CRT don't want ANY volunteers [Split from : CRT dont want skilled equipped volunteers]

[paulmorgan]

Hello,

 

Yes, the problem resides mainly with the "Roles from home" checkbox. We've been going through the code and we think we have a fix that will work with the other specific ways the search has been defined to us. We should hopefully get this rolled out next week, based against the other priorities we currently have.

 

Thank you for the feedback, it's genuinely useful to gain an insight into how different people use, and expect things to function. I will also send this thread to the National Volunteering Manager who is looking at the whole process of how we collect Volunteering opportunity information, and then how we search over it and present it back it to the people who are minded to help us.

 

Paul

[bassplayer]

There are a few boaters who do some greasing, cut grass beside where they moor and cut overhanging vegetation. I've seen a boater do mechanical work on lock gate hinge. Many of us clear crap blocking gates from opening up fully without calling CRT out.

 

It would be interesting to know CRT's official view on unofficial voluntary work. My query to Damian Kemp asking if some of us could do this kind of work officially fell on deaf ears after being promised it would be referred to the relevant department.

 

The root of the problem is that what started as a voluntary vocation run by enthusiasts has become a business.

[Mac of Cygnet]

Good to see that CRT in the person of Paul is taking this on board. (!) Thank you!

[MtB]

 

Do you seriously imagine they have not used expensive "professional" writers to come up with what they are looking at here?

 

 

 

As Red Adair once famously said, "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."

 

I've a sneaky feeling this is what's happened here. CRT are paying peanuts for their web developers and getting people who can code but can't get the logic flow right.

[bassplayer]

 

 

As Red Adair once famously said, "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."

 

I've a sneaky feeling this is what's happened here. CRT are paying peanuts for their web developers and getting people who can code but can't get the logic flow right.

It doesn't always follow that paid workers have a better logic flow though does it?

[DHutch]

... were this one of Cath's students' coursework she would have been sending it back saying "lets think about what is wrong with this, shall we?".

 

[Paul C]

It doesn't matter if the workforce is paid or not, there's a way to do things which produce good results; and a way to do things which ends up with a mess. In IT/software stuff, its a fairly well established fact that you'd initially develop something and it would be one person doing it and checking it; then you'd move to alpha testing where testing is in-house but is more formalised. Then beta testing where a limited number of sympathetic users - but a broader group - will have access to and further test things. You'd set milestones and target dates - if the milestone isn't reached by the target date, you may choose to delay launch until its right; or launch anyway so its on time but with faults, and "postpone" fixes until the first revision etc after public launch. Pragmatically what normally happens is you achieve the majority of milestones on-time, launch it, but then someone would do something bizarre and completely unexpected which wasn't picked up by testing. Having a test environment which accurately replicates the real-world-usage is part of the skill of success. Another danger is introducing error(s) due to the necessary differences between a test environment and the real one.

[bassplayer]

It doesn't matter if the workforce is paid or not, there's a way to do things which produce good results; and a way to do things which ends up with a mess. In IT/software stuff, its a fairly well established fact that you'd initially develop something and it would be one person doing it and checking it; then you'd move to alpha testing where testing is in-house but is more formalised. Then beta testing where a limited number of sympathetic users - but a broader group - will have access to and further test things. You'd set milestones and target dates - if the milestone isn't reached by the target date, you may choose to delay launch until its right; or launch anyway so its on time but with faults, and "postpone" fixes until the first revision etc after public launch. Pragmatically what normally happens is you achieve the majority of milestones on-time, launch it, but then someone would do something bizarre and completely unexpected which wasn't picked up by testing. Having a test environment which accurately replicates the real-world-usage is part of the skill of success. Another danger is introducing error(s) due to the necessary differences between a test environment and the real one.

Come on now. That's the old way. Now days you just bung it out of the door and get the user to test it...

[Peter X]

It doesn't always follow that paid workers have a better logic flow though does it?

As in any occupation, the professionals are usually better than the amateurs but there are plenty of exceptions. I've often come across really bad code written by well paid and supposedly experienced people and vive-versa. However if you really want bad value for money as an organisation, get a very large software house to write your code. They'll charge eye-watering rates and often supply someone quite junior who's only getting paid a small fraction of the fees, and in some cases isn't even worth that much. I should mention that I have no idea what CRT do, so this is not a comment on their particular IT procurement policy.

[bassplayer]

As in any occupation, the professionals are usually better than the amateurs but there are plenty of exceptions. I've often come across really bad code written by well paid and supposedly experienced people and vive-versa. However if you really want bad value for money as an organisation, get a very large software house to write your code. They'll charge eye-watering rates and often supply someone quite junior who's only getting paid a small fraction of the fees, and in some cases isn't even worth that much. I should mention that I have no idea what CRT do, so this is not a comment on their particular IT procurement policy.

Money doesn't have any baring on how good someone is at their job. Money is just a necessity in this stupid system.

 

In fact, I would go further and say that if you do it out of love rather than money then the chances are you'll do a better job. The lucky ones do it out of love AND get paid for it...

[cuthound]

Maybe that's true in your working environment.

 

I worked in project management and found those who are good get given bigger and more valuable projects Those who aren't either stay at their level or get sacked.

[paulmorgan]

Hello,

We deployed a fix for the Home option on Friday. This *should* address some of the problems mentioned in the thread in terms of returned results when that option is selected.

 

Paul

[DHutch]

Hello,

We deployed a fix for the Home option on Friday. This *should* address some of the problems mentioned in the thread in terms of returned results when that option is selected.

 

Paul

Thank you very much for the feedback and openness.

 

 

Daniel

[Bod]

Well, I am amazed at the level of surprise, shown by most posters, at C&RT's use of Information Technology.

But much praise to Paul, for taking this onboard, and doing something about it.

 

Bod