CG66 rename?

keep the name - can you imagine the confusion caused and the need to update literally thousands of books and documents, which would take approx a generation to filter out the old name.

Why change something that ain't broke?

As an aside, I liked the way I got an email asking me to finish off mine - a nice personal touch in this day and age of mass-computer-customer-service that govt seems to engage in.
 
Comrade Red said:
keep the name - can you imagine the confusion caused and the need to update literally thousands of books and documents, which would take approx a generation to filter out the old name.

Why change something that ain't broke?

As an aside, I liked the way I got an email asking me to finish off mine - a nice personal touch in this day and age of mass-computer-customer-service that govt seems to engage in.
Click to expand...

Nice to get positive feedback :)
 
I am a registered member now, but I got to know of the scheme through the word of mouth. The first few times I heard somebody mention it I just did not take notice, mostly because the name did not mean anything to me.

The on-line registration form too does not provide the confidence that the information entered is actually going anywhere but down an hard drive black-hole.

You have to do something to make the name of the form more related to its purpose as already discussed, but also improve the interactive feedback, providing confidence that somebody human is actually looking after the record. Also you should provide confidence that you protect the privacy of the data supplied in observance to the Data Protection Act 1998 and subsequent modifications.

I hope this helps.
 
I registered our boats with CG66 for more years than I can remember, probably since the scheme started. Are we saying people these days are too stupid to recognise what it is? At the very least a new name should retain the CG66 bit.
 
Before you start changing names perhaps you should let us know if the present system is working as well as it should. If you have the forms for the majority of the boating population then there is no point in changing things. If you only have them for, say, 10% of the population then almost anything will improve things.

How many CG66's do you have on the system?
 
I agree, CG66 is well established and should be kept - and would say that a good official title should be used to publicise it, as I think there are a significant number of people who haven't heard of it, and really should.

But please change the official title. 'Voluntary Safety Identification Scheme' is rather meaningless (how do you identify a Voluntary Safety?) and please, PLEASE don't use the word 'Safety'. It's a SAR database, and is used for Vessel Identification, so just say so. (SARVI?)

The widespread current the practise of putting the word 'safety' on everything is a pointless exercise which I think is counterproductive - it automatically makes people get ready for a lecture about whatever someone thinks is 'for their own good' - and is needless as the element of safety is implicit in the scheme anyway.

.
 
prv said:
Agree. I think that covers just about all the thoughts in this thread. Maybe the only thing to do is make sure that the full title, not just the code, is used in any context where those new to the scheme might see it.

Pete
Click to expand...

I agree too.
 
Lodesman77 said:
I agree, CG66 is well established and should be kept - and would say that a good official title should be used to publicise it, as I think there are a significant number of people who haven't heard of it, and really should.

But please change the official title. 'Voluntary Safety Identification Scheme' is rather meaningless (how do you identify a Voluntary Safety?) and please, PLEASE don't use the word 'Safety'. It's a SAR database, and is used for Vessel Identification, so just say so. (SARVI?)

The widespread current the practise of putting the word 'safety' on everything is a pointless exercise which I think is counterproductive - it automatically makes people get ready for a lecture about whatever someone thinks is 'for their own good' - and is needless as the element of safety is implicit in the scheme anyway.

Ok, fine; how about either SEarush's option or
CG66-SARA= in full CG66 Search and Rescue Archive.
or
CG66-SARR= in full CG66 Search and Rescue Resource

So us older yottin' folk can keep calling it a CG66, or younger/alert ones have an acronym in SARA/SARR.
"Have you done your SARA this year, Sir" might be a bit tricky on VHF, mind;)
No need to change CG66 in all the publications out there until they come up for next edition.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rigger Mortice said:
Before you start changing names perhaps you should let us know if the present system is working as well as it should. If you have the forms for the majority of the boating population then there is no point in changing things. If you only have them for, say, 10% of the population then almost anything will improve things.

How many CG66's do you have on the system?
Click to expand...
22220, see post 14
 
Rigger Mortice said:
Before you start changing names perhaps you should let us know if the present system is working as well as it should. If you have the forms for the majority of the boating population then there is no point in changing things. If you only have them for, say, 10% of the population then almost anything will improve things.

How many CG66's do you have on the system?
Click to expand...

Rigger Mortice - this was just a rough poll to get a general feeling on a name change. Granted the system requires an update, as CG66 administrators we are working hard to get round any problems, as it stands, to try and help people out.

There are a lot of boat owners who chose not to have a CG66 - a voluntary and not compulsory, free system for SAR purposes only. Yes we will need to look at publicity, the system etc, but I first wanted a feel for the name CG66.

As on a previous posting there are 22,220 CG66's.
 
I am just glad it wasnt CG666 - it came pretty close! :D

Seriously, search and rescue is what the whole thing is about so how about

"CG66 Search and Rescue Database"

Saying it describes exactly what it is about plus it keeps the original form number for the pre existing members.
 
wizard said:
I am just glad it wasnt CG666 - it came pretty close! :D

Seriously, search and rescue is what the whole thing is about so how about

"CG66 Search and Rescue Database"

Saying it describes exactly what it is about plus it keeps the original form number for the pre existing members.
Click to expand...

The only thing with having 'database' is that nosey people like me might think I can go there and search for historical data on search and rescue activities...
 
What's in a name?

CG66 does nothing to describe the form's purpose but the title is well known to a lot of sailors.

I can see there's an argument for making the name more obvious but to avoid confusion then perhaps 'CG66' ought to be retained somewhere, at least initially. A name which embraces both would be ideal as a transition...perhaps 'Search and Rescue Details (CG66)" or some such.

To be honest, with inflation I was fully expecting it to be renamed CG70.

However, can I say, and on this I suspect I speak for everyone here and beyond, how nice it is to be asked our thoughts rather than having a decision imposed.

Well done.
 
rickym said:
+1 If it 'ain't broke
Click to expand...


Surely its not a matter of it being broken or not, but how well the scheme is recognised amongst the sailing fraternity and used. Considering the number of leisure boat users round our coasts, then with just 22k signed up to it, the uptake is but a drop in the ocean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top