[EU-lobby-data] Fwd: URGENT - Update on Lobby facts and urgent question regarding data

Tue Jan 15 14:25:39 UTC 2013

Maybe for the logo we could rely on someone less expensive? Any ideas?

Now I realized there's also a mock-up of data result page I hadn't seen 
before (Sorry about that). I have more comments on that.

-I don't understand what are those highest figures we compare the 
figures with.
-I like how clearly the information is shown, but we have more 
information on each registrant, so we should find a way of giving this 
info too (maybe hidden at first sight, but accessible somehow). It makes 
no sense to give less info than the register itself, don't you think?
-I really don't think address should be one of the priorities of 
information to show. But i would put somewhere initiatives covered, 
although I know it is not properly used by most of the registrants.

And a couple of notes I did some time ago and it might be the time to 
keep in mind, if you find them useful:

  *

    *Information by others.* Will we include information about the
    registrant provided by others registrants in the entry? In clients
    and networking, especially. I think it is very important to do this.
    Does it affects the design of the tool?

  *

    *Absent from the register.* What to do with lobbies that are not
    registered?

    We should create entries for _those who are mentioned by others_,
    but it is important that these entries are not counted in the total
    numbers of lobbies registered and it is also important that we
    highlight somehow in the entry that they are NOT registered (red card).

    For those _lobbies we can't find any information about in the
    register,_ I think we talked about creating an automatic message
    that explains that if you can't find a name in the register it
    doesn't mean that it isn't a lobby, and then explain that the
    register is not compulsory and why it should be.

  *

    *Old data.* I guess we should store the old data to be able to offer
    someday information on the evolution of spending. I know this will
    come at a later stage, but I thought it might be important to have
    it into account in the design of the tool.

  *

    *Finding cases of undereporting or similar flaws.* Would it be
    possible to use the tool in order to find with a simple search
    registrants with declare to spend 0 euros in lobbying, for example?
    It would also be great to be able to find in an easy way those
    registrants (section I: Professional consultancies/law
    firms/self-employed consultants) whose total spending in lobbying
    doesn't match with the addition of the turnover of their clients.
    Even if this function wasn't available for all the users, it would
    be nice to have it for our own use.

