Noticed you have stated a policy about ignoring some of the queries. Some of the questions or input are now going unanswered. I can understand that if it requires a detailed review. Don't you think this will discourage and run off your viewers? Some have made valuable inputs (missing bouts, corrections, etc.). I can see if a question like, I read an article about Jeff Malcolm and it said he won his 100th fight on May 14 and Boxrec only shows 97. Maybe you should ask the viewers if they have anything on this and tell the Editors to not research this type of item. Do it in a public Forum response. (5-19-2001 Jeff Malcolm beat Peter Mokomoko W points 12 Auckland- 6-08-01 Jeff Malcolm beat Graham Mclaughlin W4 rsf referee stops fight , Christchurch. Can't find a third one. Maybe someone else knows. Source Kiwiboxing.com. If you want to accept that as valid. (Kiwiboxing, if you read this, go to the top of this page and click on private messages). Another example, for whoever inputs the female records. Minor items-4-14-2002 Layla Mccarter vs Sandy Yard bout was 4-13-2002, not 4-14-2002. Sources Fightnews.com article of 4-14-2002 states" last nights fight" and New Mexico Boxing.com has it as part of its 4-13-2002. Also, believe Emilia Jakimowa is Emilia Iakimova (look at Iakimova record and see 11-10-2001 bout were she fought in Poland as a Superbantamweight). Another missing bout is 4-10-2002 Vyacheslav Burba beat Yaram Yaraliev W6 St. Petersburg, Russia. Listed the other bouts, missed this one. Source Fightnews.com. Enter fightnews.com-click on past results-go to the bottom of the page click on April 2002 and go down the page to article stating Karmazin wins tuneup. My point is that you are excluding an added resource. I've noticed that useage has declined. It used to be when I viewed this site, 15 to 30 other people also were viewing. I think they have become discouraged. I noticed a fellow from Australia (Dobbin?) made a few suggestions and Inquiries. I didn't see any responses. His suggestion about an Australian Boxing Encyclopedia or Record book seemed to me to be a valid one. Didn't see any good responses. Raf the Frenchman stated a couple of boxers records (French) were missing a bout. I believe he should have been encouraged to help. Also I recently submitted what I thought was a duplication (6-23-1999) No reply. Looked to me like one name was entered and then the inputer realized the first name was in error, put it in correctly and failed to delete the incoreect one. Maybe not. Still think you owe an inquirer a reply.
My point is that the viewer is the customer. If a retailer doesn't respond to his customers needs he goes out of business.
outsider opinion
Where is there a policy of ignoring queries? If there is one, I never got it.
In all honesty we do not have anyone supplying Australian results. So if you ask something related to that, the editors may just be drawing a collective blank. I look at every query that is posted in this forum, as I'm sure many others do. If I can provide some info or insight, I will reply. Otherwise, I just click on the post and move on.
You have to understand there isn't an answer to every question.
In all honesty we do not have anyone supplying Australian results. So if you ask something related to that, the editors may just be drawing a collective blank. I look at every query that is posted in this forum, as I'm sure many others do. If I can provide some info or insight, I will reply. Otherwise, I just click on the post and move on.
You have to understand there isn't an answer to every question.
Ditto what Matt said.
I, too, look at vitually all new posts (but seldom visit the Current Scene).
Although there is an "Editors Only" room, so to speak, there is no stated, implied or suggested policy regarding replies. The only "policies" that have been mutually agreed upon are:
1) No inclusion of amateur or exhibition bouts (except in the bios, or use of EXHs to create aliases).
2) No subjective or personal comments in the records (unless quoting contemporary newspaper articles, for example).
3) Abide by a standard format for indicating locations.
4) Don't include bouts or comments until they are verified. (Don't just accept someone's word. Certain boxing historians excepted.
We'll accept THEIR word.)
But there is none whatsoever regarding replies.
As Matt said, if I don't have an answer, I move on. Sometimes I will e-mail the query to someone else. Or, more likely, if the question concerns an area/era of boxing that lies outside MY area of expertise or interest, I will ignore it, and leave it to an Editor who does have some expertise and interest in the subject raised. (Got a question about the little guys of the 20s and 30s, and I'm all ears.) I sometimes get e-mail from folks about various subjects I know little about. If I do, I will post the query here - as you may have seen over the history of this forum.
