Object Lesson in Non-Transparency At Energy.gov

Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by icebike · 2012-01-26 07:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

One wonders if accessing information about Coal or Natural gas production would be easier than information about Nuclear waste storage.
It might be she stepped into a Homeland Security issue, and managed to get herself on a watch list. All these documents were supposedly transferred in 2010. That would put it squarely in the Obama administration's Open Government time frame, but it was also during the height of the irrational security theater phase of locking up information about everything from Atomic weapons to Water supplies.

Google would have been more fruitful, as the article states.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by Dyinobal · 2012-01-26 07:33 · Score: 1

ya looking into anything related where the government stores nuclear materials even nuclear waste seems like asking for, at least some red tape.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by jazzboat · 2012-01-26 07:40 · Score: 2

Additionally, basing her conclusion on the search results for one document seems a bit rash. True, from her description, the document should have been found, but just because this one document was not found, it does not prove that this is either another example of an open governement project failing or some nefarious conspiracy.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-01-26 07:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

I have tired using data.gov to try to get the GIS data for the trails in national parks, I also tried the national parks service without any luck. So it isn't just sensitive info that is impossible to get.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by Synerg1y · 2012-01-26 07:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

But but but, let's back up a minute here. The government trying to purposefully obfuscate sensitive data on a website? Realize they wouldn't publish truly sensitive data here... also, when has the government ever made a user friendly, easy to navigate website? There are projects out there that scrape government websites into better websites to present data. It's more a testament to our IT fail than deliberate vagueness.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by hairyfeet · 2012-01-26 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or it could be that the site just blows chunks just like their petition site. seriously how can you fuck up a registration input with captcha so damned badly? Please god tell me that was donated to the gov, i'd hate to think we paid for that shite on a crusty roll.
if there is anything one should have learned about interacting with the government by now it should be its frustrating, often insanely overcomplicated for even the simplest little thing, sucks time like mad, and if you aren't real careful you'll either end up going around in circles or in a catch 22 situation. Frankly most of the nitty gritty is a giant mess that only seems to help spawn more government workers. BTW did you know that government workers now outnumber fishermen,loggers,miners,and about a half a dozen other jobs combined? Blew my mind when i read that but it makes sense, red tape breeds pencil pushers like shit breeds mushrooms. BTW if anybody can find that list of how many jobs combined are less than government workers i never thought to save it and its a pretty damned long list.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by Chruisan · 2012-01-26 08:45 · Score: 1

I would be interested to see your facts that back this up (spent naval nuclear fuel reprocessed and reused in domestic, commercial nuclear power plants).
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by quacking+duck · 2012-01-26 10:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Government-run healthcare is not awesome, but it is arguably necessary.
However, that's a moot point because that's not what the US is going to get. The US had a right-wing party yelling "socialists! Death panels!" at a less-right-wing party which put up self-imposed roadblocks to appease them, even though the latter controlled Congress, Senate and White House (until late 2010), until you got mandatory health insurance.
It is a giant clusterfuck that Republicans are secretly overjoyed to get, because when it collapses they will tout it as an example of why public health systems don't work, even though it's nothing like the public health or mixed public/private systems in other countries that DO work (though again, not awesomely).
They (and much of the American public) also ignore the fact that even before Obamacare, even during the Bush Jr. era, the US was already spending more tax dollars on healthcare per capita than all the other industrialized nations. If they'd only spend those *existing* health care tax dollars properly, the standard of care that the poor and lower-middle class would be AT LEAST as good as Canada's (which has plenty of flaws, don't get me wrong, but it's very unlikely to force people into bankruptcy or taking out a second mortgage), and the wealthier could still pay for better health services.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by hairyfish · 2012-01-26 12:12 · Score: 2

on the one hand, they can complain about DMV, Post Office, Social Security Services, etc and etc, and then turn around and say "Government Run Health Care is going to be AWESOME Woot!"
Boggles the mind.
By that the logic, the govt shouldn't be responsible for anything. The govt may be shithouse at certain things, but as far as distributing healthcare to everyone equally, is still the best model available.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by Aquitaine · 2012-01-26 12:27 · Score: 2

