ScotlandsPeople (New website now live).

[Rosinish]

Thanks Gadget,

Progress then 

Annie

[Gadget]

I'm wondering, as a once upon a time database person, how much  thorough testing of the new system was carried out.  In particular, the way that most of us do the searches.

Gadget

[greenrig]

Gadget - it's a 2016-style website and database - We ARE the testers - that's how they work now. As long as it's just not SO BAD that it's unusable they will bump along fixing the bugs as they get reported. It's called Permanent Beta.......

[Forfarian]

Has anyone else noticed that the only name on the marriage heading is the Male?
I don't understand why they have omitted the Female?

Same reason that the search no longer works with spouse's name before 1929. That is, the original indexes as used in-house don't list the spouse's name until 1929. Evidently BrightSolid were able to program the search to find marriages using the spouse's name before 1929, but CACI were not. Or were they told not to?

[Forfarian]

I'm wondering, as a once upon a time database person, how much  thorough testing of the new system was carried out.  In particular, the way that most of us do the searches.

Indeed. Why could they not have copied the code already written by Brightsolid for the searches instead of getting CACI to reinvent the wheel as a square?

[pharmaT]

I'm wondering, as a once upon a time database person, how much  thorough testing of the new system was carried out.  In particular, the way that most of us do the searches.

Indeed. Why could they not have copied the code already written by Brightsolid for the searches instead of getting CACI to reinvent the wheel as a square?

Probably some contractual copyright reason they couldn't.

[Forfarian]

Probably some contractual copyright reason they couldn't.

I can see that if they had been outbid for the contract, they might have wanted to keep it to themselves. If, however, as I am led to believe, Brightsolid didn't want to continue with it, surely they would not have refused to hand over the code, especially if lubricated by a payment? They would have had nothing to gain by withholding it, and could suffer a lot of adverse PR by doing so.

[Gadget]

Just seen on Facebook that SP search rooms will be down tomorrow:

Hello everyone. Richard here with an update. Our ScotlandsPeople search rooms will remain closed on Tuesday 11 October following technical difficulties.

The SFHS (Scottish Family History Service) network and some other users are also affected.

We’re working hard to resolve the problems and restore services and will continue to provide updates here and at our Twitter account,

 Our online services and the historical and legal search rooms remain unaffected.

We will update customers further tomorrow but please check back here before travelling.

We're sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Added - latest update (today- Tuesday)  says that it's now open 

[Annette7]

I'm wondering, as a once upon a time database person, how much  thorough testing of the new system was carried out.  In particular, the way that most of us do the searches.

Gadget

I was told by SP that the testing of the new site was done with existing customers and new users.   I then replied that I'm sure that no existing customers would have approved what we have ended up with and why 'new users' when they have nothing to compare to!   This was one email that they didn't reply to!

Annette