À demain

ester

On 15/01/13 13:36, Timo Lange wrote:
> Logo is still an open question and is not part of our agreement so far.
> I guess it will cost more money to develop a really cool logo.
>
> Personally, I would be happy with a simple generic logo at first.
>
> Mathilde also told me that there is a button in the lower right corner,
> which can be easily overlooked. This button is supposed to help you
> navigate through the different slides.
>
> Thx for you feedback, Ester!
>
> -T.
>
>
>
> Am 15.01.2013 12:57, schrieb ester:
>> Personally, I do like what I can see. I like the colors, the typo and
>> the general image. It looks clean, simple and professional to me. So in
>> my opinion they could continue working on that direction.
>>
>> And regarding the structure, maybe we need to refine it a little bit
>> (what to include in primary and secondary navigation), but in principle
>> I would also agree with it. It is easy to understand, it allows us to
>> include all the info we want and it is easy to highlight the latest info.
>>
>> To give a definitive feedback, I guess we would need to be able to
>> navigate and see different pages, to start with. I see always the same
>> one, no matter which link I choose. It also says there will be a
>> slideshow, but I can't see it.
>>
>> They also ask for a logo. As far as I know we don't have one. Will they
>> do it? Or is someone else suppose to do it?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ester
>>
>>
>> On 15/01/13 12:19, Timo Lange wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Mathilde now asks for feedback concerning the visuals (which I still
>>> haven't been able to see yet). What I understood from you is that there
>>> is not enough there yet to give a clear feedback. Can you comment anyway
>>> on it? What do we need to give a definitive feedback?
>>>
>>> I guess Friedrich is still unavailable?
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Timo
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>>> Betreff: URGENT - Update on Lobby facts and urgent question regarding
>>> data
>>> Datum: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:58:45 +0100
>>> Von: Mathilde <mathilde at tacticaltech.org>
>>> An: Timo Lange <timo.lange at lobbycontrol.de>,  Friedrich Lindenberg
>>> <friedrich.lindenberg at okfn.org>
>>>
>>> Hello both of you,
>>>
>>> for the guys at Curve agency, they need answers to the questions below
>>> as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> Friedrich - any news on how they can retrieve the dtabase?
>>>
>>> Have you been able to look at the visuals? Can I give them sign off so
>>> that they can continue?
>>>
>>> Timo, it would be great if you could let me know when would be a good
>>> moment to call?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Mathilde
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject:     Update on Lobby facts and urgent question regarding data
>>> Date:     Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:09:40 +0100
>>> From:     Mathilde <mathilde at tacticaltech.org>
>>> To:     Friedrich Lindenberg <friedrich.lindenberg at okfn.org>, Timo Lange
>>> <timo.lange at lobbycontrol.de>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello both of you!
>>> Happy new year!! I hope you had a great Christmas period and start to
>>> the year.
>>>
>>> So I have a couple of questions
>>>
>>> First, and most urgent - the guys at Curve agency have had problems with
>>> the data. They have spent 3 days on sorting it, duplicates etc.
>>> It would seem that it was assumed the API export would be the full
>>> database, but in fact does not correspond to the full data. The easiest
>>> at this stage (and sorry, I assumed had been the case already) is if
>>> they can have access to the database itself... Friedrich, is this
>>> possible? and if not, how come...?
>>>
>>> This is a few words they sent to describe their problem:
>>>
>>> We’ve tried to pull content from the API as best we can and we have
>>> succeeded in getting the correct amount of content from the API in all
>>> instances - so for example we succeeded in pulling out 11,233 people
>>> from the system, but when importing data this data set seems to miss
>>> lots of people out. To combat this, we also tried to pull a list of
>>> ‘heads’ and ‘legal’ straight from the representatives, but again there
>>> seems to be data missing. We’ve concluded that without direct database
>>> access we’re not confident in the data that is being returned by the API
>>> and how complete this data is. In summary the API is returning
>>> incomplete data.
>>>
>>> Another issue we’re facing (which you’re obviously aware of is duplicate
>>> content). There are several rows of duplicate data in the system, but
>>> there are also many rows of data where the ID’s are the same (we’re
>>> using the IDs as unique identifiers in our system), but other data might
>>> be slightly different. It’s difficult to know which data we should trust
>>> in this instances as obviously we’re less knowledgeable about this data
>>> than yourselves.
>>>
>>> This is quite a problem, because the agreement with them, was not to
>>> spend time on data cleaning and sorting etc... and unfortunately they
>>> have had to do this... and this means spend time that has not been
>>> accounted for (yet..) They know we are very tight on budget.. but they
>>> are asking that additional budget can be considered. Timo, I don't know
>>> how much is there and possible.. but it is true that this has caused
>>> them a lot of extra work.. to be discussed...
>>>
>>> They have given me access to design start they have which I give you
>>> here to login
>>> They are otherwise happy with how it is advancing and the progress.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please click on the following link to activate your account:
>>> http://curveagency.hotgloo.com/activate/d5d3d3760eae9869a1bff48bffb399f701b360b1
>>>
>>>
>>> Use the username and password provided below to sign in:
>>> Username:mathilde at tacticaltech.org
>>> Password: fdc386b9
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me know on thoughts about this data question.. sorry to bother you
>>> Friedrich, but maybe again it is better you talk to them directly so
>>> that every body is clear on what is the situation...
>>>
>>>
>>> Take care!
>>>
>>> Mathilde
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eu-lobby-data mailing list
>> eu-lobby-data at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/eu-lobby-data
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/eu-lobby-data
>>
>

-- 
Ester Arauzo
Researcher and media outreach coordinator
Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
+32 (0) 2 893 09 30

Stay in touch with us!
Twitter <http://twitter.com/corporateeurope> Facebook 
<http://www.facebook.com/CorporateEuropeObservatory> Flickr 
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/corporateeuropeobservatory> Youtube 
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CEOwebtv/videos> Vimeo 
<http://vimeo.com/corporateeurope>
Sign up to CEO's e-newsletter:
http://www.corporateeurope.org/subscribe-our-newsletter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/private/eu-lobby-data/attachments/20130115/1ef08e0b/attachment.html>