Fencing websites' availability report for July

[mfp]

Happy August.

The availability stats measured for the month of July for some fencing related websites are as follows:


The fencing.net home page

Availability: 99.98%
Downtime: 10 minutes 3 seconds


The askfred.net home page

Availability: 99.93%
Downtime: 32 minutes 48 seconds


The usfencing.org home page

Availability: 61.36%
Downtime: 287 hours 26 minutes 58 secs

287+ hours is just shy of 12 full days of downtime for the month.


The content itself is not checked, so if Craig, Peet or the USFA had even a simple "go away" page on the URLs watched, the current monitoring scheme would count the site as as "available" even if the page weren't particularly useful at that time. The monitoring software has the ability to search and check for specific content, but I haven't configured that.

The monitoring software is free version of a commercial product. Installing and configuring the software took under 30 minutes. I had to turn off email alerts about the USFA's web site though -- they came too often and there were too many of them.

Along with generating email or SMS alerts, the software has the ability to run any arbitrary program when a problem is detected. For example, it could be used to automatically restart processes or even an entire server (hint hint USFA). Why it could even be set up to automatically post to fencing.net every time the USFA's site is down

[Montoya]

Yes, but as we have all been told, the USFA web site depends on the kindness of unpaid volunteers, whereas Peet and Craig are . . . unpaid volunteers.

[JEC]

The usfencing.org website was supposed to have a PAID webmaster. However, as it has become clear, they only paid for redesigning the same information into a website. The only improvement in my view was that during the first 5 NACs, there were PDF files associated with the results, which included the rounds of pools and DEs. Some of us are still waiting for PDF files from the Reno and Sacramento NACs and Summer Nationals. Furthermore, unfortunately, the USFA official that used OUR MONEY for this service did not realize that one thing is to pay for redesigning a website and another one is to maintain and upgrade it periodically.

In my view, the USFA should have an open bidding process for those services, or contract with the PROVEN leaders such as Craig and/or Peet.

[mrbiggs]

My mom called the USFA, telling them that she couldn't renew my brother and sister's membership online because the site was down. (How naïve!) Whoever was on the phone told her that you can't renew online anyway, but was shocked that the site was down. Yes, shocked.

So maybe they just don't know.

[KD5MDK]

I thought that online memberships were supposed to be a feature of this membership year. Perhaps I misunderstood.

[IHateMrPotatohead]

I thought that online memberships were supposed to be a feature of this membership year. Perhaps I misunderstood.

That would mean the USFA is being progressive or something....

[parrythis]

Yes, but as we have all been told, the USFA web site depends on the kindness of unpaid volunteers, whereas Peet and Craig are . . . unpaid volunteers.

Whether the webmaster is paid or not is not the issue. I voluntarily maintain a web-site for a club that I belong to and I would bet that it's uptime is in the 99% range.

The issue is whether or not the webmaster is willing to abandon defective technology and use something that works.

This is not rocket science.

[oiuyt]

The usfencing.org home page

Availability: 61.36%
Downtime: 287 hours 26 minutes 58 secs

287+ hours is just shy of 12 full days of downtime for the month.


The content itself is not checked, so if Craig, Peet or the USFA had even a simple "go away" page on the URLs watched, the current monitoring scheme would count the site as as "available" even if the page weren't particularly useful at that time. The monitoring software has the ability to search and check for specific content, but I haven't configured that.

Question: When the "null string" error message pops up (easily fixed by hitting reload, at which point the site comes up) does that count as failure, and therefore downtime?

Granted this is not a good situation -- we don't want people unfamiliar with the vagaries of our website thinking that it's down when they first arrive -- but it does seem as if it would cause the uptime to appear to be significantly lower than it is in actuality.

While the downtime is unacceptably high currently, I haven't experienced anything close to the 40% failure that is reported here.

-B

[Allen Evans]

I've not kept accurate statistics, of my own use, but I'll disagree with you, Oiuyt. As a caveat, I'll mention that I don't go to the USFA website often, since I've downloaded most of the material and documents that I need, but when I do go, I would guess that my ability to get in is close to 60-70 percent: it seems to me that 1 out of 4 tries fails.

[IU_Epee]

That would mean the USFA is being progressive or something....

No, it's 2006. Having online registration moved from "progressive" to "expected" several years ago. But perhaps the USFA is just expecting this whole internet fad to blow over.

[ChubbyHubby]

Yes, but as we have all been told, the USFA web site depends on the kindness of unpaid volunteers, whereas Peet and Craig are . . . unpaid volunteers.

Having unpaid volunteers is fine as long as the volunteers do actually have the time and inclination to do the job. There is always the "if those volunteers aren't doing it, there would be no one doing it". If that's the case, it's time to pay someone to do it.

