 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
What do you mean? A new field in the forum page?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
The most important fields would be the body of the item and all the key words it falls under.
And determine in advance whether you want to
A) make a neat way to access all the threads in the forum archives
or
B) make a neat way to get information on various aspects of Civ
These two goals will lead to radically different databases. (e.g. in (B) each item is a laboriously crafted summary (like entries in the current and wonderful Great Library); whereas in (A) each item is a poorly titled rambling thread who's pertinent information is buried deep in the 20th reply and resolved in another thread posted 3 days later)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
I am not sure if I understand:
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG
no, i'm talking about a separate page
so what do we need?
from the top of my head: title, author, content, posting date, last updated date, keywords
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blaupanzer
A series of indexed threads can be made more efficient by creating a table that permits this indexing. This is what Mark offers in his message. Through that the user would be led to the thread of interest based on choosing any of the entries in the table. Would a table with the columns he suggests be sufficient?
|
Do you mean an improved Great Library Index? It is doable with current "Great Library Index" (with added html), but I suppose MarkG would provide some more comfortable interface for both readers and editors. Am I right?
quote:
Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Someone (SG?) could pick which threads to stress, |
Blaupanzer, if you stress some threads, then you speak about Edward's item B) IMHO, i.e. an improved Great Library Index.
The method B) is very tedious IMHO, I am afraid we won't find a such volunteer. Realize that approx. one half of threads contain some useful information and one tenth(?) contains a very useful information. It is a huge amount of threads, incomparable with the current Great Library Index.
Or MarkG would have to make a very comfortable interface for editors: they should be able to index a thread directly from the forum page or the thread page.
I think that method A) might be interesting:
add one field with keywords to the forum page. Adapt "search forums" page.
Great Library Index might be created dynamically: Threads with no value would get no keywords or their keywords would be deleted. Threads with no keywords wouldn't be added to Great Library Index.
a refinement: Add a second field with "add to Great Library Index" tag for valuable threads. (the reason: we could add keywords to all threads; nobody knows exactly what is "unhelpful thread". And it is another reason I prefer A) over B)
10 or 20 people (or everybody?) could get the right to add keywords. Only few people would get the right to add "add to Great Library Index" tag.
Last edited by SlowThinker on 03-07-2001 at 05:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG
example: in the "gl index" thread you link to the thread "Unhappiness caused by number of cities". i dont want to read an entire thread with various opinions and discussion on testing stuff, etc. i want the result of the discussion, in a concrete short form. |
There are only three such threads now :-( and so they don't need a special database presently.
I keep links to them here: "The Great Library: a hierarchical structure" thread
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
B
If we want a database that only contains useful, concise information, I think the current Great Library is it:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...=&threadid=2723
Yes, as MarkG points out, currently many of it's links go to threads with rambling posts. This, IMHO, is exactly the reason that taking the "normal" threads (those that arise naturally through forum discussion) and selecting some of them, or linking to them, or databasing them, or indexing them, etc. is a bad idea if you're going for objective B ("make a neat way to get information on various aspects of Civ").
In addition to the thread links, there are some polished Great Library entries (thanks, slow thinker et al) that are wonders of detail and summary to behold (e.g. Diplomats and Spies http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum1/HTML/001678.html?36). My assumption is that eventually all Great Library entries will look like this. It's just that it'll take time to create the summarized entries. With all the talent that's currently working on the Great Library, it's hard to see how a separate and new effort (database or not) will create these wonderful summaries any more quickly.
In the interim, the scribes at Great Library have already "stressed" important threads by making links to them until they get around to summarizing them. I believe the "add to the Great Library tag" is, in effect, already implemented by the existing Great Library.
If we lack summaries, it's due to a lack of people working on the Great Library as opposed to a poorly organized Great Library.
A
If we want, instead, objective A ("make a neat way to access all the threads in the forum archives") then a database could be a helpful. Right now we have a more general search function:
http://apolyton.net/forums/search.php
The biggest advantage a database would add is that each thread would have some keywords that the thread is actually about. Then searching on keywords would eliminate a lot of extraneous threads. However, that would still leave the daunting preliminary task of reading all the threads and assigning them keywords - and then adding keywords as new threads arise and recent ones change topic.
p.s. As Blaupanzer points out, the social aspect of the forums will be preserved by preserving the forums. The forums function differently than any Great Library (existing or imagined) and one could never replace the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Edward
This, IMHO, is exactly the reason that taking the "normal" threads (those that arise naturally through forum discussion) and selecting some of them, or linking to them, or databasing them, or indexing them, etc. is a bad idea if you're going for objective B ("make a neat way to get information on various aspects of Civ").
|
Yes, it is not ideal, but it is an interphase on the way to "Info:" (condensed) threads.
quote:
The biggest advantage a database would add is that each thread would have some keywords that the thread is actually about. Then searching on keywords would eliminate a lot of extraneous threads. However, that would still leave the daunting preliminary task of reading all the threads and assigning them keywords - and then adding keywords as new threads arise and recent ones change topic.
|
Unfortunately, my idea of keywords (described in "The Great Library: a hierarchical structure" thread) stagnates. I thought that people (topic starter or anybody else) would add keywords to almost every new thread and to important old thread. In fact, few threads has keywords attached now.
quote:
p.s. As Blaupanzer points out, the social aspect of the forums will be preserved by preserving the forums. The forums function differently than any Great Library (existing or imagined) and one could never replace the other. |
I agree perfectly
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2001 05:29
) To summarize all the topics in ST's hierarchy, we'd need a handful of people to be willing to cull the relevent info from the threads. Someone else could put the Info: threads together, as long as the summary submitted was thorough. If there were enough of these threads, a database might be worth making. In the meantime, all the key info you seek is buried within piles of verbiage...
|