regisration at cric.info
san...@imap2.asu.edu
really surprised because the idea never clicked with me. It is totally
unjustified that people should register in order to use the resources
particularly if they can maintain a record of the number of users and
other stuff. I think that many will agree that it is not a nice idea to
register just to use the available resources. I feel many like us will
prefer not to use the services rather than getting registration because
the idea behind such gopher is not to keep a track of the users but to
provide useful information and make the game of cricket popular.
********************************************************************************
Sandip Pandey Phone: (R) (602)-350-9727
Department of Electrical Engineering
Arizona State University
Tempe
********************************************************************************
Neeran M. Karnik
>In fact when I saw the notice for registration at cricinfo gopher,I was
>really surprised because the idea never clicked with me. It is totally
>unjustified that people should register in order to use the resources
>particularly if they can maintain a record of the number of users and
I don't get it. Really. All we (mgmt@ci) are asking of you is to fill
out a small form. If you feel some of the questions are too personal,
leave those entries blank. If you read the file "Please Register" on
CI, it explains just why we need to build up this list of CI users.
Rest assured that the list will not be sold or made available to anyone
else without your explicit consent. However, the *aggregate* statistics
that we can get from such a list are a great help when we negotiate
with potential sponsors. The poor response to our request for
registration is the only reason why we've made access to the WWW
interface (and none of the other interfaces) conditional upon registration.
Hopefully soon, we will obtain some such sponsorship, and therefore be
able to provide a better service - e.g. we could have multiple mirrors
of CI on different continents (one in UK, one in Aus, one in SAf,
etc.). We could get access to online databases maintained by different
cricketing bodies and thereby provide FAR more content than we
currently do. We could get into multimedia, e.g. audio and video
recordings of highlights, etc. All this will of course, only be
possible through sponsorship of some sort, because we WILL NOT charge
usage fees.
>prefer not to use the services rather than getting registration because
>the idea behind such gopher is not to keep a track of the users but to
>provide useful information and make the game of cricket popular.
Again, sorry for being dense, but I don't get it. Are you saying that
CI doesn't provide useful information? If so, please submit to us
whatever you can, to enhance the "usefulness" of our content. You must
appreciate that ALL of our files are contributed by the on-line
community, on a totally voluntary basis. The "management" is simply a
collection of some of the most active users/contributors. "We" are not
an organization, just a bunch of cricket fans putting in some effort to
improve CI.
In summary, please don't cook up any "big brother" scenarios here - we're
not interested in "keeping track of users" as you put it. We're simply
attempting in our spare (hmm) time to improve CricInfo both in terms of
content, as well as accessibility.
Comments welcome at mg...@cricinfo.cse.ogi.edu
>Sandip Pandey Phone: (R) (602)-350-9727
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Neeran M. Karnik | #1 fan of Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar on r.s.c. :-> |
| Dept. of CompSci.| ------------------------------------------------ |
| U of Minnesota |CI/UE-A++W++SI+++++P+N-L+Z#wi+++++pow+#pU-F+B++l++|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vishal Misra
Neeran> san...@imap2.asu.edu writes:
>> In fact when I saw the notice for registration at cricinfo
>> gopher,I was really surprised because the idea never clicked
>> with me. It is totally unjustified that people should register
>> in order to use the resources particularly if they can maintain
>> a record of the number of users and
Neeran> I don't get it.
Rest assured Neeran - you are not alone there. I too, don't get it. I
haven't laughed so hard for a long time as I did when I read all this
self righteous tripe objecting to registration. The service that the
management is providing to the cricket loving community is
immeasurable - you can do without these whining id**ts.
>> prefer not to use the services rather than getting registration
>> because the idea behind such gopher is not to keep a track of
>> the users but to provide useful information and make the game
>> of cricket popular.
Neeran> Again, sorry for being dense, but I don't get it.
Ah. You are "big' on Tom Hanks, aren't you? Got it :-) ?