This is nothing but FUD. Yucca Mountain has got next to nothing to do with nuclear weapons and you aren't going to get on a 'watch list' by asking about it. It's been studied and discussed and studied all over again dating back to 1978. The proposed storage facility is for spent fuel from nuclear reactors. You can't use this stuff to make nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean you want to hand it out at parties, but it's a basic radioactive storage problem first, and a security problem no more so than storing any other hazmat.
Yucca Mountain has been declared safe and a great site for exactly what the US wanted to do with it numerous times, but it suffers from a huge case of NIMBY. Nobody, state or Federal, wins votes by announcing that they've found a great spot to put all their spent nuclear reactor fuel. It doesn't matter if all the spent nuclear fuel in the country could fit in a football field and it doesn't matter if it's the best place in the entire country for it. The only thing that matters, like all political boondoggles, is whether anybody with clout is going to suspend cover-your-ass mode and actually try to solve the problem -- and Obama's answer, like most politicians, has been a resounding 'no.' This is usually followed up by some squirming and an admission to the effect of 'actually, all this stuff is fine where it is! We are so much smarter than we were in 1978. Those crazy kids back then thought we should bury this stuff in a mountain! Naaaaah.'
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by trevelyon · 2012-01-26 15:36 · Score: 2

You might want to read the article a bit more carefully. She states that there is a wealth of documents both in google and on the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission so it is rather unlikely this is a security issue or one of limited search for one document. She also lists several other search topics that provided similarly poor results. In particular presenting the information with no summary is not security it's poor implementation that will end up wasting the user's time, provider's bandwidth for little return. I would not ascribe to security what seems to clearly be incompetence. That argument should be left to the cable and telco companies when they transfer you to overseas support and ask you to provide all the information you just gave the last person "for security purposes".
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by hairyfeet · 2012-01-26 19:42 · Score: 2

Hey i'll be happy to give you a great example of why the current system is bad, 100% true. my mom was a nurse for nearly 40 years and you know what one of the biggest procedures was for poor males? heart valve replacement. you know why? Because while the government wouldn't pay to get that tooth that had gone bad out of their head they WOULD pay for a full valve replacement. Cost of the tooth $1000 max if they needed an oral surgeon, cost of the valve replacement north of $150k.
The best argument i can make for free healthcare is simply the fact that now we are penny wise and shitloads of pound foolish, the example above being one of just dozens of stories i could tell of huge amounts blown because the government wouldn't help someone when the problem was small but would when the problem had blown out of control. I could give you horror stories on everything from bugs spreading like widlfire to cancer and in every damned case it could have been incredibly cheap to just nip that shit in the bud but because the current system rewards doing nothing on the little things instead of free clinics we have ERs packed with people that would have seen a family doc in decades past but now simply can't afford it or families buried under bills because mom or dad worked sick until they finally collapsed and ended up in the hospital for 3 weeks instead of being able to simply go to a doc and get it fixed when it would have cost a bottle of pills and a doctor's visit.
That is why i'm so proud of my oldest boy who took the loss of his mom and deciding it was a sign to make this world a better place is busting his ass in pre-med now, not to become some rich surgeon or have a fancy clinic, but because he wants to open a small town family practice and help the poor. I have no doubt he'll be the kind of doctor that'll barely keep his head above water because he'll be trading doctor visits for chicken dinners or even nothing at all and will be spending half his time hustling for the drugs his patients need but can't afford but you know what? There won't be a way in hell that I could be prouder of him for dedicating his life to making this world a better place to be for the poor.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by frank_adrian314159 · 2012-01-27 05:44 · Score: 1

Good on your boy. My dad did this, moving out of Chicago to a small farming town in downstate Illinois. He took care of about a third of the county and often brought home vegetables and meat that people had given him in lieu of payment. That being said, he was still able to pull down enough money (mostly through Medicare and Medicade payments) to put his kids through school and finance the farm he always wanted. Your son probably won't miss a lot of meals (unless he's working too much), but he might not have a lot to pass on to his kids when he retires, as well. In the end, it's a good thing he's doing.

