I have already requested that all of the files at help.scoutbook.com be updated. In general, ScoutNET is being replaced with my.scouting because that is how Council staff now accesses the various databases that used to be accessed by the retired set of tools known as ScoutNET.
The various pages on scouting.org are owned by different departments of the BSA. I do not have contacts in most of these areas to get ScoutNET removed.
How can I search scouting.org but exclude discussions.scouting.org and help.scouting.org? It appears this is where most of the occurrences of Scoutnet come from.
In Google speak: search the entire site scouting.org but EXCLUDE discussions.scouting.org for the word scoutnet
site:scouting.org -site:discussions.scouting.org scoutnet
You getâŠa lot of references
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ascouting.org+-site%3Adiscussions.scouting.org+scoutnet
Taking it one step further to ALSO exclude help.scouting.org AND help.scoutbook.scouting.org
site:scouting.org -site:discussions.scouting.org -site:help.scouting.org scoutnet
You still get 1200 references by virtue of the fact that ScoutNet was referenced so often for years
Although a lot of those are to historical documents (i.e. dating from prior to the retirement) like: https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Inaugural_Class_of_Female_Eagle_Scouts15SEP2020.pdf
Yep. This Google-your-way-through method is just going to uncover a 1000+ legacy items and documents. The idea of a global, omnibus find-and-replace is not practical.
The new tool name is âRegistrar Toolsâ (per the new registrar help center and blog).
2022-02-16-B
May I suggest that references to the membership database be changed from âScoutNETâ or âScoutNet/PASâ to âMyScouting/Akelaâ which was the term used in a December 7th, 2017 Bryan on Scouting article?
2022-02-16-B
So, after all the complaining about ScoutNET, etc. I still have the original problem (less the one record that was fixed apparently).
This boils down to a very simple computer science / data management concept. We need a single âsystem of recordâ a singular âsource of truthâ. Everything else needs to bow to the system of record.
I gather from the discussion here that ScoutNET / not-ScoutNET / Akela / Registrar Tools / my.scouting (pick your favorite name of the week) is that system of record. It is the repository that is to be the trusted canonical source of truth.
If that is correct, then SB needs to be fixed to be 100% compliant with that system of record. SB needs to list the exact same MB counselors that are currently in âsystem of recordâ. There should be no deviation from this. I shouldnât find people listed in âsystem of recordâ that do not show up in SB. I should not have people listed in SB that are not in âsystem of recordâ. I should not have the same person listed multiple times in SB. The canonical record identifier should be the BSA ID.
How do we make this happen?
As a council merit badge coordinator it is stunningly ridiculous that I have to do massive amounts of data reconciliation, merging and management just to get a canonical list of merit badge counselors in my council.
Let me be perfectly clear, I am MORE than willing to help in any way with anything that fixes this problem.
What Iâm absolutely not willing to do (and no one should be expected to do) is band-aid bugs in SB by making individual MBCs and other volunteers create multiple accounts and play all sorts of silly games because SB refuses to follow the system of record.
@JamesBrown13 this starts decades ago with ScoutNET yes - Scout Executives did not want other councils to have access to those registered in their council; so we got the BSA# (MID) being isolated to each council, which has been a pain from that time on. Enter Scoutbook and the UserID, it was made to have one MID per User ID; so if you are dual registered you need 2 Scoutbook Users (at least).
To complicate the matter is a process called Member Update - which in theory is great, I change councils my SB User follows me by matching First Name, Last Name, DOB (and something else I cannot recall). BUT, if a user dual registers, it leaves the apparent voids in SB, as the old MID is replaced by the new.
But even if the user has 2 SB Users; This means 1 of 2 things: separate user/passwords - or flipping PRIMARY in Manage Member ID in my.scouting.org (if they match good enough for a user to do that.)
Of the MIDs you posted most fall into this problem which is hard for us to fix without communication with the user themself. We have heard talks of going to a universal MID, but I am not holding my breath. (even that would be a nightmare with various names on MIDs - Ellie or Eleanore).
We see what you are trying to do, but you will never get a full picture as a scout can work with any MBC from any Council.
We hate to see user issues in Scoutbook and that is why as a group of volunteers, we spend days trying to resolve them.
