ThePortForum.com

Jacob has created a new method of generating the TN index files that will hopefully allow us to keep the index more up to date than has been possible until now. Thank you Jacob!

The new index has now been uploaded. If you spot any broken links or problems please post them here.

Thanks
Derek

Looks good. I note that some of the notes are no longer chronological e.g. Cockburn 63 and Dow 75 VP. Is it able to be arranged?

AHB wrote: Absolutely nothing. I think there is a certain stylish decadence to opening a bottle of Fonseca 1970 once a month for the last 6 months. I doff my hat in admiration (and a little envy).

Same here. I LOVE 1970 Fonseca! I had decided to buy enough 1994 Vesuvio to open a bottle a month for the rest if my life. Hopefully I do not have nearly enough.

griff wrote:Looks good. I note that some of the notes are no longer chronological e.g. Cockburn 63 and Dow 75 VP. Is it able to be arranged?

Hmm...I can’t work this one out at all, I’m afraid. The problem seems to be that it is being sorting alphabetically by the thread’s number rather than numerically. To give an example, the threads for the Vesuvio 1990 have the numbers 195, 974, 1650, 2290 and 3666 but are being sorted as: 1650, 195, 2290, 3666, 974 because it’s comparing the numbers digit by digit rather than overall. I will have to carry on playing with it and seeing what I can do.

JacobH wrote:

griff wrote:Looks good. I note that some of the notes are no longer chronological e.g. Cockburn 63 and Dow 75 VP. Is it able to be arranged?

Hmm...I can’t work this one out at all, I’m afraid. The problem seems to be that it is being sorting alphabetically by the thread’s number rather than numerically. To give an example, the threads for the Vesuvio 1990 have the numbers 195, 974, 1650, 2290 and 3666 but are being sorted as: 1650, 195, 2290, 3666, 974 because it’s comparing the numbers digit by digit rather than overall. I will have to carry on playing with it and seeing what I can do.

That suggests that the thread numbers are being treated as text strings rather than numbers.

DRT wrote:

JacobH wrote:

griff wrote:Looks good. I note that some of the notes are no longer chronological e.g. Cockburn 63 and Dow 75 VP. Is it able to be arranged?

Hmm...I can’t work this one out at all, I’m afraid. The problem seems to be that it is being sorting alphabetically by the thread’s number rather than numerically. To give an example, the threads for the Vesuvio 1990 have the numbers 195, 974, 1650, 2290 and 3666 but are being sorted as: 1650, 195, 2290, 3666, 974 because it’s comparing the numbers digit by digit rather than overall. I will have to carry on playing with it and seeing what I can do.

That suggests that the thread numbers are being treated as text strings rather than numbers.

Yes, which is odd, because I thought perl only had one variable type and so this shouldn’t arise. It looks like it’s not being sorted by the bit of code that I’ve added to do the sorting, so I’ll have to look some more.

Can it be prefixed with 0s, compelling each to be (say) six digits?

jdaw1 wrote:Can it be prefixed with 0s, compelling each to be (say) six digits?

I’m glad I was not the only person to have thought of this rather inelegant way of dealing with the problem. Let’s just hope none of the real programmers on the forum read this

Anyway, it turned out that data was being sorted by the link before the topic number. Since the links all start ‟<a href="viewtopic.php?t=xxx">” where xxx is the topic number, the reason why they ended up sorted alphabetically by their topic number becomes apparent.

I’ve fixed it now and sent the files to DRT for uploading. I’ve also tied up a few other bugs (such as making such the ‟classic” version of a Port comes before the SQVP version) and reserve-sorted the Ports by type so that (cases where there is a White Colheita notwithstanding) Vintage Port comes before other SQVP; Crusted; LBV; &c.

I found an error when looking for a TN on N'70 for our 'Some Noval' tasting in June.

N'70 - AHB 08 Oct 2010 is in fact a TN for a Dow'70....I got quite excited until I realised.....sadly the Noval was somewhat lacking anything that Alex had described

Hmm...I’m afraid can’t see the mis-placed Noval 1970. Having checked all of the AHB 8 Oct 2010 Tasting Notes in the alphabetical index (of which there are quite a few), they seem to be going to the right places. There doesn’t seem to be a tasting note for Noval 1970 listed with that date: Would there be any chance you could copy-and-paste the section of the page where it appears, because I think I’m doing something stupid? Thanks!

JacobH wrote:I’ve fixed it now and sent the files to DRT for uploading.

