Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Well, that was an "interesting" read, all 13 pages of it!
Oh dear. You kind of arrived in the middle of a big argument, we don't normally get this heated!
to the forum anyway!
Did I miss an argument!!! 8O 8O
For my part I can only apologise to everyone for the disruption on what is normally a very friendly, helpful and relaxed forum.
If it wasn't for this forum I would still be bingin and boingin instead of hearing my wifes lovely voice telling me what was approaching, come to think of it.....I hate this forum _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Hang on I will get back to you in a couple of days when I have gone through the database of the things she shouts at me for, I don't call her the 'leader of the opposition' for no reason _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 2718 Location: Chelmsford, UK
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject:
bmuskett wrote:
Then after posting your explanation on the first page you just let the arguments rage for days while people were asking for clarification. I think as paying customers (site or cameras, take your pick), we are entitled to the courtesy of timely information from the owners. I wouldn't dream of treating the customers I deal with in that way - I wouldn't keep them long.
So that's all I'm asking - tell us what's going on, please.
MaFt, who is currently best placed to answer these type of questions about the database, clarified and reiterated our stance almost every day. PocketGPSWorld.com Moderators, Verifiers and Darren also helped with the questions/reasoning/arguments for and against as well.
MaFt doesn't need me to stick up for him, but it needs saying.... with the best will in the world, he has only got so much time and, whilst not dismissing the importance of the subject, can reiterate only so often - he is a VERY busy man ensuring the database is near to 100% accurate as possible... and I'm sure that all those who have been using the database regularly over the last few months can testify to the improved accuracy since MaFt took over (MaFt also oversees the verifier programme).
Even with his heavy workload he still gave timely information - even over the weekend when a lot of people wouldn't ever consider working.
Very few, and I mean very few, if any forums that I visit afford the same respect and time to their visitors as we give to ours... and I'm sure most of you are aware that we are more than happy to do so!
We all love a good "discussion" like this one, but a decision had to be taken and it duly was. In fact this discussion has already been going on for several months across the site and our decision was based on the myriad feedback received from that.
No decision is going to be popular with everyone; everyone, quite rightly, has their own opinion and these boards thrive on that fact. Apologies bmuskett if we didn't live up to your expectations and apologies to those who don't agree with the decision. Thanks to those who accepted it. We are certain it'll guarantee an even more trustworthy database for the future. Keep those cameras coming _________________ Robert Brady
I think that this is a brilliant site and would never consider leaving, but this is a deplorable decision by PGPSW.
I will continue to enter camera sitings where they do not currently exist on the database but a comment in one of the first few pages of this thread correctly states that verification for these Mobile sites will take an absolute age as, by their very nature, they aren't always there for the process to succeed. But, the downside of not downloading is that sites which were on last months database, but which are now hidden awaiting verification in this months', will still show as active on mine and other members devices because of this flawed policy change.
I will not download any further "down dates" lest I be one of the unfortunate ones to have a lapse in my driving concentration one day.
Surely the depth and strength of feeling in this thread which has reached 14 pages so far is testimony of the unrest this decision has created.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:35 am Post subject:
topref wrote:
but a comment in one of the first few pages of this thread correctly states that verification for these Mobile sites will take an absolute age as, by their very nature, they aren't always there for the process to succeed.
INcorrectly states....
The camera does not need to be there for the site to be verified by one of the verification team.
@topref - couldnt agree more. I thought a democracy was about freedom of information and speech. Now I find we pay for filtered imformation which we are not allowed access to and to be allowed to decide for ourself. I am also running an old version of the database.
I agree it is a great site. Leaders make mistakes. What divides them from being great leaders is the ability to recognise a mistake and change their mind without losing face.
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:57 am Post subject:
robbrady wrote:
MaFt, who is currently best placed to answer these type of questions about the database, clarified and reiterated our stance almost every day. PocketGPSWorld.com Moderators, Verifiers and Darren also helped with the questions/reasoning/arguments for and against as well.
From page 4 early Saturday until page 10 on Wednesday afternoon I can't see any post on your stance from PGSPW or a moderator. I don't don't know about verifiers as I don't know who they are. That period covered the most acrimonious discussion and contains a number of appeals for clarification. MaFt seems to have been posting elsewhere in the forums during that time, so to me, PGSPW appeared to be avoiding the issue.
robbrady wrote:
We all love a good "discussion" like this one, but a decision had to be taken and it duly was. In fact this discussion has already been going on for several months across the site and our decision was based on the myriad feedback received from that.
