What's going on here?

[dsockrider]

Something is very wrong here. When there are official reports to the chancellor, I need to be able to trust that I am not being misrepresented.

On [b]January 17, 2007,[/b] Bob Crisler said this:

09:36am bcrisler :
Reported to chancellor as "not complete," likely noted that the developer refuses to follow the template style guide.

Today, April 23rd, 2007, I rechecked the latest official report to the chancellor. Whoever writes the report to the chancellor reported the IMSE site and Construction Management as 'Not reporting'

The IMSE site or CM sites have NEVER been classified as 'Not reporting' and the IMSE site in fact, is 100% approved as compliant by the QA group on April 9, 2007.

[quote]Dear David Sockrider -
Thank you for submitting your UNL website (http://www.imse.unl.edu/) for review to the Web Developer Network quality assurance process.
Your site was reviewed on April 9th, 2007, and met all the required priorities from the UNL Style Book

Congratulations - your site will be included in the next report to the chancellor as complete![/quote]

[rcrisler1]

David -

This was all discussed in a series of emails on the 17th. The report is monthly; the system-generated email you received after the April 9 review session said the following:

Your site was reviewed on April 9th, 2007, and met all the required priorities from the UNL Style Book.
Congratulations - your site will be included in the next report to the chancellor as complete!

The next report to the chancellor is May 1. The text of my final 4/17 email to you I repeat below, as it contains some information that others should have, that is, to review the 'not reporting' section.

____


David -

The database considers the directory address to be unique. But both IMSE and CM have more than one URL for the same site, which results in the system not being able to see the duplicates. IMSE was reported - as of the day of the report - as 99 percent complete, CM 95. Both are also present under different home URLs in the Not Reporting section. We will remove the two records from the Not Reporting section in this instance. In the future, please check the Not Reporting section first to see if any site you're about to enter in the system is already represented there. If it is, you can simply adopt that record by adding a record of that URL. The system will ask your role for that site, and it'll be yours. Then, you'll be able to change the URL to whatever URL you prefer to have listed as the home URL for that site.

It really would be a good idea to move to a single-URL-per-site system. The same site under different URLs will be picked up by the search engines as separate sites, and the site's position in search results will suffer.

Please look through the Not Reporting entries for any other duplicates.

Thanks.

- Bob

ps. Nice work on the IMSE site.

[saltybeagle]

I believe this all stems from serving websites out of multiple addresses - and not redirecting to one official address.

I would recommend serving a site out of only one address.

The 'Not reporting' IMSE site has been removed from the report --- and will not be seen in the next report. If anyone sees other problems with non reporting sites, they can either register them to their wdn account, or identify the duplicate records to remove.

[dsockrider]

I'm not sure how this system exactly works, it does seem far from consistent. I have many other URLs and websites on the same server that didn't come up as 'Not Reporting'

Having one URL for every site is not an option. I'll contact our server guy about revising our 'forwarding' technique.

In January, Bob said, "09:36am bcrisler :
Reported to chancellor as "not complete," likely noted that the developer refuses to follow the template style guide. "

Here we are in April and two of my sites were submitted to the Chancellor as 'Not Reporting'. Maybe someone should review the reports to the Chancellor for accuracy before submitting. I've worked very hard to avoid having ANY of my sites being classified as 'Not Reporting'. Despite my best efforts the report was filed to the Cancellor as Crisler stated in January.

[saltybeagle]

I'm not sure how this system exactly works, it does seem far from consistent. I have many other URLs and websites on the same server that didn't come up as 'Not Reporting'

For consistency, I doubt you'd want the report to contain duplicate not-reporting entries for the 6 urls each of the Engineering sites can be accessed from.
The initial report was populated by crawling the Academic Departments directory pages --- http://www.unl.edu/ucomm/depts/ --- which covered the majority of the sites the chancellor was interested in seeing. Any incorrect URLs are from the links contained on those pages (send corrections through the comments link).

Now that the report is out, I don't anticipate adding more sites automatically. So, I would just examine the latest report yourself, and note any inaccuracies you see.

But, for the past report(s) -

At a low level --- the report is accurate, the site noted by that URL has not been reported by the developer who owns that site.

At a high level --- it's easy to see that specific instance you cited is a duplicated URL.

The cause of the problem is duplicate URLs for one site- which I've already noted. I've removed the duplicate entry from the registry --- it will not show up as a duplicate in the next report.

But, I think it is up to the developers to identify their sites - and review the report for accuracy. Especially if they are aware that their site can be accessed from multiple entry points.

Please note any others you find -- this is a large report that the WDN is compiling.

[rcrisler1]

David -

Just in case you forgot to highlight the quote in context ...

[09:35am] dsockrider: then what is the solution on the engineering website if I refused?

[09:36am] bcrisler: Reported to chancellor as "not complete," likely noted that the developer refuses to follow the template style guide.

[dsockrider]

I was paying attention to the August 15 deadlline. Is there a different rule book somewhere requiring me to adhere to all of your demands immediately?

[grauzone]

I was paying attention to the August 15 deadlline. Is there a different rule book somewhere requiring me to adhere to all of your demands immediately?

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with you taking an old IRC chatlog quote, removing its original context (on a completely different issue) and attempting to use it against Bob (or the QA Committee) in this current issue of your duplicate URLs causing problems in the reporting.

You quoted Bob as saying:

[09:36am] bcrisler: Reported to chancellor as "not complete," likely noted that the developer refuses to follow the template style guide.

You used this quotation in the context of your current situation with some sites in the registry showing up as "not reporting" (due to you having several duplicate URLs).

The actual context of that quote, as shown below, was in response to your question months ago about what would happen if you refused to adhere to the Style Book guidelines for Related Links.

[09:35am] dsockrider: then what is the solution on the engineering website if I refused?

[09:36am] bcrisler: Reported to chancellor as "not complete," likely noted that the developer refuses to follow the template style guide.

Something doesn't jibe here.

[dsockrider]

Grauer, this doesn't even concern you, why are you concerned with it?