Full lista of players in any match

@ilmago. I'm not sure why you would try to speak on behalf of Chess.Com in this discussion; surely that's John Cannon's place? Why would you concern yourself with something that you don't want?

I agree with you that programmers will have higher priorities to work on but from an admin's point of view, this enhancement is invaluable.

Again, your point of, "...relevance to (sic) the matches themselves...", is self-evident.

How can you say that there are more statistics than are needed when there are some admin's here who want, (Need), them?

You say that we can simply tick the names. Where would we do that? On a spreadsheet? That's what we're trying to eliminate. If there's a place for it in the current layout, I,and perhaps others, would be pleased if you would tell us.

You say that the statistics, "...will be there for everyone to see." I would expect this to be an admin function and included in the, "Manage club", function.

The reason that admin's want this information is to monitor the activity of members so perhaps you miss the point.

I've addressed most of your points, simply in the hope of of your being able to see the reasons FOR wanting this enhancement. I'm sure that there are already some club management tools that you don't use or need - let this be another.

Finally, if you want a true indication of the attitude towards this suggestion, raise it in the admins club. I have no doubt that there will be a flood of support.

@Karnakatz I also think, that this should be an "admin only" feature. I'd fully agree with @ilmago if this was a public feature.

Karnakatz, I am not speaking on behalf of chess.com here ---

I just have quite some experience suggesting a variety of things to chess.com to change and to fix.

Proposed changes will have the biggest chances of being implemented quickly if they are feasible for the people (doable for the programmers and designers),

and technically feasible (saving resources of computation time --- chess.com has been hugely optimizing many aspects of their pages to cope with the ever more and more increasing number of users and demands of the technologies used)

and if they make sense together with what chess.com has been doing, adding more advantages than disadvantages when implemented.

There are many proposals that have been implemented successfully, sometimes even really fast,

but there are also some proposals that just did not fit well enough, or just did not make it to the higher regions of the priority lists, which did not get implemented, or which needed new ideas or changing towards more realistic proposals before they actually could be implemented.

ON SHOWING "PARTICIPATION REACHED / NOT REACHED" AT START TIME:

For the purpose of showing which team has reached the required minimum players participation at the start time of the match, it is a huge overkill to keep showing all the players who did not get to play. If chess.com wishes to implement it, they should simply just show the info directly such as

"min participation reached at start time: yes (green tick) / no (red X)" for each of the teams in the match,

(or even easier and shorter:

ready at start time: yes (green tick) / no (red X)

)

with this info added after chess.com has checked the match at start time --- if it can be started, chess.com will start it, if it cannot be started, chess.com could add the tick/ cross for participation reached / not reached in time.

This little direct piece of info would be nice and practical for the directors of our league (World League) --- so far they are just monitoring this by themselves, using automated scripts as far as possible ---, but likely will be of quite little importance for the vast majority of other team matches. So even this might be of rather little priority to do for chess.com.

It is not so easy --- does not make so much sense --- to implement this as a feature that will be displayed only for the admins of the teams involved in the match. One of the biggest purposes of such features would be that the directors of the league can view it, too, but chess.com has no structures for team matches attributing them to leagues --- that would be a major structural change requiring a lot of work at some point in the farther future.

I read all the above, @ilmago and it's opinion so neither right nor wrong.

I will address this, though.

"It is not so easy --- does not make so much sense --- to implement this as a feature that will be displayed only for the admins of the teams involved in the match. One of the biggest purposes of such features would be that the directors of the league can view it, too, but chess.com has no structures for team matches attributing them to leagues --- that would be a major structural change requiring a lot of work at some point in the farther future".

Again an opinion and I can't help whether it makes sense to you. it's similar to one of the Admins in 1WL who can't see that allowing admins to withdraw players up til the start of the match is unsporting. I have no doubt that what you say about structural changes, etc., but that's not your concern, is it? How it doesn't enhance the operation of the joke that is called 1WL is of no concern to the many clubs who would love this feature.

Finally, refer #8, back there <<<<< . It appears that John Cannon doesn't share your views.

Please leave this to the members who want it and feel free not to use the function when it's introduced.

May I suggest that your time would be better spent discussing, with the other admins, how you can make 1WL a League where players and not admins, determine their opponents.

Feel free to respond but know that I've finished addressing your nonsense.

That's really a good idea and would be very helpful. Imho it would be even better to have an option in the match settings, that gives points for each open board to the club, which fulfilled its requirement. This way, all matches can start and would be adjusted from the beginning on. The club, which did the necessary would simply get the advantage it recruited for.

That's funny coming from the bloke who deletes players from matches after first inviting them! Hahahahaha!!

This, Berndt, shows that neither your mate or you have understood what's been said.

"...to keep showing all the players who did not get to play.". No-one's asking for that, mate; what we're asking for is the facility to be able to check when a member, (Last?) missed out on a board.

That's all from me.

Karnakatz, for seeing why this is not simply about offering some additional statistics that does no harm to those who could simply choose to not use it, please remember that showing too much statistics can and will have detrimental effects.

Showing too many details will make it harder to easily find the important normal info.

Showing too many details about some things will automatically create unhappiness, because it will remind people of unhappy things,

and it will create unhappy discussions because more people will have minds filled with thinking about penalties.

Showing and using too many details will lead to strange false incentives, motivating people to strive for strange unwanted things instead of striving for normal healthy chess activity.

Do not misunderstand things to be an opinion. I have written things as an experienced assessment of which proposed changes can be likely to be feasible and useful enough to have good chances to be implemented soon, and which kinds of proposed changes will not be likely to be implemented soon. Being aware of such assessments can help to concentrate on making more feasible or more useful suggestions, and it can help to modify or improve some suggestions in order to improve their chances of getting implemented, and it can help to avoid suggestions that will end up being more detrimental than useful.

...in your opinion.

by experience.

Many years of organizing, and watching things happen here.

I'm older and more experienced. Please consider the others and should you wish to continue, I'm happy to discuss it via PM. I'll then also tell you my life and working/business experience.

Your profile says you have been on chess.com since 2016. It is interesting how quickly you have jumped to wording your comparison.

I do not doubt that you may be very experienced about some things.

I have said things from a good amount of experience of being here on chess.com, and experience about organizing leagues and dealing with statistics.

Please do not derail things here with a personal argument.

@ilmago: your experience is recognised and appreciated but its just a point of view. On WL topics your views are pretty much rules, but on general discussions like this it carries the same weight as the opinion from any other user. 

You don’t like the suggestion and that’s fine but please appreciate there’s many national team admins that see value on it.

if I have to be honest I must say I don’t understand why to dedicate so much time and energy on killing someone else’s idea just to preserve status quo.

Anyways we have all made our cases. It is now up to chess.com to prioritise this or not. Lets not get carried away with a discussion that leads nowhere.

Yes, Fedebau, it has not been my interest to kill someone else's idea here.

Let us say I have pointed out some disadvantages it has, and that I guess the chances for it to be implemented by chess.com are limited.