Neeran> | Neeran M. Karnik | #1 fan of Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar on
Et tu, Brute? I never thought you'd be a fair weather fan. Explain
this mystery to me - why is (quoting myself) "Kambli not there!!".
-Vishal
Neeran M. Karnik
> Neeran> I don't get it.
>Rest assured Neeran - you are not alone there. I too, don't get it. I
Good :-)
>self righteous tripe objecting to registration. The service that the
>management is providing to the cricket loving community is
>immeasurable - you can do without these whining id**ts.
Thanks, it's nice to be appreciated :)
> Neeran> Again, sorry for being dense, but I don't get it.
>Ah. You are "big' on Tom Hanks, aren't you? Got it :-) ?
Absolutely :) And I just love those acceptance speeches. If there was
an Oscar for acceptance speeches.... (hmm, Gere might give him some
competition). Err, sorry for all the non-cricket blabber...
> Neeran> | Neeran M. Karnik | #1 fan of Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar on
>Et tu, Brute? I never thought you'd be a fair weather fan. Explain
>this mystery to me - why is (quoting myself) "Kambli not there!!".
Hey, no way! I'm still MysteryBatFan on irc :) Just that this particular
.sig file doesn't proclaim it.
>-Vishal
Amitabha Lahiri
wrote:
> out a small form. If you feel some of the questions are too personal,
> leave those entries blank.
But not the name, right?
> If you read the file "Please Register" on
> CI, it explains just why we need to build up this list of CI users.
It says very little, really. Maybe it's a good idea to include when how why
and by whom this idea was thought up. At the moment it seems arbitrary.
> Rest assured that the list will not be sold or made available to anyone
> else without your explicit consent.
Why not `under any circumstances whatsoever'?
> However, the *aggregate* statistics
> that we can get from such a list are a great help when we negotiate
> with potential sponsors.
Financial sponsors? What would they do and what would they expect in
return? Has any `sponsor' shown an interest? Was the registration laid down
as a precondition for sponsorship?
> Hopefully soon, we will obtain some such sponsorship, and therefore be
> able to provide a better service - e.g. we could have multiple mirrors
> of CI on different continents (one in UK, one in Aus, one in SAf,
> etc.).
The internet movie database is mirrored over five or six sites. Surely,
registration isn't a necessity for having mirrors?
> We could get access to online databases maintained by different
> cricketing bodies and thereby provide FAR more content than we
Which cricketing bodies are online at the moment?
> currently do. We could get into multimedia, e.g. audio and video
> recordings of highlights, etc. All this will of course, only be
> possible through sponsorship of some sort, because we WILL NOT charge
> usage fees.
The present CI management may believe that, but once financial sponsors
become involved, there's very little guarantee that the management will be
able to take independent decisions. Or that it will have the same people
that it does now. Surely you know a little about how companies work?
> community, on a totally voluntary basis. The "management" is simply a
> collection of some of the most active users/contributors. "We" are not
> an organization, just a bunch of cricket fans putting in some effort to
> improve CI.
Right. Which is why I find it disturbing that a decision of such magnitude
was taken by the `management' without a discussion. That looks more like a
closed door boardroom decision.
As for comments being welcome, there has never been a proper discussion on
the registration. And registration goes on -- now without a choice on the
part of the user. Isn't it more like `comments are irrelevant'?
Amitabha
--
Amitabha Lahiri MAPS University of Sussex A.La...@central.susx.ac.uk
No one else is responsible for what I say and vice versa.
Today it's the Bengalis, tomorrow it will be you.
Michiel Boland
May I just say here that I'm getting sick and tired of this
whining from ppl who do not want to register? I just do not
understand what your problem is.
If you want to have a say about CricInfo, then mail
mg...@cricinfo.cse.ogi.edu. DO NOT POST TO RSC ABOUT THIS!
Most members of mgmt are not regular readers of rsc (so I
gather) so your postings are a waste of space anyway.