--
That is all.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by hairyfeet · 2012-01-28 00:17 · Score: 1

Good on your dad as well. I call them mine but they were my late sister's, may she rest in piece, right after the second was born we find out she's terminal and her husband says "I can't deal with this" and just walks away, never to be seen again. There i was, swore i'd never have kids, and I get a newborn and one barely two while my mom retires to take care of sis full time. they gave her 3-5 years, she managed to hang on bedridden for 14 years so she'd be sure she'd get to see them graduate HS.
But now the oldest is on the Dean's list, has so impressed the local minister with his work ethic he's gushed to all the PTBs about 'how great it would be to have a young man with such strong faith and work ethics helping on the mission' that he's pulled strings and now the boy will be getting most of his education for free which is nice, he says he has no time for dating but when i go up there i can see the gals drooling over him so i don't think he'll have a problem in that dept, I'm sure he'll find a gal just as boring as he is and they'll have little boring kids and lead a totally boring life and be happy LOL! How a wild old bass playing biker like me could raise two straight arrows i'll never know LOL!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-30 05:10 · Score: 1

"distributing healthcare to everyone equally"
Impossible. Pure and simple. It is a limited resource and therefore cannot be given to everyone equally. Nothing like overly simplistic thinking.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by hairyfish · 2012-01-30 22:49 · Score: 1

"distributing healthcare to everyone equally"
Impossible. Pure and simple. It is a limited resource and therefore cannot be given to everyone equally. Nothing like overly simplistic thinking.
Nothing like piss poor comprehension you mean. I didn't claim it was a perfect model, just the best on offer.
Re:Perhaps a less sensitive subject? by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-31 05:32 · Score: 1

You said "equally" which is impossible. Typical Socialist over simplistic viewpoint, and fraught with tons of unintended consequences as the system TRIES to accomplish the impossible. It is typical because it is "equal results" oriented thinking, which is invariably impossible in all cases, especially cases with limited resources.
It isn't even the "best on offer" because you're not being reasonable in even looking at alternatives. In fact, Universal Health Care almost always results in worse care for more people than before.And you're deciding for "Everyone" is typical of Social Elites that think anyone that opposes their ideas as simplistic dolts and in need of "reeducation".
Sorry, but I comprehend a great deal more than you think. And unlike your typical socialist I don't just go for "It looks good on paper" models.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Appearance Is Everything by jasnw · 2012-01-26 07:36 · Score: 5, Informative

After working with a variety of US Government agencies over my 40+ year career I learned many lessons about how these agencies work. A major one was how mandated actions or behaviors were handled. It wasn't important that you actually did what the mandate called for, it just needed to APPEAR that you did. This website experience from TFA sounds very much like this behavior.

Re:Appearance Is Everything by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-26 10:27 · Score: 1

This is called Mandated Processes, not Mandated Results. If they had to cost justify their existence, most agencies couldn't even come close.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Not to be a grammar nazi or anything but... by bazmail · 2012-01-26 07:37 · Score: 1, Flamebait

www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/abject+lesson.html

Re:Not to be a grammar nazi or anything but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:41 · Score: 1

not to be a web nazi or anything,(you missed this comma btw) but learn to properly link your links...
1. http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/abject+lesson.html
2. Web grammar 101 here
Re:Not to be a grammar nazi or anything but... by darth+dickinson · 2012-01-26 07:41 · Score: 1

"(In some varieties of English 'object lesson' is used.)"
Re:Not to be a grammar nazi or anything but... by GreyLurk · 2012-01-26 07:45 · Score: 1

From the site you linked to:
(In some varieties of English 'object lesson' is used.)
This idiom is Indian English
So given that it was an article about US government, it's fair to assume that the writer was trying to use American English idioms, rather than Indian English ones.
Re:Not to be a grammar nazi or anything but... by sideslash · 2012-01-26 07:47 · Score: 1

And interestingly, the link notes that "abject lesson" is an Indian English idiom.
Re:Not to be a grammar nazi or anything but... by bazmail · 2012-01-26 07:47 · Score: 1

In some varieties of Physics god created the world in 7 days.
Re:Not to be a grammar nazi or anything but... by bazmail · 2012-01-26 07:51 · Score: 1

Some idiots are always English.

What a surprise by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-26 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

What a surprise, the Administration that touts itself as the most transparent in history, isn't. As a matter of fact it is busy obfuscating as much information about the government as possible.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Re:What a surprise by quintus_horatius · 2012-01-26 08:03 · Score: 2

It's like anything else in politics: perception is all that matters, not substance.
Re:What a surprise by Grishnakh · 2012-01-27 12:25 · Score: 1

I love how the Democrat morons get mod points and mod me down for speaking the truth about their corporatist, warmongering Messiah.