Now uploaded. Thanks, Jacob

JacobH wrote:Hmm...I’m afraid can’t see the mis-placed Noval 1970. Having checked all of the AHB 8 Oct 2010 Tasting Notes in the alphabetical index (of which there are quite a few), they seem to be going to the right places. There doesn’t seem to be a tasting note for Noval 1970 listed with that date:

Code: Select all

1970	 15 Feb 2008	N70	
	 25 May 2008		
	AHB   23 Sep 2008		
	 23 Nov 2008		
	 26 Jan 2009		
	AHB   18 Nov 2009		
	 9 Feb 2010		
	AHB   16 Jul 2010		
	 26 Jul 2010		
	 11 Sep 2010		
	THRA   25 Sep 2007

Would there be any chance you could copy-and-paste the section of the page where it appears, because I think I’m doing something stupid? Thanks!

I have just checked again and there is no doubt that I am correct...the link for the N'70 AHB 08 Oct 2010 goes to a D'70

Ah, I think, on further investigation, you are still looking at the old version (where there is, indeed, a Noval 1970 link which goes to a Dow 1970). The dates on the new page don’t have a prefixed 0 (i.e. it’s 8 Oct 2010 rather than 08 Oct 2010). Could you clear your cache and try again? Alternative, if you are using Internet Explorer or Firefox if you go to the page and press Ctrl + F5 it should force reload for the server.

Error Code 00001 (user error)

DRT wrote:Error Code 00001 (user error)

PEBKAC

(Problem exists between keyboard and chair.)


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Is it time for a TN update?

I have updated the pages to include all of AHB’s weird-and-wonderful new Ports and have sent the files to DRT.

Oh! Now that is sophisticated. I was just looking at the date ordered index to see if DRT had done his stuff yet, when I noticed that as I scroll down the page the table of links to each year is replaced by a floating table of shortcuts.

I really like that! Nice feature!

New files now uploaded. Thanks, Jacob.

A few thoughts and comments for debate and / or correction:

(1) Scion is showing as Taylor 1855 vintage port - should I amend the title in some way to get this to show as "Taylor's Scion" and as a colheita or tawny?

(2) On the vintage organised list, the big table of a list of years (which contains hyperlinks to the tasting notes of that year) has not been updated for a while. There are now some years which have tasting notes but no link.

(3) I like the coloured band showing whether a group of wines are VP, colheita or garrafeira - but why do some tasting notes show who posted them and some do not show this?

Alex

AHB wrote:(1) Scion is showing as Taylor 1855 vintage port - should I amend the title in some way to get this to show as "Taylor's Scion" and as a colheita or tawny?

That’s a bug. There is a test for ‟Scion” which assigns it as 1855 Taylor Colheita, but that’s only run after the final catch-all test which assumes that anything in the format ‟YYYY Shipper” is a Vintage Port. I’ll sort that out.

AHB wrote:(2) On the vintage organised list, the big table of a list of years (which contains hyperlinks to the tasting notes of that year) has not been updated for a while. There are now some years which have tasting notes but no link.

Well spotted. The links aren’t (yet) generated automatically, so I’ll have to hand-add them.

AHB wrote:(3) I like the coloured band showing whether a group of wines are VP, colheita or garrafeira - but why do some tasting notes show who posted them and some do not show this?

Some time ago, jdaw1 set things up so that if he or DRT were the first posters on a thread then their initials did not show up (since often they would generate the threads after a big tasting even if they weren’t there). I’ve carried on that system, though I’m happy to replace DRT and jdaw1’s initials if that is the preference.

I have forwarded new versions to DRT (using the same data) which correct those bugs and also a few others (like some independent quintas whose VP was being described as SQVP).

JacobH wrote:I have forwarded new versions to DRT (using the same data) which correct those bugs and also a few others (like some independent quintas whose VP was being described as SQVP).

Now uploaded.

A further observation:

We have a couple of aged tawnies categorised in the 2010 vintage rather than being recorded in the NV section. (I noticed because I'm going to post my thoughts on the Vesuvio and Ribeira 2010 vintages soon.)

Alex

This is a bit of a problem. Essentially, if someone posts ‟Sandeman Ruby (bottled 2010)” then, I agree, it might make sense for it to be listed without a date, rather than with one. However, if someone posts ‟Sandeman Ruby (bottled 1910)” then there is a strong argument that that should be listed with its date, since it’s the date that makes it interesting. Also a review of a 1910 Ruby is not going to be of much use to someone looking for notes on a recently purchased bottle.

I suppose, as a compromise, I could kill the bottling dates if they are more recent, so only those which have a significant time in the bottle appear. Looking at what we have at the moment, there aren’t any non-vintage Ports with bottling dates in the 1990s, 2000 or 2001 on the list, so we could start killing the dates from 2002 onwards, or have it on a rolling basis starting a decade ago.