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
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.
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.
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.
Ginger's description of a wiki makes it sound really appealing.
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.
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 posts
This is another thing that might make quoting entire posts/conversations problematic...
And if we're really clever, someone can maintain an index post. Or maybe summarize a week's worth or a month's worth of posts at a time, like they used to do in some threads back at Table Talk. (Other people's threads, not ours.)
Oh god. Didn't we kerfuffle about that back in the day?
No, that was digesting all of Natter.
