Is C&RT's Boat/Location Logging System Fit for Purpose?

[mayalld]

Yes, they (the boat sighting printouts posted by Nigel Moore) do help. The Functional Location column (home mooring or CC'er) starts in 2009 with the boat as a CC'er, changes 12 Nov 2009 to a different Code ( which C&RT won't explain) then on 23 Apr 2010 changes to CC'er again. On 30 June 2011 it changes to a home mooring at Holme Lock. On 1 Feb 2012 it changes to MAC before finally changing to a home mooring at Barton-in-Fabis on 8 May 2012. If you now look at the 19 line X 11 column printout ( for the same boat from 2003 to 2014) it tells a completely different story about that boat's home mooring. So there are two printouts from C&RT, both produced at the same time as evidence to be used in Court, and contradicting each other. At the very least, one of them has to be wrong.

Perhaps you failed to notice the discrepancies because you were too busy "interpretting" rather than reading.

 

Tony,

 

notwithstanding the fact that I have some firm opinions as to the rights and wrongs of your situation, I would ask you to accept that what I am doing here is offering you a professional opinion on a computer system.

 

My opinion may well not co-incide with the opinion that you cited from another software professional earlier, but I would say that whilst techies could argue until the cows come home (or to one of their favoured moorings that are not actually home) about what the design of an ideal system would be, most of the techies who have seen the two printouts would agree that those printouts do NOT substantiate the claims that "your" techies have made.

 

The fact that the two print-outs show apparently conflicting data clearly shows that the underlying data is fine, but that one of the reports is NOT showing what you expected it to show.

 

Like that explanation or not, I make my living from looking at stuff like this and working out how it ticks under the covers. I do actually know what I'm talking about here, and attacking the system and calling into doubt the data integrity is doomed to fail.

[Graham Davis]

 

The reports are an integral part of the system. If they are inaccurate for whatever reason then the system is not fit for purpose. Think of a chain with a broken link, it is not a good chain.

 

Not necessarily.

They may be perfect for the result they were written for, but not for any other purpose.

Which has now been said by several people, but is being ignored by the rest.

[mayalld]

 

The reports are an integral part of the system. If they are inaccurate for whatever reason then the system is not fit for purpose. Think of a chain with a broken link, it is not a good chain.

 

That presumes that the financial report is "inaccurate", when it clearly is not.

 

The financial report includes columns that report the PRESENT Home mooring, rather than the home mooring that was in place when the transaction took place.

 

Now, that may not suit Mr Dunkley's requirements for a report, but the report wasn't written for Mr Dunkley. Rather he has been provided with a report written for a different purpose, which contains the information he needs, along with other information that he does not need.

 

It seems sensible to use an existing report rather than write a new one, and Mr Dunkley should ignore the other data that isn't actually relevant.

[Quinafloat]

So, are people saying that TD was sent the wrong report, or that he should ignore the incorrect parts of it without telling him which parts are incorrect?

[Paul C]

 

The reports are an integral part of the system. If they are inaccurate for whatever reason then the system is not fit for purpose. Think of a chain with a broken link, it is not a good chain.

 

But its a large system. There is no single "purpose" (except for a somewhat strategic overall statement of its purpose), but many different aspects. It will have a large number of purposes, some of which I'm sure it fulfils quite adequately, and a few it probably falls short on. Its quite possible to say its fit for purpose (for example) on recording boat movements but not for its historical report of home moorings. So its not a simple yes/no answer. In any case, nobody has yet defined the "purpose" we're trying to discuss here in any great detail. Think of a chain harrow with a broken link - it still works, just not as well as a brand new one with 100% intact chains.

[Paul C]

So, are people saying that TD was sent the wrong report, or that he should ignore the incorrect parts of it without telling him which parts are incorrect?

 

Firstly lets see, verbatim, what TD actually asked for.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Tony,

 

notwithstanding the fact that I have some firm opinions as to the rights and wrongs of your situation, I would ask you to accept that what I am doing here is offering you a professional opinion on a computer system.