[flame mode off]
Mathop
Neeran M. Karnik
>> out a small form. If you feel some of the questions are too personal,
>> leave those entries blank.
>But not the name, right?
Right. For now, if you leave out the name, you cannot get into the WWW
interface. We need a name and email address at least.
>> If you read the file "Please Register" on
>It says very little, really. Maybe it's a good idea to include when how why
>and by whom this idea was thought up. At the moment it seems arbitrary.
Arbitrary? Not to me. Oh well, a more detailed post will appear here soon.
>> Rest assured that the list will not be sold or made available to anyone
>> else without your explicit consent.
>Why not `under any circumstances whatsoever'?
Because, as of now, that's not how we see it. All the *personal* info
will certainly not be made available to anyone else "under any
circumstances whatsoever", but what about email addresses? What if
someone is interested in contacting all CI users in say, the .edu.au
domain, perhaps for organizing a get-together? Or some company wants to
send out its brochure to CI users? Is there anything objectionable in
giving such people a list of email addresses, AFTER GETTING EXPLICIT
PERMISSION to do so from the addressees? If such lists could be sold to
generate funds for CI, would that be ok with CI users? Please let us
know what you all think. Remember that by registering, you are in NO
way being added to any mailing lists. You will NOT get unsolicited
email, because you will be asked explicitly by personal email, before
your address is added to any mailing list. Please remember also, that
these are just tentative ideas at this time; we do want feedback from
you all.
>Financial sponsors? What would they do and what would they expect in
>return? Has any `sponsor' shown an interest? Was the registration laid down
>as a precondition for sponsorship?
As I said, there's *nothing* specific on the table at this time. A more
detailed post is forthcoming...
>> able to provide a better service - e.g. we could have multiple mirrors
>> of CI on different continents (one in UK, one in Aus, one in SAf,
>> etc.).
>The internet movie database is mirrored over five or six sites. Surely,
>registration isn't a necessity for having mirrors?
No, not for having mirrors. And it *may* not be a necessity at all, but it
will be very useful in our attempts to get sponsorship and support from
official bodies. Surely that's not hard to see?
>> We could get access to online databases maintained by different
>> cricketing bodies and thereby provide FAR more content than we
>Which cricketing bodies are online at the moment?
The bodies themselves may not be sites on the Internet, but some of
their officials are often Internet users. If they're not online now,
they will be, soon. I presume by "online" you meant "on the Internet".
In a looser sense, many of them already maintain their data on
computers. CI could link up with them to make the data available over
the Internet.
>The present CI management may believe that, but once financial sponsors
>become involved, there's very little guarantee that the management will be
>able to take independent decisions. Or that it will have the same people
>that it does now. Surely you know a little about how companies work?
Oh, I can give you a guarantee that in the future, the "management"
will NOT have the same people it does now. As such, we can't go about
giving any "guarantees" about what the future management will be like,
or what they'll decide to do with CI. You can't do that with a company,
either, can you?
>> collection of some of the most active users/contributors. "We" are not
>> an organization, just a bunch of cricket fans putting in some effort to
>> improve CI.
>Right. Which is why I find it disturbing that a decision of such magnitude
>was taken by the `management' without a discussion. That looks more like a
>closed door boardroom decision.
What momentous 'decision' are you talking about? You make it sound like
we're setting out to sell CI to a money-grubbing corporation! Nothing's
changed with respect to accessing CI. All our regular interfaces are
functioning exactly as they were before. The WWW interface, which is
still in the beta testing stage, was also open to all. The only reason
it isn't any more, is to encourage more people to register (under the
assumption that a WWW interface is more attractive/useful than the
others currently available).
>As for comments being welcome, there has never been a proper discussion on
>the registration. And registration goes on -- now without a choice on the
>part of the user. Isn't it more like `comments are irrelevant'?