Then why didn't you tell us that up front? You quoted the last part of my post on page 12, but not this
bmuskett wrote:
So the point I want to make here is that you removed 1000 mobile cameras from the database with no warning or explanation. Why didn't you just include a note with the announcement of the release, or in a separate thread, just explaining what you were doing and why? I'm sure there would have been some discussion of that but none of the crazy speculation that started the thread and maybe less argument.
That's where you didn't live up to my expectations - please just tell us what you're doing.
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:00 am Post subject:
a wrote:
@topref - couldnt agree more. I thought a democracy was about freedom of information and speech. Now I find we pay for filtered imformation which we are not allowed access to and to be allowed to decide for ourself. I am also running an old version of the database.
I agree it is a great site. Leaders make mistakes. What divides them from being great leaders is the ability to recognise a mistake and change their mind without losing face.
The value in our database is that it is collated and filtered and not simply a disorganised collection of unverified co-ordinates!
Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. We have never shied away from acknowledging mistakes but I do not believe we have made one here.
We have a single wish, that it is to make this database the best and most accurate. In this case we mistakenly included some mobile sites which had not met our criteria for acceptance and subsequently chose to remove them. We get many complaints from users with regard to the mobile database as it is because they dislike warnings for sites that are not manned and we believe this is the best course of action.
If we were to include every site that had received no verification or were to include them as submitted you'd have a database riddled with false reports and cameras in fields, driveways etc.
Of course it is impossible to please everyone but if you find the whole issue so unpalatable then you are free to sample the competition. We would however prefer you accepted the database for what it is and worked with us! _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:01 am Post subject:
topref wrote:
I think that this is a brilliant site and would never consider leaving ....
I will not download any further "down dates"
Strange decision. How long will it be before you "know" the database has got back to "up" dates as opposed to "down" dates? Will you wait until the mobile sites are up to 6,000+? Do you expect the few hundred duplicate and/or just plain wrong ones to make it into some future release? Or will you simply stick with the old DB and "not download any further" releases? In the meantime, if you look back you'll see that the last four DB releases added 130 new static cameras - that's the ones which are always there and will flash you, not might be there occasionally. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:28 am Post subject:
I did promise myself not to respond to this thread again, and I appreciate I'm wasting my time but I would like to make some points.
1. I'm sure I'm in the overwhelming majority when I say that I fully appreciate all the work involved in converting the wide variety of submissions into a easy to use database and would like to express my thanks not only to MaFt , but also to Oldie and Mike B for past work. Although I'm fortunate to have life membership, I do feel that £2.00 is a small price to pay.
2. Each user of the database is entitled to use the information as they wish. Some people will only require certain warnings others to have all, others may have the self discipline to always keep within the speed limits and not require one at all. Other than the fact that nobody is entitled to drive dangerously or beyond the limits of road/ traffic conditions at the time, it is a matter of personal choice.
3. Mobile sites are by definition totally different to fixed sites, and my own personal opinion is that they cannot be treated the same as fixed sites in terms of guaranteed accuracy. If people wish to complain that a particular mobile site is not in use when they pass it, then nothing you can say or do is going to change that. Although in theory not having unverified sites in the database should by the law of averages reduce this, in you factor in pure chance, then the level of these 'complaints' wont fall.
4. With regard to the perceived value of the database being increased by not having unverified cameras in it, then the simple answer is your solution of not including them. BUT, despite of all the posts in this thread, nobody has explained to me why it would be possible to make the unverified information available as a separate file, only to be downloaded if a customer felt the need.
It could be totally separate to the main commercial database, could be offered as a raw csv file to minimise extra work, if customers really felt the need for it they could convert it themselves to there own requirements. there could even be a 'disclaimer' tick box on the download page to emphasise the unconfirmed nature of the data. This would have the benefit of satisfying all sides of the argument, would demonstrate that the management of PGPSW.com does respond to their customers, and could possibly have the added benefit of speeding up the verification process.
5. I strongly feel that this whole matter could with have been handled a lot better. If there had been a news item PRIOR to the last release, explaining in detail about the proposed changes, your reasons for making them, and the steps you were taking to improve the verification process and how it applied to mobile sites, I'm sure it would have minimised the overall tone of this thread, and been of a lot more use to me than press releases of TomTom logo changes or GPS companies photo competitions.
Although the number of individual posters isn't that great, there have been over 6000 views of this thread. I can't help thinking back to how the announcement of charging for the database was handled.
Finally, this is my own personal view, and whilst many people may not agree or like it, it is meant as genuine constuctive comment, and I apologise in advance if anybody is offended. _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
to the forum anyway!
Does she shout at you to slow down? 
