Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Categorizing while approving

by johnnywang (Priest)
on May 24, 2005 at 15:57 UTC ( #460054=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Following dragonchild's suggestion to my other post Anyone doing anything about questions/answers at PM?, I'd like to suggest that we add a catagorizing option to the approval process, i.e., add a selection box to the approval nodelet so that while we approve a note, we can also have the option to assign a categoy to the question. This will slowly organize the content of the site, for producing FAQ, books, or just give people another way to browse the monastery. We may need a way to organize/suggest categories, but initially maybe the gods can put up a list.

Comment on Categorizing while approving
Re: Categorizing while approving
by Fletch (Chancellor) on May 24, 2005 at 16:14 UTC

    So long as there's categories for:

    • Didn't bother to read the FAQ
    • It's Obviously Homework
    • No I will not debug a Matt Wright Script for you
    • and a catch-all OMGWTFBBQ?!?!?! for the posters on crack . . .
Re: Categorizing while approving
by kutsu (Priest) on May 24, 2005 at 16:34 UTC

    We have categories, Seekers of Perl Wisdom, Meditation Discussion, Snippets, Obfu., etc.... If you wish the gods or pmdevils to make up a new list you'd be better served by giving reasons you thought it was incomplete and by making up a new list of categories you thought would work. The devs and gods and janitors and etc...are all volunteers (and have the appriciation of us all :), so asking for new features (whatever they maybe) without any or much work on your part make it more then likely your features will be shot down. As it stands I don't see that the current catagories need changing and the Move To: option and consideration (if it's been approved) seem to do an good job of getting nodes where they belong IMHO.

    "Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - I think that I think, therefore I think that I am." Ambrose Bierce

Re: Categorizing while approving
by johnnywang (Priest) on May 24, 2005 at 16:48 UTC
    I guess I didn't make myself clear, I meant categories like: installation, win32, security, web frameworks/CGI::Application, similar to the chapters/sections in the Cookbook.

      And who is going to make up this comprehensive list of categories? It appears you expect someone else to produce this list for you.

      Though I doubt the comprehensive list of categories will be needed any time soon, as what you propose sounds like quite a major change to be of much use. Just adding a "categorization" is pretty useless unless you also add ways to use categorizations, correct them, etc. Which, IMHO, requires a lot more design work than "let's add a drop-down list when approving".

      - tye        

                It appears you expect someone else to produce this list for you.
        Well, since you're the second person to read my post as such, I feel a need to clarify. When I suggested the gods put up the initial list, it's out of my respect, not out of my laziness. One could copy the section titles from the cookbook and start with that, eventually one would need some infrastructure to allow adding/deleting/editing these categories.
        Maybe I'm misunderstanding Categorized Questions and Answers, but that seems a good list to start from. At least it seemed good when it was created, I think.

        I do agree that such categorisation would mean some design work, but IMHO it's a good idea to have some facility to migrate interesting, and frequent, q&a to the ad-hoc section.

        Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))')

        Don't fool yourself.
Re: Categorizing while approving
by holli (Monsignor) on May 24, 2005 at 18:21 UTC
    I'm not sure if we really need new categories as such, but I can imagine that a OP could be "tagged" to belong to a specific category like regex question, cgi quesion, DBI question, etc. New questions would go "unspecified" unless at least x people tag it to such a category.

    This tagging could work similar to the approval process. There would be a "Tagging Nodelet" where you have a dropdown list (that lists the categories) and a button to submit your tag.

    This would only require a single additional field in the database, that could then be Super Searched upon.

    just 2 cents,


    holli, /regexed monk/
Re: Categorizing while approving
by davidrw (Prior) on May 24, 2005 at 18:34 UTC
    Instead of creating/building new functionality, what about using the Keyword Nodelet for this? It seems to me like this is what the keyword nodelet was originally indtroduced for, even though there's nothing currently using the results.

    To the more powerful monks: are there any basic keyword stats available? (like most common keywords, number of codes w/keywords, etc)
Re: Categorizing while approving
by jZed (Prior) on May 24, 2005 at 18:40 UTC
    If categorizing is a desirable/doable thing (and I'm not so sure of either), then perhaps something along the lines of http://del.icio.us/ - user defined tags so there would not need to be a centrally maintained list of "approved" tags.
Re: Categorizing while approving
by castaway (Parson) on May 25, 2005 at 07:56 UTC
    As someone just mentioned, theres already a method of doing this, the keyword nodelet. I actually started to categorize nodes using it, but its a lot for one person to do. Also it has a problem or two: The nodelet allows you to type in any keywords you like, and since different people will have different keyword ideas for the same posts, either everyone has to tag every post, or we need to make a list to pick from. I would prefer the second, since the use is to be able to look at nodes you dont know about, with certain keywords.

    Here's my suggestion: Suggest a list of tags we can start out with, don't wait for someone else to do it.. Here are some of my ideas:

    net, tcp/ip, sockets, gui, perl/tk, faq, ...
    Ok I'll add to it later when I remember others. The keywords are single words, entering multiple words in the nodelet will make multiple keywords for that node.

    I actually made a keyword search page, I should port it over from the test server. (I keep meaning to refactor, since it shares a lot of code with the user search page .. )

    So, stop suggsting, and start doing :)

    C.

      Apropos "tags", Jeffery Zeldman (he of the hideously colored yet most handy Orange CSS book fame) just had an interesting blog post about the use(ful|less)ness of the approach.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://460054]
Approved by Old_Gray_Bear
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-07-28 23:47 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (210 votes), past polls