I've been spending lot of time entering in old ball programs from the Delaware Valley RSCDS (from the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s) lately, and it got me thinking…
What are the dances that appear most frequently in the dance lists on this site? In other words, what are the most popular dances? So I wrote a little script to look and see. Here are the 100 most 'Popular' dances. (The number before the dance is the number of lists the dance is in)
· · Posted by Andy Peterson · 3 April 2018 4:55
It's time once more to crack down on spam-type user accounts on the my.strathspey system, which are annoying and seem to outnumber the real accounts.
From looking at the database, it seems that most if not all of these unwanted accounts either have both their first and last names set to the username of the account (which in real life would be weird) or else have no first and last names set at all. In theory we require first and last names, so any account that doesn't have any at all is technically breaking the rules of the game.
What I'm going to do a week from now is delete all accounts that fit this description where the user in question hasn't logged in for six months. If you want to make sure your account isn't inadvertently deleted, you should:
Ensure that it has a first and last name associated with it (it would sure be nice if it was your actual first and last name but if you call yourself “Hamish McGonigle” nobody is going to be the wiser), and/or
Log into your account. You can log right out again but we want to know that you're there.
Accounts that have dance lists, ratings, or collections in the dance database will also be exempt.
After these suspect accounts have been removed, all remaining accounts that have no first and last name associated with them will have their first name set to “Anonymous” and their last name to “Dancer”. The users in question will of course be free to set them to something else in their profile (except the empty string or any name consisting of all spaces).
· · Posted by Anselm Lingnau · 18 January 2018 1:15 (last edited on 18 January 2018 1:16)
@David: The list of RSCDS branches and affiliated groups on the server is based on the data on the RSCDS server as of shortly after the Deluge. This is unfortunate and annoying in many respects, and unlikely to change anytime soon because it is virtually impossible to obtain this data from the current incarnation of the RSCDS web site other than by doing it by hand. I'm hoping that this situation will change in the future.
If you send me your group's particulars (preferably by e-mail to email@example.com) I can add it in manually.
· · Posted by Anselm Lingnau · 22 November 2016 13:55
We dance Mondays and Saturdays at St Chads, Herrington, Sunderland. We are Affiliated to RSCDS. Newcastle upon Tyne but I can find no record of us on the DB. How does one go about rectifying the situation?
· · Posted by DAVID BURTON · 19 July 2016 7:40
SCDDB collections now support “sharing URLs”. These are difficult-to-guess web links that you can give to people whom you would like to allow read-only access to a collection of yours. Anybody who knows the sharing URL for a collection can look at that collection (they don't even need to be signed in to the site).
You can find the sharing URL for a collection by going to that collection's page. It is listed prominently on the overview tab.
· · Posted by Anselm Lingnau · 10 June 2016 2:05
fixed a few long-standing Strathspey SCD database bugs today:
People who try to create a new dance list with the name of another of their dance lists now get a nicer error message.
In the editing screen for publications, a “fuzzy” publication date can now be saved back directly (there used to be a formatting problem that caused dates to be put into the form in a format that the form processor couldn't understand, which was a nuisance).
· · Posted by Anselm Lingnau · 5 June 2016 21:58
MiniCribs in the database are now up to version 25.12 (we skipped 25.11 because I didn't get around to uploading it). The number of unmatched cribs is now 165 out of 4794, which isn't bad, but could be reduced further if we managed to add a handful of strategic publications. We're looking into it.
· · Posted by Anselm Lingnau · 30 November 2015 10:01