One last point: There is such a backlog of a stupendous number of historical bouts yet to be entered. We are presently entering 3,000 to 4,000 bouts per week. Further, some of us are also busy sitting in our local libraries researching newspaper microfilm for long-lost bouts. So, many of us only peek our heads in the Forum once in a while, see if there is anything we can learn or answer, then move on to the work of entering or researching more bouts.
I also know that if an Editor is knowledgeable about a query raised, or suggested changes, we all each individually and personally consider it a priority to address and input into the BoxRec database information brought forward in the Forum. Because we like to heard comments of "Man! You guys are quick!" Etc. But, then again, if we don't have an answer, we move on to the other projects on our plates.
Thanks for the comment, $bill.
I, too, look at vitually all new posts (but seldom visit the Current Scene).
Although there is an "Editors Only" room, so to speak, there is no stated, implied or suggested policy regarding replies. The only "policies" that have been mutually agreed upon are:
1) No inclusion of amateur or exhibition bouts (except in the bios, or use of EXHs to create aliases).
2) No subjective or personal comments in the records (unless quoting contemporary newspaper articles, for example).
3) Abide by a standard format for indicating locations.
4) Don't include bouts or comments until they are verified. (Don't just accept someone's word. Certain boxing historians excepted.
We'll accept THEIR word.) But there is none whatsoever regarding replies.
As Matt said, if I don't have an answer, I move on. Sometimes I will e-mail the query to someone else. Or, more likely, if the question concerns an area/era of boxing that lies outside MY area of expertise or interest, I will ignore it, and leave it to an Editor who does have some expertise and interest in the subject raised. (Got a question about the little guys of the 20s and 30s, and I'm all ears.) I sometimes get e-mail from folks about various subjects I know little about. If I do, I will post the query here - as you may have seen over the history of this forum.
One last point: There is such a backlog of a stupendous number of historical bouts yet to be entered. We are presently entering 3,000 to 4,000 bouts per week. Further, some of us are also busy sitting in our local libraries researching newspaper microfilm for long-lost bouts. So, many of us only peek our heads in the Forum once in a while, see if there is anything we can learn or answer, then move on to the work of entering or researching more bouts.
I also know that if an Editor is knowledgeable about a query raised, or suggested changes, we all each individually and personally consider it a priority to address and input into the BoxRec database information brought forward in the Forum. Because we like to heard comments of "Man! You guys are quick!" Etc. But, then again, if we don't have an answer, we move on to the other projects on our plates.
Thanks for the comment, $bill.
Australian Results
Oh, Matt, I think $bill must be referring to Editor kiwi. To my knowledge, he and brand-new Editor GrahamD have recently begun entering a large number of Australian bouts. I raised a query earlier in the Forum that kiwi had e-mailed to me, because I have no knowledge in this area. After I raised the query in the Forum, $bill sent me a private message about some Australian results. I replied someone along the lines of "I don't know," but that Editor kiwi might. After that, $bill made some points about Australian results, probably hoping that kiwi might reply.
$bill: I also happen to suspect that some of our newer Editors either don't visit the Forum or something else that is beyond me. (Maybe they don't know to come visit here often. I dunno.) Because, despite constant messages in the Editors Only room regarding agreed-upon location format, don't-insert-exhibitions and other "policies," it appears they haven't visited the Forum to view any of those messages and have entered such "no-no"s. So, one BIG reason some posts are not being replied to by those who should or might know the answer, is because the Editor for some reason doesn't visit the Forum. Is that true, Master John, creator of BoxRec and Master of the Key?
$bill: I also happen to suspect that some of our newer Editors either don't visit the Forum or something else that is beyond me. (Maybe they don't know to come visit here often. I dunno.) Because, despite constant messages in the Editors Only room regarding agreed-upon location format, don't-insert-exhibitions and other "policies," it appears they haven't visited the Forum to view any of those messages and have entered such "no-no"s. So, one BIG reason some posts are not being replied to by those who should or might know the answer, is because the Editor for some reason doesn't visit the Forum. Is that true, Master John, creator of BoxRec and Master of the Key?
Last edited by Ric on 10 Jul 2002, 20:48, edited 1 time in total.
-
$ bill
- Heavyweight
outsider opinion
Thank you for your responses. That, in itsself, proves my concerns are unwarranted. You people do a tremendous job. Thanks.
-
kevin
- Heavyweight