Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg52028] Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
- From: "Peltio" <peltio at twilight.zone>
- Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 01:04:39 -0500 (EST)
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
"Paul Abbott" wrote
>> So, the questions are, when during this process would categorisation
>> take place? Who would do it?
>It would be best if contributors did such a categorisation for you, i.e.
>at the time of posting.
If I may add my two cents, I too think that tagging should be done
by the poster.
And yet I have never seen a NG where tagging has been cnsistently adopted.
It seems that people do not care to struggle to find a cathegory for the
problem they are trying to get help for.
This is especially true for nonmoderated NGs, of course.
A moderator could in some way force posters to add a tag if they want their
post to reach the group, by automatically rejecting every non tagged
message, replying to the OP with a message showing the suggested
cathegories. Leaving to the poster the freedom to add a second, more
specific, tag could also allow for a better cathegorization of the messages.
For example, the first level would be necessary to post, the second (and
third, and...) level is facultative and could be picked among a more
extensive list. It could also be 'user defined' so to speak.
This will leave a certain degrre of freedom, since a classification
is not necessarily unique.
Ten big cathegories could do. For example
[Applications] (this is though)
Plus a wildcard:
The tag [Uncertain] can be changed by those who reply. It could lead to
different choices, but then, that's the spirit: allowing for multiple
[Uncertain] I can't get it done!
[Package][Shapes] I can't get it done!
[Package][Shapes][Remove] I can't get it done!
[Newbie][Remove] I can't get it done!
[Programming][Scoping] I can't get it done!
>Instead of , another suggestion would be (mock Mathematica syntax
>using /:), e.g.,
Since it would be as easy to forge as the 'standard' tagging I'd rather
stick with the old [...] wrapper.
>> I think it would be a bad idea to put things like [Statistics] in
>> the Subject line. Would newsgroup and mail readers be able to
>> thread such Subject lines?
>Surely that is exactly what they are designed to do.
>And I could filter the messages into subfolders of my MathGroup folder
So I am not the only one collecting all this wisdom? : ]
>> It might be better to put it in something like an X-Category mail header,
>> but I am not sure that all readers could handle this.
>This idea has merit and, again, it might be harder to forge, but I don't
>know enough about these headers.
It would be harder for the causal user to set and to take advantage of this
kind of tagging. Moreover, it'd be almost invisible and new users could not
learn by... example.
>> Personally, I think they would just make the Subject lines longer
>> and harder to read.
>Nested Re: Re: Re: ... already does this,
I couldn't agree more. Moreoever, certain newsreaders can not sort posts
with multiple Re:'s (or any other non standard prefix) correctly.
As for the length of the line, if the original poster is using a tag, he
will try to use a shorter description for the subject line.
>Sometimes categorizations have to change. You could have
> Numerics -> Graphics /: Accurate plotting
>when there is such a change.
>> Search therefore becomes inaccurate very quickly.
>I don't think that this is true.
Multiple tags will constitute multiple keyword in a search.
>> What if a users forgets to include a categorisation?
>You can add one.
To speed things up, there could be a transition period where a bot could add
the [Uncertain] tag, while alerting the user that to post new messages a tag
If this is done on the already filtered (i.e. non spam) messages, the load
would be sustainable. (60-70 mails per day in the worst case for the first
couple of months)
Oh, well, these were only my two cents.
invalid address in reply-to. crafty demunging required to mail me.
Prev by Date:
Re: List element replacement.
Next by Date:
Re: Re: Re: Counting Runs
Previous by thread:
Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
Next by thread:
Re: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings