[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

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>