 

My opinion may well not co-incide with the opinion that you cited from another software professional earlier, but I would say that whilst techies could argue until the cows come home (or to one of their favoured moorings that are not actually home) about what the design of an ideal system would be, most of the techies who have seen the two printouts would agree that those printouts do NOT substantiate the claims that "your" techies have made.

 

The fact that the two print-outs show apparently conflicting data clearly shows that the underlying data is fine, but that one of the reports is NOT showing what you expected it to show.

 

Like that explanation or not, I make my living from looking at stuff like this and working out how it ticks under the covers. I do actually know what I'm talking about here, and attacking the system and calling into doubt the data integrity is doomed to fail.

There is nothing "apparent" about the differences about home moorings in the two printouts.

 

Firstly lets see, verbatim, what TD actually asked for.

I didn't ask for anything. C&RT produced the two self contradictory printouts as evidence to use in Court.

[mayalld]

There is nothing "apparent" about the differences about home moorings in the two printouts.

I didn't ask for anything. C&RT produced the two self contradictory printouts as evidence to use in Court.

 

One report shows the Home mooring as it was on the date of the associated event. The other shows the current value of that data item.

 

That may not be what you want. It may not be what you expect to see. It may not be what you would have specified, but it is what the report contains.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

One report shows the Home mooring as it was on the date of the associated event. The other shows the current value of that data item.

 

That may not be what you want. It may not be what you expect to see. It may not be what you would have specified, but it is what the report contains.

Is there anyone on this Forum who can translate what Dave Mayall is saying into understandable English? I don't think he's saying anything worth listening to but he is trying . . . isn't he!

[Guest]

Is there anyone on this Forum who can translate what Dave Mayall is saying into understandable English? I don't think he's saying anything worth listening to but he is trying . . . isn't he!

Personally I don't know why he has bothered to help you.

[Tony Dunkley]

Personally I don't know why he has bothered to help you.

Well aren't you a lucky chap then, you can add that to all the other things you don't know.

[mayalld]

Is there anyone on this Forum who can translate what Dave Mayall is saying into understandable English? I don't think he's saying anything worth listening to but he is trying . . . isn't he!

 

I'm sorry that you are having difficulty understanding.

 

Unfortunately, the issue is a somewhat technical one, and it isn't particularly easy to explain it in plain English.

 

Let me try another tack...

 

The columns have headings that are rather terse in the reports you have.

 

Assume that the key to the headings for the financial reports includes the following line

 

Func Loc - Location of Home Mooring at print date.

 

And that the heading for the sighting report contains

 

Func Loc - Location of the Home Mooring on the date of sighting

 

Does this help. Both columns are headed "Func Loc", but the data that is EXPECTED to appear is non-identical.

[Paul C]

Did any of post #171 sink in?

[MtB]

Personally I don't know why he has bothered to help you.

 

One or two of my attempts to help have been treated with similar disdain by Tony.

 

Seems to me as though Tony is just here looking for people to agree with him. An early example of what RLWP recently identified as an "AWM thread" !

 

 

MtB

[Guest]

Well aren't you a lucky chap then, you can add that to all the other things you don't know.

Well I now I'm pretty sure I something else now too, and that is why you seem to be in such a 'pickle' with the Trust.

[John V]

QUAF..........just awaiting the final F ?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I'm sorry that you are having difficulty understanding.

 

Unfortunately, the issue is a somewhat technical one, and it isn't particularly easy to explain it in plain English.

 

Let me try another tack...

 

The columns have headings that are rather terse in the reports you have.

 

Assume that the key to the headings for the financial reports includes the following line

 

Func Loc - Location of Home Mooring at print date.

 

And that the heading for the sighting report contains

 

Func Loc - Location of the Home Mooring on the date of sighting

 

Does this help. Both columns are headed "Func Loc", but the data that is EXPECTED to appear is non-identical.

That would seem to make it even more nonsensical. There are dates entered on every line giving Barton-in-Fabis as the home mooring back to 2003. If the printout was intended to show the Functional Location at print date only, it should leave the FuncLoc column blank for every other date (line)and not print incorrect and misleading information just to fill the space up.