Non-transparency or a bad website? by slimjim8094 · 2012-01-26 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I read the article, and he's basically got problems with the search feature, the size of PDFs (or the quality of their previews?), and what happens to agency documents when an agency closes (they go to an agency that handles 'legacy' documents)

This is a very accusatory article and summary for the problems he's got. Non-transparency? Obfuscation? Or a work-in-progress? If new work is hidden away, or old work isn't made available in a straightforward and reasonable fashion, then complain... but this guy just comes off as complaining.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.

Re:Non-transparency or a bad website? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 07:56 · Score: 1

>but this guy just comes off as complaining
Should he give praise for the effort even when the result is non-satisfactory?
Re:Non-transparency or a bad website? by acwnh · 2012-01-26 07:58 · Score: 5, Informative

You couldn't have read the article too closely since the author's first name, Dawn, is usually a woman's first name.
The article goes into a fair amount of detail regarding information that used to be available prior to the new-and-improved-and-consolidated website energy.gov. Based on the contents of the article, I personally would conclude that the author's complaints are valid.
Re:Non-transparency or a bad website? by slimjim8094 · 2012-01-26 08:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

I wasn't concerned with the author's name. I will admit I skimmed some of the non-relevant portions, since I was short on time, but I believe I got the substance of the post.
As for the old website, sites tend to grow organically. The content on the old website was put there one-at-a-time, as it came to exist. The new website would've required a bulk import, and those are pretty slow. I'd rather they have the new site up earlier than delaying until everything is copied over. Should it have been done better? Probably. But this wasn't an article about "it should have been done better", this was an article about nontransparency and deliberate obfuscation, with the implication that it's for political reasons. I don't think the evidence supports such a bold accusation.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:Non-transparency or a bad website? by jklovanc · 2012-01-26 08:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ever heard the phrase "one catches more flies with honey that with vinager". Instead of accusing the site of being "not transparent" maybe she could have stated that search engin needs fixing and suggesting exactly how to do it.
Another issue is that she is looking for a ten-year old document from an Office that was closed and all documents transferred to Legacy Management. If the documents were transferred in electronic form, as they should be, it is up to LM to put them up in searchable format. The OP's issue should be with LM and not Energy.gov.
By the way, just because one can not instantly download any document created in the last ten years does not mean the government is not transparent. It just means that they have not dealt with the millions of legacy documents.

Also missing by uigrad_2000 · 2012-01-26 07:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

Wow, there's a lot of trolls today.

Back on topic:
I couldn't find anything at Energy.gov that indicates what portion of my tax burden is due to supporting non-competitive forms of "green" energy.

I don't care where you come down on these issues, but anyone who views this site has to agree, that it is pure marketing. I run my monitor at 1920x1080, and I had to press 'PageDn' three times to get to the content!

--
Free unix account: freeshell.org

Re:Also missing by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-26 08:12 · Score: 1

I don't care where you come down on these issues, but anyone who views this site has to agree, that it is pure marketing. I run my monitor at 1920x1080, and I had to press 'PageDn' three times to get to the content!
I read that, and thought, 'Oh, c'mon, it can't be that bad.'

Then I actually went to energy.gov... Sweet zombie Jesus...

I find the American Idol-esque "Who will be AMERICA'S NEXT TOP ENERGY INNOVATOR" banner ad at the top particularly disgusting.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Also missing by Grishnakh · 2012-01-26 09:52 · Score: 1

Wow, you guys aren't kidding. That's one of the worst websites I've seen in a while.

Propaganda != transparency. by Toby+Tucker · 2012-01-26 07:58 · Score: 1

All of these Obama, "transparency", websites are a little too polished, and completely peppered with politispeak bullshit.

Yucca Mountain is needed by Squidlips · 2012-01-26 08:00 · Score: 3, Informative

I hardly blame them for not releasing information on Yucca Mountain to a potential muck-raking reporter. I know everyone hates the idea of Yucca Mountain, but do they realize the alternative? Nuclear waste is currently being stored on-site all over the country and piling up. The potential for disaster is growing unless that waste can be disposed of, and I am not aware of any better alternative than Yucca Mountain.

