> ok latest update
> I have removed the fancy WYSIWYG editor box for General Information entry


Looking better Nuke, now how about getting rid of the Cost fields? their only relevant for the year the site is added, so after a few years they are useless.

Next only if you tick "open all year" "no" do the month/day etc boxes appear.

Olley


----------



## nukeadmin

not sure about removing the cost fields Olley but can see the benefit of the hidden fields and only displaying if the No option is selected for the Open All Year so have coded this in.

I have also moved the score field to the top of the page


----------



## olley

You been up all night? :lol: 

Regarding the cost fields, as I said the older they are the less relevant they are, and how often are they updated, unless someone puts a review in, never. 

I simply believe that the fewer fields, the less complicated it looks, and the more entries we will get.

What do others think? useful or not.

Olley


----------



## Telbell

> Regarding the cost fields, as I said the older they are the less relevant they are, and how often are they updated, unless someone puts a review in, never.
> 
> I simply believe that the fewer fields, the less complicated it looks, and the more entries we will get.
> 
> What do others think? useful or not.


Agree on all counts.
Much better though- so no excuse for not using it :wink: :lol:


----------



## Rosbotham

Useful vote from me. Even if they're not precisely correct any more, they give an indication.


Can I go back to the comment I made a while ago regards adding a review (review, not adding new campsite)? Appreciate the focus has been on getting the "new entry" stuff right so this is just a gentle reminder. There's a mysterious drop down menu at the top of the add review page, which allows you to select 0 through 10. No indication as to what the 0 through 10 is for. Any ideas?

Also...and this could be a quirk with my browser today...the slider to allow you to choose a star rating out of ten below the comments box appears to have packed up. It's only displaying 5 possible stars when should be 10. I gave up doing my review because I could only provide a rating of 1 out of 10 (or 5). As I say, could be my browser playing up rather than the site.

Paul


----------



## tonyt

Well something's working better cos there's a sudden flurry of new entries  

Keep 'em coming.


----------



## peedee

gaspode said:


> The net result is that sometimes Mike and I spend all our time on line approving campsites. We could just accept any old rubbish but we do try to keep the standards high and when members submit sites without locations, websites, phone numbers, full addresses etc. (which is most of the time), rather than reject them we do our best to find and include those details. As a result it can take quite some time to approve a campsite entry.


I haven't put in anything since the latest changes but if the site has a web site I don't see much point in filling in a full address, telephone numbers or prices and generally have not provided this information. I can see the point in putting in a town for search purposes but not the detail. Is this not acceptable?

peedee


----------



## DABurleigh

peedee,

I did say here:
http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-467366.html#467366

"5) When submitting campsites to MHF in future, be aware that text references to "see site's webpage" are not helpful when viewing the database off-line! "

Dave


----------



## peedee

Point taken Dave but I wonder how many actually use the DB off line.
Would a town and post code be sufficient?

peedee


----------



## tonyt

peedee said:


> Point taken Dave but I wonder how many actually use the DB off line.
> Would a town and post code be sufficient?
> 
> peedee


Well several hundred of us are looking forward to a nice little USB stick, and tha'll be off line.

Personally, I like precise, decimal, GPS but sometimes it's interesting to have only a street name and post code - brings back the adventure of navigating.


----------



## peedee

Will the USB stick not have map facilities then? I envisaged it having the same facilities as on line?????? If it just lists sites then what is the difference between it and the virtual brochure?

peedee


----------



## peejay

Peedee;

If the usb stick is the same as the ipod app (hopefully Nuke will confirm)then you will only get a map if you're connected to the internet.
If you're not connected then either the full address and/or the coords (if you have satnav) will be the main aids in finding your chosen location.

The main difference between this and the virtual brochure is you have access to the entire databse as opposed to what you have chosen to print off and take with you.


Pete


----------



## erneboy

I would like to thank Nuke for all the work he has done and to extend those thanks to all who have taken part in such a constructive way with their suggestions, explanations and help.

I wonder if I should change the title which was probably a little unfair in the first place? Alan.


