I don't know. I can see this getting unmanagable pretty fast.
Funny thing about black and white. You mix it together and you get gray. And it doesn't matter how much white you try and put back in, you're never gonna get anything but gray.
Lilah ,'Destiny'
Bureaucracy 4: Like Job. No, really, just like Job
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura
Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina
brenda m - Jun 30, 2010 5:16:43 am PDT #4587 of 6786
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
§ ita § - Jun 30, 2010 5:29:09 am PDT #4588 of 6786
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Yup, that's it, Jon.
I agree with you, brenda. The advantages to a wiki format are that the advice can be collaborated on and refined over time. A static index or copied over articles, less so.
The wiki things been on my back burner for a while, but the couple packages I looked at made my eyes cross. Our authentication isn't complicated--I was just not able to find one and excise theirs.
DavidS - Jun 30, 2010 5:31:51 am PDT #4589 of 6786
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
I share Brenda's concern.
Though I'm wondering if it would work by the same principle as COMM. When people get good advice or see something they would mark for future reference they could move that to a dedicated thread and include tags for searching.
Since the search function already picks up text in the posts you wouldn't need a separate tag function. You could just list the tags at the beginning or end of the post so they'd be readily findable.
Sophia Brooks - Jun 30, 2010 5:44:56 am PDT #4590 of 6786
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
I think a thread might work because people would do it. I am not sure of our ability to sustain a wiki-- we can't even rewrite our FAQ! (And I am one who failed, so I am not complaining-- just being realistic.)
A non-techy alternative might be a dreamwidth which we chose from a list of predertermined tags.
WindSparrow - Jun 30, 2010 5:54:47 am PDT #4591 of 6786
Love is stronger than death and harder than sorrow. Those who practice it are fierce like the light of stars traveling eons to pierce the night.
So, Windsparrow, what's an example index entry? How do you put enough information in the entry to make it searchably useful? Whose responsibility is it to tag?
I think I may be being a bit Giles-like, having a rather clear image in my head of an actual book, and trying to translate it to something that could be done online. I'm specifically thinking of things like:
- Pets, cats, urinary tract issues, cf. nutrition, by WindSparrow [link] [link]
- Pets, dogs, choosing a puppy, by bonny fides [link]
Carrying on with my previous example, if that makes any sense.
Though I'm wondering if it would work by the same principle as COMM. When people get good advice or see something they would mark for future reference they could move that to a dedicated thread and include tags for searching.
This also sounds do-able.
Ginger - Jun 30, 2010 6:17:20 am PDT #4592 of 6786
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda
I'd be for the wiki idea, if there's some software that doesn't make ita's head spin. A wiki would actually be a better way of capturing Buffista culture than the FAQ.
In a wiki, any Buffista could enter information. For example, a Buffista could cut and paste a series of posts about nail polish into the "Nail Polish" category. Later, some compulsive editor Buffista reading about nail polish might edit out the non-nail polish parts. A third Buffista could think "This nail polish entry needs a list of the best black nail polishes." She could post in Natter or wherever, "I'm collecting the names of the best black nail polishes." Then people could make suggestions in the thread or go straight to the wiki.
The problems I see with its being a COMM-like thread are that some of these useful conversations go on for many posts and the thread could rapidly become a mass of stuff that's not really an improvement in terms of finding what you're looking for.
SailAweigh - Jun 30, 2010 6:41:15 am PDT #4593 of 6786
Nana korobi, ya oki. (Fall down seven times, stand up eight.) ~Yuzuru Hanyu/Japanese proverb
I can see a thread definitely getting unmanageable quickly. A wiki, though, sound like it's tailor-made for us. We talk! And we write, a lot. I'm sure we'd have more than enough people willing to contribute to it to make it truly useful.
WindSparrow - Jun 30, 2010 6:51:24 am PDT #4594 of 6786
Love is stronger than death and harder than sorrow. Those who practice it are fierce like the light of stars traveling eons to pierce the night.
Ginger's description of a wiki makes it sound really appealing.
Jessica - Jun 30, 2010 6:55:48 am PDT #4595 of 6786
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
A good example of why single authentication would be important is TVTropes. It used to be kind of a Buffista wiki, now it's not. Which isn't a problem in and of itself, but it's an example of how without a single login for both sites, a Buffista Advice Wiki runs a pretty high risk of turning into something else. It only takes one high-profile link.
Strega - Jun 30, 2010 7:22:30 am PDT #4596 of 6786
I think a thread might work because people would do it.
If it's a thread here, people can tag/describe the subject, and link directly to the original discussion. If there's follow-up or context, it's right there, and nobody needs to be curator/editor. It's more index-y, I guess. So it'd be something like:
Pete asked about low-maintenance houseplants: Pete, Husband of Jilli "Natter 60: Gone In 60 Seconds" Jul 29, 2008 6:33:42 pm PDT (Responses follow till #417.)
Since the search function already picks up text in the postsThis is another thing that might make quoting entire posts/conversations problematic...