Also, don't do it "on the cheap" as "pay peanuts, get monkeys" applies.

In the UK, British Fencing for years and years relied on a website done by one of the admin people in her own time. That site remained largely unchanged for about 8 years. You can still see the OLD site at (as it was back in April this year): http://www.britishfencing.com/legacy_data/index.html

In that 8 years, there were various volunteers who proposed new designs and in one case getting a site about 70% complete, but was unable to complete it.

Eventually, they realise they needed to get it done on a commercial basis. The current site http://www.britishfencing.com was developed entirely on a commercial basis, and most would agree it works a lot better now (PS. I am biased as my company did the site! ).

[occasionalfencer]

Furthermore, unfortunately, the USFA official that used OUR MONEY for this service did not realize that one thing is to pay for redesigning a website and another one is to maintain and upgrade it periodically.

What USFA official? I have several times asked USFA officials, by email and in person, who in the USFA is responsible for the website. I have never gotten anything like an answer. I have not even gotten the clear answer that no one is responsible. If no one is responsible than in what sense is it the "Official" website, as opposed to the old, "unofficial" website, which worked (and was run by an unpaid volunteer)? If someone is resonsible, who is it? And why is it a secret? And if anyone can answer these questions here, why can't I get these answers "officially"?

[oiuyt]

What makes you say that the website prior to the redesign was unofficial? It was the official website when David Sapery administered it, it's the official website now than Dan Kellner administers it.

What do you mean by "who in the USFA is responsible for the website"?

Do you mean who is the administrator? Do you mean who is responsible for overseeing the administration? Do you mean what company did the programming for the redesign work? Do you mean who hired Red Star Design for the redesign work? Do you mean who hosts it? Do you mean who is responsible for new content?

Part of the problem with getting an answer is that the question is poorly defined. Any (or all) of the above could be the question that you're asking. I'm sure there's a dozen more as well. The answers are different depending on which question is being asked and different people have different bits of the information but might not have the answer to all of the possible questions, so find it easier to not try to sort out what you might be asking.

You've said that you've asked people in person. What was the response? Did they say they could tell you but then they'd have to kill you? Did they walk away? Answer a question other than the one you asked?

-B

[mfp]

Question: When the "null string" error message pops up (easily fixed by hitting reload, at which point the site comes up) does that count as failure, and therefore downtime?

No, not if was easily fixable by the equivalent of hitting reload.

Every 5 minutes in July a monitor poll of each URL was done. If the first of each of the periodic poll attempts returned an error, a retry was dispatched (the moral equivalent of hitting reload). If the second attempt succeeded, the site was counted as available. If the second attempt failed, a third was tried.

The alerts database includes why a URL has been marked as unavailable. It looks like while some of the USFA's downtime was due to 3 errors on a poll attempt, a good hunk of downtime was because the URL didn't respond at all.

[occasionalfencer]

What makes you say that the website prior to the redesign was unofficial? It was the official website when David Sapery administered it, it's the official website now than Dan Kellner administers it.

What do you mean by "who in the USFA is responsible for the website"?

Do you mean who is the administrator? Do you mean who is responsible for overseeing the administration? Do you mean what company did the programming for the redesign work? Do you mean who hired Red Star Design for the redesign work? Do you mean who hosts it? Do you mean who is responsible for new content?

Part of the problem with getting an answer is that the question is poorly defined. Any (or all) of the above could be the question that you're asking. I'm sure there's a dozen more as well. The answers are different depending on which question is being asked and different people have different bits of the information but might not have the answer to all of the possible questions, so find it easier to not try to sort out what you might be asking.

You've said that you've asked people in person. What was the response? Did they say they could tell you but then they'd have to kill you? Did they walk away? Answer a question other than the one you asked?

-B

The reason I said that the previous website was unofficial is because it always had some statement such as "This is the unofficial website of the USFA."

As to my question of resonsibility, I mean "who in the USFA has any official responsibility. I don't want to know what computer company does the computer work- if there is anything that needs improvement about that, then I want to know what USFA person might make the decision to hire another company, or not.

When I have asked people in person, they just look vague and change the subject. No one has asked me to define the question more precisely. Is there any USFA official who 1) Looks at the website? 2) Decides what information should be available on the website? 3) Cares that the state of the website is a continual source of frustration to current USFA members, and embarrassment when we want to introduce new people to our national organization? 4) Has the authority within the organization to make changes? 5) Is there any USFA official who would be the answer to any of those questions? I would be glad to start with any question I can get an answer to.

[oiuyt]

The reason I said that the previous website was unofficial is because it always had some statement such as "This is the unofficial website of the USFA."

Just did a brief survey through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (spot checking a couple of times/year 2000-2005) without finding such a notation. The bottom of the page did have the following: "This World Wide Web area is operated as a service to the United States Fencing Association and may be discontinued at any time." That's the closest I can come to what you describe. The copyright notation is for "United States Fencing Association", etc.

As to my question of resonsibility, I mean "who in the USFA has any official responsibility. I don't want to know what computer company does the computer work- if there is anything that needs improvement about that, then I want to know what USFA person might make the decision to hire another company, or not.

When I have asked people in person, they just look vague and change the subject. No one has asked me to define the question more precisely. Is there any USFA official who 1) Looks at the website? 2) Decides what information should be available on the website? 3) Cares that the state of the website is a continual source of frustration to current USFA members, and embarrassment when we want to introduce new people to our national organization? 4) Has the authority within the organization to make changes? 5) Is there any USFA official who would be the answer to any of those questions? I would be glad to start with any question I can get an answer to.

Yes, undoubtedly all of them at some time or another.
Several.
Yes.
Undoubtedly.
Several.

Media, Marketing & Promotions Committee
Responsible for recommending and overseeing promotional efforts for the sport of fencing and the USFA
Co-Chairs: Suzie Paxton & Sunil Sahbarwal
Members: Cindy Bent Findlay
Kathy Schifferle

Advisor: Carl Borack
Staff Liason: Michael Massik

In practice much of the content is whatever the National Office staff sends along to Dan for posting. That content is generated by a number of different people, presumably both in and outside of the office staff. Additional subsites (notably the international site, the YDC site, the vet site, the weapon squad sites, coaching education, and probably at least a few I'm omitting here) are administered separately on their own and have different people responsible for content.

Is there one person responsible that includes the website on his/her daily task list? Not to my knowledge. Does there need to be more oversight than there is currently (or perhaps just someone who feels more responsibility for oversight or ownership)? Quite possibly.

-B

[JEC]

Brad,
In what way the message needs to be articulated to the USFA? It is simple and clear that the website is important to the membership and that USFA is not doing enough to satisfy the needs of the membership.

The membership wants:

• to have the website on >99%+ of the time,
• to register online for national tournaments,
• to see more detailed results of competitions,
• to renew membership online

JEC

[KD5MDK]

I would suggest writing letters to Michael Massik, and encouraging your friends to do likewise.

[ChubbyHubby]

Brad,
In what way the message needs to be articulated to the USFA? It is simple and clear that the website is important to the membership and that USFA is not doing enough to satisfy the needs of the membership.

The membership wants:

• to have the website on >99%+ of the time,
• to register online for national tournaments,
• to see more detailed results of competitions,
• to renew membership online

JEC

Apart from the uptime, the rest surely will depend on what funds USFA have?

[oiuyt]

The membership wants:

• to have the website on >99%+ of the time,
• to register online for national tournaments,
• to see more detailed results of competitions,
• to renew membership online

I would suggest writing letters to Michael Massik, and encouraging your friends to do likewise.

I would suggest the EC, or at least the officers, as well, not just Michael. Suzy Paxton and Sunil Sahbarwal would also be quite reasonable.

Commenting on JEC's list.

* The uptime problems have been attributed (by DK) to an undiagnosed bug (or bugs) in the coding of the site and it has been explicitly stated that it is the site-specific programming that is crashing rather than the server, which remains up. The hosting is paid for by the USFA, maintainance is not, but is rather done on a volunteer basis by DK (AFAIK). Because of this tracking the bug(s) takes a lower priority than regular paying work and the problem remains unsolved.

* Reports are made at nearly every BoD meeting about progress towards this goal. Many of these reports discuss either a revised (longer) timeline or are about intermediate stages that haven't previously been brought up. There are many people on the Board well aware that online registration for not only NACs, but also for membership renewal is a high priority item for much of the membership.

* The PDF's that were included for most of this past season? I believe* that falls on DK. He's given the results information, and if he reformats it for presentation then it goes up. Give him lots of continuing positive feedback and this is probably more likely to continue.

(*note: I don't actually know what format the information given to DK takes. It's also possible that he is sometimes given just the results list and other times has been given complete information, in which case these comments need to go to the tournament/office staff person (?) who distributes the information to make sure it all gets to DK.)

* Commented on above in item 2.

There's lots more information that really should be on the list. Getting more NAC information out sooner is one that has been popping up here recently. Since the USFA doesn't announce cities until they have signed contracts, much of the requested information for next season must already be decided.

Returning to the initial list item, it seem obvious that the current situation with regards to the website is untenable. Likely the only solution at this point is either another change or to find enough money that DK (and/or the rest of Red Star) view our website as a regular customer that requires professional service and enough mindshare that the bugs are fixed. I don't know how much time DK spends trying to solve the problem. Honestly I'd imagine quite a bit, if for no other reason than because he has to get grief about it fairly regularly, given how much he interacts with other fencers.

-B