These are all things SUAC has identified as issues before, and they are on our tracker of bugs. But with IT staff being reduced by at least 90%, they get through things as they can.
So hereâs my issue with that. I donât CARE if this person is registered in another council and has an additional MID there. If they are in another council, then that MID will not be valid in my council and they should NOT show up with that MID in the details report downloaded from SB for MY council.
How are they a MBC in MY council with a MID from ANOTHER council? They arenât! My council didnât approve them as a MBC.
Yes, scouts in my council can work with them, but they should NOT appear in the list of counselors for MY council when I download that from SB.
Again, this is really simple. There is one and only one system of record. That system lists the approved MBCs in MY council. SB should reflect EXACTLY that list, nothing more, nothing less.
Have your council staff open a ticket with national. This is not something the volunteers that monitor the forums can get fixed.
Actually MBC can make themselves visible to all councils without having to register in your council. That is a function of Scoutbook available to MBC.
I also believe that based on notifications leading up to, and during the retirement of ScoutNet Scoutbook and its underlying databases have been made the new system of record.
I am not sure if I ever heard someone complain about having too many MBC available before.
So long as individual councils issue brand new BSA IDs every time a person joins a unit in a different council/is a MBC registered in multiple councils you will never, ever get that level of âcanonicalâ.
It was not until 2-3 years ago that the option was available for individuals to be able to merge their own BSA IDs via the my.scouting.org âManage Member IDâ option. But that requires the individual knowing that it exists and then walking/talking people through it.
The SUAC has done amazing work on multiple ID issues for me and hundreds of others. But it shouldnât be.
My unit has several different military families. I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to reconcile this entire thing.
Clearly the long term solution is either a universal BSA ID that is valid in all councils OR an automated mapping/match system whereby a person with the same name and birthdate registering in Council A is presumptively âmatchedâ to their prior BSA ID in Council B. That would get 90-95% match rates and tamp down this issue.
One more factor and that is MBC registrations are, at least theoretically, valid only within the council that registered the MBC. That has sorta been an issue lately with CIt in Society whereby some councils are refusing to allow scouts in Council A to work with a MBC in Council B. This again gets back to the idea that your a registered in a COUNCIL, not nationally, and therefore the council-controls much of this (such as new BSA IDs)
This is in direct violation of the Guide to Advancement.
Councils have no choice. The way the systems are currently designed, no Council can see a MID from another Council.
The council in question is claiming GtA supports them. Specifically that 7.0.1.4, Approving Badges to be Counseled -
Council advancement committees have the responsibility to
implement an approval procedure that assures merit
badge counselors have the necessary skills and education
to offer quality experiences in the badges they counsel
And that the council is question has made the âcouncil determinationâ they will not accept any MBCs from other councils for Cit in Society because they donât meet the councilâs training standards.
See also GTA 3.0.0.1 Council Advancement Committee Responsibilities
Establish local practices for adhering to National
Council advancement procedures at outdoor
programs, summer camp, and events such as merit
badge fairs or midways.
See to an effective merit badge program administered
at a council or district level that functions according to
national procedures and recruits, approves, trains,
and makes known sufficient counselors to meet the
needs of the council.
So far, national is letting the council block all MBCs from outside that council for Cit in Society.
If they donât have a my.scouting registration, then they have not completed Youth Protection Training, nor any other BSA-provided training, so they cannot be an approved MBC. The userâs my.scouting registration is where all of their training records are stored.
Youâre asking for apologies when all of your comments are angry and/or passive aggressive. Please consider your own tone when youâre asking everyone else to be polite to you.
This seems like an Sâfire starter. How does it look when Council 1 says to a Scout that they canât use MBC A from Council 2 due to lack of standards? That situation is very much similar to Council 1 calling out Council 2 for doing a poor job of vetting MBCs.
Letâs review.
And yet, somehow in your mind, Iâm the aggressor here.
Edited to add: I only asked for an apology (sarcastically) from Ed after being told I was âmeanâ while simultaneously having Ed, again, attack yet another member of the forum, repeatedly, for using a term that is clearly in common use.
© 2019 Boy Scouts of America - All Rights Reserved
