Re: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg52035] Re: [mg52028] Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
- From: DrBob <drbob at bigfoot.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 03:13:15 -0500 (EST)
- References: <200411070604.BAA18122@smc.vnet.net>
- Reply-to: drbob at bigfoot.com
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Yikes, that's complicated!! It collapses of its own weight, I think. Bobby On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 01:04:39 -0500 (EST), Peltio <peltio at twilight.zone> wrote: > "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 > > [Frontend] > Notebooks > Notation > GUI > Publishing > ... > [Kernel] > Scoping > Assignments > Rules > Pattern Matching > Evaluation > ... > [I/O] > Text > Table > Binary > ... > [Programming] > Functional > Logic > OO > Procedural > Rule Based > ... > [Symbolics] > List manipulation > Expression simplification > Integration > Special Functions > Differential Eq > ... > [Numerics] > Precision > Integration > Special Functions > Differential Eq > ... > [Graphics] > 2D > 3D > Primitives > Directives > ... > [Applications] (this is though) > Number Theory > Algebra > Discrete Math > Calculus > ODE > PDE > Functional > Linear Algebra > Optimization > Geometry > Probability > Statistics > Tensors > ... > [Package] > $name > Wolfram > Third Party > [Newbie] > Installation > ... > > Plus a wildcard: > > [Uncertain] > > 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 > 'keywords'. > For example > [Uncertain] I can't get it done! > Could become > [Package][Shapes] I can't get it done! > Or > [Package][Shapes][Remove] I can't get it done! > Or > [Newbie][Remove] I can't get it done! > Or > [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. > > Definitely. > >> And I could filter the messages into subfolders of my MathGroup folder >> automatically. > > 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 > is required. > 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. > > Cheers, > Peltio > invalid address in reply-to. crafty demunging required to mail me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- DrBob at bigfoot.com www.eclecticdreams.net
- References:
- Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
- From: "Peltio" <peltio@twilight.zone>
- Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings