Archive for the ‘My Sites’ Category

Changes to emoticons on Carsurvey.org

Monday, February 15th, 2010

For years, the emoticons (happy, sad and neutral faces) shown on the lists of reviews on Carsurvey.org have been based purely on the answer to the question “Would you buy another car from this manufacturer?”

Although this question was often a good indication of a reviewer’s overall opinion, there were a significant number of reviews where it didn’t work at all.

In order to address this, the numerical ratings (Performance, Reliability etc) are now also taken into account when deciding which emoticon to display for each review, and this seems to significantly reduce the cases where the emoticons don’t reasonably reflect the general sense of the review.

Carsurvey.org is back to normal

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Replacing the faulty disk didn’t quite go to plan, and the RAID array needed a bit of help to be coaxed back into life (think defibrillator), but things have been up for a while now, and the patient seems to be recovering well. Will be keeping things under close observation, but I’m confident enough to reopen the site to new reviews and comments. Hopefully this is the last disk related issue for the foreseeable future, as I think Carsurvey.org has had more than its fair share recently.

Disk issue with the Carsurvey.org server

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

It seems to be the year for disk failures.

The good news is that the RAID array has done its job, no data loss so far, I’ve got completely up to date backups (which I know restore properly), and engineers are looking at the physical server right now.

As a precaution, new reviews, new comments, and the members area have been disabled till the problem has been fully resolved. Don’t want to risk losing anyone’s new contributions if things go horribly wrong. It’s also probable that the server will be offline for a period while hardware is replaced. Fingers crossed the faulty kit will be replaced soon, and we’ll be back to business as usual.

Policy changes on Carsurvey.org

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Things have gotten out of hand with a small number of people who are spending significant parts of their waking time beating each other over the head with basically the same arguments, day in day out.

Things are getting more personal, and the volume of comments is increasing. Enormous amounts of my time are being spent trying to keep things vaguely civil, to the detriment of the rest of the site, and frankly my own quality of life.

The people involved need to accept that they’re never going to convince the people who hold the exact opposite views.

Starting from today, the following policy changes are being made:

There is going to be a very low threshold of toleration for comments that essentially repeat points made elsewhere on the site, especially if those comments are not about your experience with a particular model, but are essentially part of a wider discussion about politics or economics.

Less toleration for unpleasant comments. I’m not going to spend time editing comments that contain unnecessary jibes. Those comments will simply not be posted to the site. People can learn to tone their comments down, rather than having me edit their comments to make them acceptable. New visitors will get a little leeway on this, as they’re less likely to understand where the boundaries lie.

As a general guide, here are some things that examples of things that I consider acceptable/unacceptable:


Acceptable: Posting a single comment about the recent recall of a vehicle by a manufacturer, which hasn’t been mentioned elsewhere on the site

Acceptable: Posting new information about an old recall

Unacceptable: Posting multiple comments about recalls already mentioned elsewhere on the site, which simply repeat information available elsewhere


Acceptable: Posting a single comment about your personal experience with a model to a relevant review, and then following it up with relevant replies. This can include your experience with competing models

Acceptable: Posting multiple comments that address queries raised by other comments about a particular model

Unacceptable: Posting your unsolicited views of a particular model across many reviews


Acceptable: Stating that someone’s views on a car are mistaken, with explanations of why this is the case

Unacceptable: Any comments that directly or implicitly are negative about other contributors to the site. It’s fine to say that someone’s wrong, but not to suggest they are an idiot or a traitor.


Or to put it another way:

I don’t expect to see essentially the same comments being repeated either across different reviews, or within the comments of a single review. We live in an age of search engines, and Carsurvey.org designed to be easily searchable. No need to repeat arguments ad infinitum.

I expect everyone who participates on Carsurvey.org to have a sense of respect for the other people who’ve taken the time to add their contributions to the site.

My hope is that these changes will improve the signal to noise ratio of Carsurvey.org, as well as the general atmosphere, without restricting the subjects that can be discussed.

As usual, complaints or feedback should be addressed to steven@carsurvey.org, or added to the blog comments on this site. Please don’t add comments about this to Carsurvey.org itself.

Steven Jackson, CSDO Media Limited

Carsurvey.org back in readonly mode

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

The site is back, no significant data loss, but I have a few things to tidy up after a good night’s sleep (I’ve been occupied with this for 17 hours). I’ll also enable new reviews and comments again tomorrow.

More disk problems

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

More disk problems on the Carsurvey.org web server. It’s currently being rebuilt. Not sure if any data has been lost (last guaranteed backup was Monday). Updates when I know more.

One replacement RAID controller later

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

Carsurvey.org is back in the land of the living, and appears to have suffered little to no data loss, despite a failure of the RAID controller card. As well as visually inspecting the site and database, I’ve run some comparison scripts against current and backup copies of the database, and the only differences I could spot are ones I’d expect from the passage of time, rather than missing or corrupt data.

Full marks to SoftLayer for dealing with this issue much better than The Planet did when I had a similar issue a few years back.

Apologies to everyone for the outage, and if anyone has lost any reviews or comments, I’m very sorry about that.

Carsurvey.org server problems

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

The server the site is hosted on is having filesystem problems, and someone is looking at right now.  I’ve got a good full backup (I know it restores OK) from Monday, and managed to save some of the newer reviews first thing this morning, but I’m not hopeful about some of the very recent reviews and comments. I think I’m going to spending the rest of the day rebuilding things once whatever hardware failed is replaced.

Hopefully all will be back to normal later (probably much later) today.

Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Model year vs year of manufacture on Carsurvey.org

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

Since it was created back in 1997, Carsurvey.org has organised reviews by the year of manufacture of the cars. This made sense for European cars, but not for North American cars, where model year is what matters. The site eventually started collecting model year information, but the site structure did not change, as it was difficult to come up with a consistent structure that would make sense on both sides of the Atlantic.

I’ve been aware for years that North American visitors were confused by the site structure, and I eventually came to the conclusion that it was better for the meaning of a year on Carsurvey.org to be inconsistent, depending on the region of the review.

For a North American review, the model year (where available) is used in preference to the year of manufacture. This isn’t the case for the rest of the world.

So a list of 2006 BMW 3 Series reviews will contain 2006 model year reviews from North America, and 2006 manufacture year reviews from elsewhere. Not quite the same thing, but for reviews from their own region, it should fit visitor’s assumptions, rather than trying to make them fit the site’s data model.

MotorcycleSurvey.com has also had similar changes made, but in that case, model year always takes priority over year of manufacture, regardless of region, as that reflects the way motorcycles are marketed.

hReview Microformat Support

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

As Google now supports microformats, I’ve added hReview support to all the CSDO Media sites, including Carsurvey.org and the airline review pages. Whilst visitors with normal web browsers won’t notice any changes, the reviews are now much easier for computers and search engines to understand and manipulate.

In case anyone else is looking to do something similar, I found the Optimus microformats transformer to be very useful for checking that my hReview markup was valid.