It shouldn’t always fall on the same person to refute this sort of rubbish. There are plenty of others who could do it, and probably do it better than me, but I’ll take a turn.
Lee Fogarty wrote: »
Ok, time to clear this up.
Great. Finally, we’ve been waiting nearly three weeks for a response.
Lee Fogarty wrote: »
After god knows how many pages of discussions, nobody from ZXDB has contacted me at all.
Hang on… the creator of ZXDB has made 22 posts about this in your own forum over the last 19 days:
https://worldofspectrum.org/forums/disc ... nd-zxdb/p1
He has posted detailed and extensive evidence showing how you have taken your data from ZXDB, while falsely accusing him of stealing your data. He couldn’t PM you, as you have blocked him from sending PMs.
He’s also posted all the same evidence at the Spectrum Computing forum, where you have an account.
Lee Fogarty wrote: »
Firstly, there will never be an agreement as to what happened with the old data.
Why ever not? Surely two reasonable adults could discuss the facts, and work out exactly what has happened. Or are you trying to avoid the facts and turn this into a game of “he-said-she-said”?
Lee Fogarty wrote: »
I say it was take in its entirety without permission, Einar says otherwise.
It is a matter of public record that you gave permission for Einar to use WoS data to start ZXDB. It is recorded in this thread:
https://worldofspectrum.org/forums/disc ... -enough/p1
To summarise the thread, you decided to quit WoS and looked for someone else to take over. Einar offered to create ZXDB to help. You agreed. WoS admins even then praised Einar for the work he did in creating ZXDB.
The data wasn’t stolen. You and Rich Chandler keep repeating this accusation, but you never offer any credible evidence for it and you never offer any refutation of the abundant evidence showing that the data was not stolen.
Lee Fogarty wrote: »
Other have previously said they had the old database anyway. What they actually had was a very small selection exported to a CSV file from the main database. What Einar was given (in my opinion as part of the WoS admin group - the facebook group is also called WoS Admins), was the entire database. This was never released by Martijn, nor myself.
Einar has already addressed this comprehensively and in more detail than I could:
https://worldofspectrum.org/forums/disc ... ailable/p1
Lee Fogarty wrote: »
Having said that, like I said, there will never be an agreement.
The “he-said-she-said” stuff again. We aren’t discussing the existence of God. We are discussing some pretty simply facts. This issue really can be settled by looking at the facts.
Lee Fogarty wrote: »
I will however say that the WoS admins are very good at telling me when I am wrong - and in this case all have agreed and stated over the last couple of years that my opinion here isn't wrong. Everyone in the admin group were working (as far as we were concerned) on Infoseek.
Are you seriously arguing “my close mates agree with me, so I must be right”???
Lee Fogarty wrote: »
I should also point out here that our "secret" facebook group is the official WoS fb and currently has over 5,000 members.
….which Einar cannot see or participate in, so it is secret from him.
Lee Fogarty wrote: »
So, moving forward....
Having spent so much time with the data, it was clear that there were issues with the database. Issues that were so numerous, the decision was made to rebuild it, using the initial titles as a starting point - people will know this from the old CSV download - there's a lot more to it than just that one file, but it was a starting point. We've posted numerous updates over the last 2yrs, detailing the work we are doing, and where we are at. To give you some idea, every single title and release has been manually checked. This has led to tens of thousands of changes. Not just checking titles - this has involved opening and checking every inlay and scan on WoS, commenting on price differences, advertised versions, etc.. It's been a mammoth task.
As we neared the end of this, I was also putting together the new screens. It was intended to put this live at the end of July. In preparation for new scans (around 300gb), I purchased a higher spec server. Don't forget - we are an archive. It's a lot different to just linking to archive.org and hoping it stays up. This means we currently have 630gb files on the server. Some - such as the new inlays - aren't available yet.
The server move proved to be as bad as the last time, with the old cgi files not playing well. These scripts are almost 25yrs old. The only ones remaining that hadn't been moved to the new website were the infoseek related ones. So, one evening I switched the new pages on. I made no secret that it wasn't the database we will be using, as it is still being processed (fingers crossed this week). I have said many time here, and on the facebook group that this data isn't accurate and will not be used when our new database is ready to go live. However, the way the WoS database is constructed means that we can take change requests - not all can be actioned until we have the new set of data, but a lot can be. WoS has 91 tables in the database.
For an example of how much has gone into this, the old database has 28,699 titles & versions listed. This currently stands at 33,014 - and we haven't completed compilations or mag tapes yet. This is still phase 1, as we also have thousands of new scans to go through - they will be processed after we have finished compilations. This won't mean much to the average user - who cares that there are 5 versions of Licence to Kill and not the 3 currently listed? However, for the likes of collectors, this is important information.
The Infoseek engine currently has 308,807 items indexed, plus over 300,000 indexed, downloadable files. This isn't restricted to software - we have indexed every magazine page separately - something that the old WoS db didn't do. Because of the indexing, it has improved the infoseek results.
As for the data - I appreciate people are waiting for the advanced search to come online, but as it stands at the moment, with pages and sections missing, we still have far more information available to download than ever before - and based on feedback, that can only increase. The API is comprehensive and provides a lot more than the older one, and is also still being built upon. We have built this data up with accuracy at the front at all times. I am sure there will be some mistakes in there - it's to be expected.
So, what now?
The old database is considered legacy. As of today, the old database can be taken and used at will. However, I would like all mention of myself & WoS removing. It is provided "as is" without any guarantee of accuracy or quality.
The correct database will be loaded in the next few days.
And….
And….
Is that it?
You’ve written ten paragraphs and not addressed a single one of Einar’s points. Worse, you’ve not even mentioned ZXDB once!
Why does the database you are using exactly match an out-of-date version of ZXDB? Why has it put through verbatim the same hundreds of changes as that old version of ZXDB? Why does it contain multiple links and references to ZXDB? Why has New WoS suddenly started to misspell ZX Spectrum as “ZX-Spectrum” just as a certain Brazilian has for years?
If you intended to use ZXDB for this version, why not say it? And why did you feel the need to keep removing evidence showing you were using ZXDB? If it wasn’t the “real” database, what was the point?
Einar has said repeatedly that he has no objection to WoS using ZXDB. What is unreasonable is that you and Rich Chandler repeatedly make false allegations that he stole the data, while you do exactly the things you accuse him of. What is unreasonable is that you denigrate ZXDB while it seems to be the source of your improvements.
Please stop engaging in this absurd, divisive behaviour. If you want to use ZXDB, use it properly and honestly. If you don’t, just do your own thing. And either way, stop making false accusations.