Re:Yucca Mountain is needed by Brett+Buck · 2012-01-26 08:15 · Score: 2

We don't need to poison our air and water to have a succesful society, and nucular is BAD. All we need is to go back to nature, get rid of all this awful progress and live simply. If I need energy I will just hitch a few unicorns to a plow! Simplify man!
Re:Yucca Mountain is needed by Squidlips · 2012-01-26 08:21 · Score: 1

But what do we do with existing nuclear waste? We cannot just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that this stuff is not piling up at power plants all around the country. Because that is what it seems like a lot of the anti-Yucca people are doing....All the complaints about the long-term viability of Yucca Mountain are ludicrous compared to the long (or even short) term viability of storing used fuel rods on site at plants. Fukushima was storing spent rods on site....
Re:Yucca Mountain is needed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:50 · Score: 1

potential muck-raking reporter

Dawn Stover
Stover is a science writer based in the Pacific Northwest and is a contributing editor at the Bulletin. Her work has appeared in Scientific American, Conservation, Popular Science, New Scientist, The New York Times, and other publications. One of her articles is included in the 2010 Best American Science and Nature Writing, and another article was recently awarded a special citation by the Knight-Risser Prize for Western Environmental Journalism.
Yeah, the bitch sounds like a real muckraker writing for that tabloid rag, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Re:Yucca Mountain is needed by Jawnn · 2012-01-26 08:58 · Score: 1

I hardly blame them for not releasing information on Yucca Mountain to a potential muck-raking reporter. I know everyone hates the idea of Yucca Mountain, but do they realize the alternatives? Nuclear waste is currently being stored on-site all over the country and piling up...
TFTFY. You did actually mean to include the other alternative, right? You know, the one where we hold-off on creating more nuclear wast until we can figure out what to do with shit that stays toxic for tens of thousands of years. Because just burying it in the ground is stupendously short-sighted approach. Right?
Re:Yucca Mountain is needed by Score+Whore · 2012-01-26 09:45 · Score: 1

What to do with it? Leave it exactly where it is. Let the people who benefited from the production of the waste be the ones who deal with the waste. Seems totally fair to me.
Re:Yucca Mountain is needed by Squidlips · 2012-01-26 09:54 · Score: 1

Actually I have to apologize for this post. I was off-base.... It is just fustrating that there is not solution to the nuclear waste dispoal problem....killing Yucca Mountain did not seem like the solution
Re:Yucca Mountain is needed by Brett+Buck · 2012-01-26 10:13 · Score: 1

Missed the unicorn part, huh?
Re:Yucca Mountain is needed by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-26 10:27 · Score: 1

If I need energy I will just hitch a few unicorns to a plow!
But what do we do with existing nuclear waste?

Well, what do you think those unicorns are going to eat, huh?
Re:Yucca Mountain is needed by Fned · 2012-01-26 12:37 · Score: 1

and I am not aware of any better alternative than Yucca Mountain.
I'm aware of one: "getting rid of that retarded law that prevents us from using it as fuel."

And how does this surprise us? by SuhlScroll · 2012-01-26 08:25 · Score: 1

We all need to keep in mind that `transparency` is a relative term (0-100%), and that being served a mandate to make things `transparent` does not necessarily determine how `transparent` things actually are, nor does it mean that incompetence (or intentional malfeasance) can't change just how `transparent` things actually become.

Re:And how does this surprise us? by rwise2112 · 2012-01-26 08:52 · Score: 1

It's so transparent, that you can't see it. Simple really!

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"

The most technologically-advanced Presidency ever? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 08:44 · Score: 1

But, but, but... How can these problems keep popping up? Don't we have the first-ever Blackberry-using President?.. Was not Obama praised as "technologically-savvy" on this very forum in 2008?

Usability by bwvandorn · 2012-01-26 08:59 · Score: 2

I didn't find the sites mentioned in the article any harder to navigate than the average commercial site. Author was incorrect about not being able to access documents online at the Office of Legacy Management site. I suggest she show a little more patience and perseverance if her object is to find information. If she just wanted to flame Obama's promises of transparency, any topic or government site would do.

Re:The Slashdot troll post investigation by PeterM+from+Berkeley · 2012-01-26 09:03 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Funny, as a moderator I do pretty much exactly the opposite of everything you said moderators do, with one exception:

I do NOT, generally, like to engage in "moderation fights" where I mod down what someone has modded up, or vice versa, except in really egregious cases of mis-moderation.

I rarely mod down.

I like to mod posts that haven't been modded already, to lift up interesting/deserving posts so that they can be seen.

I'm not a stickler on modding down off-topic posts, but I will in really egregious cases.

I would say 80% of my mods are used for "+1 interesting", another 15% are "+1 insightful", and all others are 5% or less.