----------



## gaspode

peedee said:


> I haven't put in anything since the latest changes but if the site has a web site I don't see much point in filling in a full address, telephone numbers or prices


Hi peedee

It's very important that you supply as much of the address as possible for several reasons:

Mike and I use the address to locate the site if the position coordinates are either missing or incorrect. More than 50% of all sites submitted have either no position data or the data is incorrect - yes I know it's hard to believe but that's the truth. 8O It's not always the fault of the submitter but Mike and I need that address information to make sure the site appears in the correct place on the campsite map.

Usually when members are on the road trying to locate a site they don't have internet access. They can look an address up on a map (you know, the old paper things with roads drawn on them?) or even ask a passer by for directions :lol: :lol: :lol:

Same applies to telephone numbers. Members looking for somewhere to stop for the night often want to phone in advance to make sure space is available (or to find the site if no address is provided) :wink:

Prices may not be exact if the site has been in the database for some time but they still act as a guide to the price band that the site comes into and we do update them when a member tells us they've changed in a review.


----------



## ianhibs

erneboy said:


> I would like to thank Nuke for all the work he has done and to extend those thanks to all who have taken part in such a constructive way with their suggestions, explanations and help.
> 
> I wonder if I should change the title which was probably a little unfair in the first place? Alan.


Seconded

Ian


----------



## peedee

gaspode said:


> It's very important that you supply as much of the address as possible for several reasons:


Ok noted and thanks. I would have thought you could have also used the web site address to check as well :wink: and the same with anyone else wanting to take a paper note of details with them. I actually find the the most onerous part of completing site details to be the address followed by cost. I very often have absolutely no idea of the different seasonal costs and often site charging structures are not straight forward.

That said, I did go and edit some of my 76 entries yesterday and today.

peedee


----------



## erneboy

When entering new sites on the camp site database I am keen to enter as much detail as I can find as I know the mods will have to do any work I don't do although I can't see why such detail is required for a Stellplatz, Aire or Wild Camping Spot. The post code is often very difficult to find, often web sites and email addresses are not relevant to these sites. Would reduced detail for these sites be good enough?

Alan.


----------



## spykal

Hi Alan

Just put in as much detail as possible, if you know the site well then you will be better placed than us to find any extra detail using google searches or google maps. 

We do check all the entries before they are added to the database and often have to add detail to them before we can approve them. We don't like refusing an entry so have been known to spend hours doing that :roll: 

Wild Campsites are the most difficult to add an address for as by their nature they are often out in the "wilds" , Airs can be difficult too and that is when the map location becomes so important. 

But the map is only good for those who have it available to them ..I am sure that many of the folk who use the database just take a printout or list of the sites that they may use on a trip... the address or routing description is then essential to them. 

So if you are adding a site without an exact address then please do add some road numbers and/or the directions from the nearest local town into the description box. Usually you can do this easily by using a Google map to refresh your memory of the way to get there.


Mike


----------



## erneboy

That's interesting Mike. I would have thought the vast majority would have sat nav, maybe it's worth a poll to find out. I might see if I can set one up, Alan.


----------



## spykal

erneboy said:


> That's interesting Mike. I would have thought the vast majority would have sat nav, maybe it's worth a poll to find out. I might see if I can set one up, Alan.


Hi Alan

I am sure that by now many of us do have a sat nav but quite a few older sat navs do not allow you to enter a digital location to find a destination, they will only accept a place name , a street address, a post code or you can choose the position on a map. Ok, I know that most of the more recent ones do allow a Lat & Long to be entered and yes there will be many of us with every digital device known to man but I would bet there are still some folks who when they are out on the road don't entirely trust the sat nav or use nothing more than an old fashioned paper map. Anyone recognise themselves ?

A poll would be good but the question needs to framed very carefully to get the answer you need.

Mike


----------



## erneboy

Mike, I never had one which didn't take lat/long so I messed the question up. Anyway let's see, assuming apathy doesn't get me first (joke).

I feel another poll coming on, maybe in a few days when we see this result, Alan.


----------

