I am the main scorer for the Swanmore Bridge Club and I am not happy with the way in which P2P files are processed. Before 1 April 2o10 I submitted Master Points to the EBU using Scorebridge. I could select as many events as I liked and Scorebridge would package them all and, after checking the veracity of my email address, would send them to the EBU. A few days later I would get an email with an invoice and be told that the Master Points would be loaded onto the EBU website in a couple of days.
Imagine my disappointment when I came to generating the P2P file using the latest version of Scorebridge. After the P2P file is generated a message pops up to say where it is and asks if I want to go to the EBU members are and upload the P2P file. Scorebridge has copied my ClubID to the clipboard and will open up my default browser.
I supply the password and then I can upload the P2P file. For 8 tables it takes about 2 minutes just to check the data. If the data is acceptable to the EBU I need to click on ‘Process File’ to submit it to the EBU.
The first time I uploaded the P2P file I failed to notice that I should have clicked ‘Process File’ so I uploaded it again and the name checking process hung after 20 names. I tried again for the third time and it froze after 8 minutes having checked 41 out of 44 players.
I sent an email to Michael Clark. He asked me to send him the P2P file which he was able to check and asked that I submit the file via the EBU website which I did.
I have a 2 Mbps broadband line. It takes 40 seconds just to load the EBU members area web page. It takes up to 2 minutes to check a P2P file for 32 players.
On 4 May I sent the following email to Michael Clark copying Barry Capal :
8<- – - – - – - -
Michael,
Whilst I await a reply from you to my email to Stephen Bligh on 28 April I thought I would give an answer to the question ‘How can the EBU obtain data from bridge clubs in a timely and accurate manner whilst minimising the scorer’s time and ensuring that bridge clubs continue to support P2P and the EBU?’.
On 29 March I used Scorebridge to submit the Master Points gained by members of my bridge club since the beginning of January. I do not know how Scorebridge communicated with the EBU. It does not matter to me. A couple of days later I received an invoice from the EBU which I forwarded to our treasurer for payment. I was informed in the email that the Master Points would appear on the EBU website a couple of days after I received the invoice. This process has worked well for many years. Why cannot something similar be used for providing the P2P data? Here is a possible solution.
When I enter the players for a session into Scorebridge if I add a new person I am asked if the new person is a member of the EBU. If so I am asked to select an EBU number from a list made available to Scorebridge by the EBU. If the person I am adding is not an EBU member, under the P2P system. I could be asked to supply a postcode and the first line of the address and any other data needed by the EBU. A request would then be made by Scorebridge to the EBU for a new member number. When assigned an email would be sent to the scorer telling them of the new member’s number so that the Scorebridge player database could be pdated. If it is not possible to assign an EBU number the scorer should be informed by email and the scorer can then take action to correct the matter using Scorebridge as the requesting agent.
When the scorer decides to send the P2P data to the EBU, Scorebridge could check the completeness of the data and if necessary prevent submission of the data to the EBU until all the data were complete and correct. Once submitted to the EBU the data would be checked and added to the club’s data collection and an email would be sent to the scorer informing them that the data had been processed.
Your current system relies on too much scorer intervention. The scorer can even modify the P2P XML file before it is sent. Having logged into the EBU members area and uploaded the P2P file the scorer’s computer, the EBU computer, the network connection could all fail but you require the scorer to upload the data again. Why? What have you done to remember where the scorer’s original uploaded data was put? If the data are all valid why do you not process it and add it to the club’s data collection? Have you determined why my submission of the 17 April failed?
I would be grateful to have your answers to my questions and comments on my suggested method of P2P data submission.
Regards,
Graham
8<- – - – -
As of today I have not had a reply from Michael but I did get this from Barry Capal two hours after I sent my email on 4 May.
8<- – - -
Graham
Thanks for taking the time to write with your ideas.
Michael has been out of the office for a few days and may well take some time to respond as he has other priorities at this time. When we consider how we can improve on what we have gone live with, we will actively consider your comments, along with any other that we may have received by then.
Kind regards
Barry
8< – - – -
I would like your support to get the EBU to produce a scorer-friendly P2P file processing method preferably similar to the way Master Points were processed before 1 April. Please write to Michael Clark at the EBU (michael@ebu.co.uk) and Barry Capal (barry@ebu.co.uk).
For more information read the Pages at the right hand side