Of course, my karma is also very high, and not mostly because of my own comments.

--PM

Re:The Slashdot troll post investigation by Score+Whore · 2012-01-26 09:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Holy shit! Been a long time since this was first posted and managed to receive several hundred mods. Followed up by a temper tantrum from the slashdot management team banning anyone who moderated it from ever moderating again.

Do not attribute to malice... by decsnake · 2012-01-26 09:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

that which can be attributed to the government procurement process. IME, all federal govt web sites suck, esp. those used for internal purposes, for which conspiracy theories just don't even make any sense. What they do all have in common is that they are developed by contractors, under the competitive procurement process. Just ask anyone that has had to use fedtraveler.com.

Handy Link yields an additional 86 results. by dthx1138 · 2012-01-26 10:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Right after I went to energy.gov and searched for Yucca Mountain, I got the same 22 results. However, on that results page was a link right at the top entitled "search all of Energy.gov" which then yielded 108 results. It doesn't seem like the author was very thorough here, herself.

Considering that these are generally PDFs containing large quantities of information (not endless blog re-posts like you'd get with Google hits), it's pretty hard to believe that there's a deliberate attempt to obscure information.

Is their search system as intuitive and comprehensive as Google? No. Then again, nobody's is- if it was easy, everybody would be doing it, and Google wouldn't be Google.

--
I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].

Energy.gov shouldn't have a built-in search engine by dwheeler · 2012-01-26 10:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Energy department should not have wasted a dime of public money on a specialized search engine built into their website. Yet it looks like they did just that. Government agencies should focus on getting the documents posted in standard formats (e.g., PDF) and then let commercial engines do all the work. You get bonus points if you mark the documents with key metadata (title, authors, abstract, date), but even without that, most commercial search engines can find lots. I'm not the first to note that, several articles have noted this.

If an agency just HAVE to have a search engine on the page, they can just reuse a commercial one. For example, if you want to reuse Google, just follow the instructions here: http://www.google.com/sitesearch/ which just inserts a few lines of HTML. From then on, all done. You can see an example on my website front page at www.dwheeler.com. I don't actually do the searching... I just redirect to Google. And users don't have to use Google, they can use any search engine they find convenient.

--
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)

Typical government operation. by BobK65 · 2012-01-26 10:26 · Score: 2

They have a crappy search engine. Do a google site search. site:energy.gov "yucca mountain" returns 2460 results.

Thoughts from Energy's Digital Director by Cammie+Croft · 2012-01-26 11:28 · Score: 2

We’re always looking for ways to improve Energy.gov and I appreciate hearing the concerns outlined in this article and comments.

In fact, after this article flagged concerns about searching the site, we started working to change the search functionality on the homepage of Energy.gov to default to global search. Currently, the search defaults to within the top-level Energy.gov pages and doesn’t include results from all the subsites within the platform unless you indicate as such. For example, when I search for "Hanford" on Energy.gov, I get 20 results. However, when I select “search all of Energy.gov” the results increase to 254 items.

While we are incredibly proud of the new Energy.gov platform, there are Energy Department program office websites and subsequent documents that just aren’t on the Energy.gov platform yet. In order to improve the availability and transparency of our information, we’re currently in the process of migrating the remaining program office content into the system (including the Office of Legacy Management’s website and documents) – but this process takes some time.

It’s no secret: the federal government has a pdf problem. And at Energy.gov, we’re striving each day to make it better. We’d love feedback on how to do so. Feel free to share your ideas here: Contact Us

Quote the regulation, please by dwheeler · 2012-02-05 17:38 · Score: 1

I disagree regarding reusing search engines. A government agency can simply allow all search engines to scan their public files, and then anyone can choose any search engine they want to (and find what they need). There's no law that the government has to FORBID access to public data from search engines; that would be a stupid thing to do. In fact, it's usually a bad idea for the government to provide their own search engine. Governments should not pay for a special search engine for publicly-available documentation, unless they're providing some unique extra capability not provided by commercial search engines.

It's plausible that federal government sites aren't allowed to embed Google (or Bing), because they don't want to prefer a particular search engine. But if you think that they cannot, please quote the federal law or regulation, I'd like to know what that is. For example, the Small Business Administration uses Google site search, see: http://www.sba.gov/content/search-engine-0.

--
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)

Slashdot Mirror

Object Lesson in Non-Transparency At Energy.gov

60 of 111 comments (clear)