Of course not. Why are we "wasting" precious hours replying to the few
objections that have been raised then? There was no discussion on
r.s.c. about implementing registration, because we (in all our
naivete) didn't think it was an issue. And we certainly can't go about
having 'discussions' on r.s.c. for every change we make to CI.
Recently, the Statistics directory was thoroughly revamped - a major,
time-consuming effort by Travis. Should we have asked for a discussion
on r.s.c. before doing that? What do y'all think - should I upgrade the
gopher server to the latest version, or should I wait a little longer till
the bug reports start coming in? Let's take a vote, shall we?
>Amitabha
Amitabha Lahiri
> >> out a small form. If you feel some of the questions are too personal,
> >> leave those entries blank.
> >But not the name, right?
> Right. For now, if you leave out the name, you cannot get into the WWW
> interface. We need a name and email address at least.
Oh, please! You don't `need' anything. You _want_ the name and the e-mail
address. You could have set up the system so as to ask for only the e-mail
address. Or nothing at all. Is that not so?
To put it in an extreme fashion, suppose you had included queries on race,
religion or sexual preferences, with the caveat that those lines could be
left blank. Would you not expect a bigger ruckus about the form then?
> >> If you read the file "Please Register" on
> >It says very little, really. Maybe it's a good idea to include when how why
> >and by whom this idea was thought up. At the moment it seems arbitrary.
> Arbitrary? Not to me. Oh well, a more detailed post will appear here soon.
That's nice. Thank you.
> >> Rest assured that the list will not be sold or made available to anyone
> >> else without your explicit consent.
> >Why not `under any circumstances whatsoever'?
> Because, as of now, that's not how we see it. All the *personal* info
> will certainly not be made available to anyone else "under any
> circumstances whatsoever", but what about email addresses?
Why not treat email addresses as personal information as well?
> What if
> someone is interested in contacting all CI users in say, the .edu.au
> domain, perhaps for organizing a get-together?
Ask them to post a message on RSC, or put a small blurb on CI.
> Or some company wants to
> send out its brochure to CI users?
Ask them to post a message on RSC, or put a small blurb on CI. Or ask them
to write their own script to figure out who would be interested. Personally
I would tell them to go to hell. How come that's not an option?
> Is there anything objectionable in
> giving such people a list of email addresses, AFTER GETTING EXPLICIT
> PERMISSION to do so from the addressees?
Yes there is. Suppose you want to give my email address to XYZ Inc. In
order to get my permission, you will need to explain what XYZ Inc. does,
what they produce, and what they will send me once they have my address.
And you will need to do this for every company that comes along. Which
already means unsolicited email -- from CI management.
> If such lists could be sold to
> generate funds for CI, would that be ok with CI users?
Who exactly holds the rights to this list?
> Please remember also, that
> these are just tentative ideas at this time; we do want feedback from
> you all.
We need to be clear about this. The registration is no longer voluntary for
WWW users. It's not a tentative idea, it's a reality.
> >> able to provide a better service - e.g. we could have multiple mirrors
> >> of CI on different continents (one in UK, one in Aus, one in SAf,
> >> etc.).
> >The internet movie database is mirrored over five or six sites. Surely,
> >registration isn't a necessity for having mirrors?
> No, not for having mirrors. And it *may* not be a necessity at all, but it
> will be very useful in our attempts to get sponsorship and support from
> official bodies. Surely that's not hard to see?
I must be thick, because I don't see it. There's *nothing* on the table, as
you say, yet you say registration will be useful? How do you know? After
all, it's in the interest of cricketing bodies and the media to support CI.
Simply the stuff contributed by Aslam and Travis would save reporters and
official statisticians hours of hard work. It's not in their interest to
ask for a list of users if it's known that the users are opposed to it.
> >> We could get access to online databases maintained by different
> >> cricketing bodies and thereby provide FAR more content than we
> >Which cricketing bodies are online at the moment?