[Quinafloat]

 

I'm sorry that you are having difficulty understanding.

 

Unfortunately, the issue is a somewhat technical one, and it isn't particularly easy to explain it in plain English.

 

Let me try another tack...

 

The columns have headings that are rather terse in the reports you have.

 

Assume that the key to the headings for the financial reports includes the following line

 

Func Loc - Location of Home Mooring at print date.

 

And that the heading for the sighting report contains

 

Func Loc - Location of the Home Mooring on the date of sighting

 

Does this help. Both columns are headed "Func Loc", but the data that is EXPECTED to appear is non-identical.

 

Both headings are not headed by Func Loc, on the one report it is Func Loc, on the other it is Functional Loc. I pointed this out in an earlier post.

 

Any expectation that they would contain the same data would be misplaced, otherwise they would have the same naming.

 

Your explanation should read.

 

Func Loc Location of Home Mooring at print date.

Functional Loc Location of the Home Mooring on the date and time of uploading to the database.

 

However it is CaRT's task to clarify the meaning of the Meta Data, both you and I could both very easily be wrong.

[RLWP]

 

One or two of my attempts to help have been treated with similar disdain by Tony.

 

Seems to me as though Tony is just here looking for people to agree with him. An early example of what RLWP recently identified as an "AWM thread" !

 

 

MtB

 

This is one of the recent threads I had in mind

 

Richard

[Quinafloat]

TD is a boater being taken to court and may well loose his home as a result. I don't care if he bites my head off for every post I make. I will continue to offer any help I can. Let this not descend into a personality issue.

[NilesMI]

That would seem to make it even more nonsensical. There are dates entered on every line giving Barton-in-Fabis as the home mooring back to 2003. If the printout was intended to show the Functional Location at print date only, it should leave the FuncLoc column blank for every other date (line)and not print incorrect and misleading information just to fill the space up.

 

There is nothing "wrong"in CRT producing a printout which happens to show the same value in the location column for each transaction record, where that value corresponds to the home mooring at the time the printout is produced. Obviously, they could just have shown it in a single field, or as you say, shown it for just one transaction, leaving it blank in other lines. But you could say exactly the same for the boat name and registration.

 

It may not be the way you would have chosen to arrange the information, but so what? It's rather like arguing about how to arrange a CD collection. Just because you do it alphabetically by artist, subdivided by genre, doesn't make it "wrong" that someone else arranges it by album title, with completely sepatate sections for male/female solo artist.

 

The prinout is only "wrong"or "inaccurate" if CRT have told you, or claimed in the submission of their evidence that data the Floc column represents your home mooring on the date of the recorded transaction. Have they done that Tony? It's a simple question, let's see if you can answer it.

[Graham Davis]

Is there anyone on this Forum who can translate what Dave Mayall is saying into understandable English? I don't think he's saying anything worth listening to but he is trying . . . isn't he!

 

 

Well aren't you a lucky chap then, you can add that to all the other things you don't know.

 

I'm surprised anyone wants to help you with your attitude!

[Tony Dunkley]

 

One or two of my attempts to help have been treated with similar disdain by Tony.

 

Seems to me as though Tony is just here looking for people to agree with him. An early example of what RLWP recently identified as an "AWM thread" !

 

 

MtB

No Mike, you have completely misunderstood me. I am here looking for people to disagree with.

[MtB]

 

It's a simple question, let's see if you can answer it.

 

I doubt Tony will be answering it, because your question shows you up as not buying into his CRT-bashing stance, and therefore not worthy of a response.

 

 

MtB

 

 

(Edit to correct a grammar mistake)

Edited August 11, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Bod]

My understanding of the two reports is this.

1st one show C&RT accepted the home mooring, as "satisfactory" for a number of years.

2nd one shows that the boat movements are much the same over that period.

 

The big question is what has changed?

 

Are/were the statutory requirements being met?

If so, why are C&RT pursuing this course of action?(Hopefully the Judge will ask this question!)

 

Bod