> The bodies themselves may not be sites on the Internet, but some of
> their officials are often Internet users. If they're not online now,
> they will be, soon. I presume by "online" you meant "on the Internet".
Yes, that's what I meant. I assumed that when you said that CI could get
access to online databases, you meant the same thing. Were you thinking of
linking up with them through some other channel?
> >The present CI management may believe that, but once financial sponsors
> >become involved, there's very little guarantee that the management will be
> >able to take independent decisions. Or that it will have the same people
> >that it does now. Surely you know a little about how companies work?
> Oh, I can give you a guarantee that in the future, the "management"
> will NOT have the same people it does now. As such, we can't go about
> giving any "guarantees" about what the future management will be like,
> or what they'll decide to do with CI. You can't do that with a company,
> either, can you?
You misunderstood what I said. Your original article has expired at this
site, but I believe that my sentence above was in response to your saying
that "we" would not charge for using CI, EVER. I pointed out that you were
not a position to say so. (You seem to agree with me.) I also tried to make
the point that having a list would make it easier for the "sponsors" to
charge money for using CI. Do you disagree?
> >> collection of some of the most active users/contributors. "We" are not
> >> an organization, just a bunch of cricket fans putting in some effort to
> >> improve CI.
> >Right. Which is why I find it disturbing that a decision of such magnitude
> >was taken by the `management' without a discussion. That looks more like a
> >closed door boardroom decision.
> What momentous 'decision' are you talking about?
The decisions to make a registration form, and to make registration
compulsory for WWW users.
> You make it sound like
> we're setting out to sell CI to a money-grubbing corporation! Nothing's
I don't know! That's the point. We who are not part of the management
don't _know_ if CI is being sold to the highest bidder! And from what I
have seen so far on this thread, if it ever happens we may not find out
until after the fact.
It may seem to you that I am the only one making noise. It may even be true
that few others care enough. But I believe that these things have to be
said, and if no one else would say them, I must.
> Recently, the Statistics directory was thoroughly revamped - a major,
> time-consuming effort by Travis. Should we have asked for a discussion
Don't be ridiculous. Asking people to send in their name, email address,
age, sex, country of origin and employer type is hardly the same sort of
thing as moving around files in the database -- even if the latter takes
more time and effort than the first. (And if you wish to stick to your
claim that the registration is just another thing like reorganising
directories, then yes, I think you should have taken a vote. :-) )
alir...@imap1.asu.edu
know why this registration business..
also i would appreciate if it could be avoided..
Patrick Trevor (ptr...@ix.netcom.com)
wrote:
: Just for the record, I'm going to say that I have no problem with
: registering for any database that I am going to use for free. A lot of
: people spend a lot of time maintaining it and if they wish to keep
: records, well that's fine by me. Not too many places left where you get
: something for nothing. :)
: I mean, if they wanted to collect email addresses, they could easily do
: it by trolling rsc anyway. ;)
: And as a side point, all this talk about cricinfo on WWW - where is it?
: I had a look at the list on cricinfo on irc and couldn't find it.
: --
: *********************************************************************
: Patrick Trevor | An Aussie in Dallas, Texas
Patrick Trevor
registering for any database that I am going to use for free. A lot of
people spend a lot of time maintaining it and if they wish to keep
records, well that's fine by me. Not too many places left where you get
something for nothing. :)
I mean, if they wanted to collect email addresses, they could easily do
it by trolling rsc anyway. ;)
And as a side point, all this talk about cricinfo on WWW - where is it?
I had a look at the list on cricinfo on irc and couldn't find it.
--
*********************************************************************
Patrick Trevor | An Aussie in Dallas, Texas
ptr...@ix.netcom.com | continually trying to scavenge
or | cricket and rugby league results
patrick....@gte.sprint.com| from the internet.
_____________________________________________________________________
Queensland won the Sheffield Shield!! WooHoo!!
_____________________________________________________________________
And now for something completely different