Discussing: New Tools! Lots of Goodies!
New Tools! Lots of Goodies!
11 Feb 06 1:38 PM
I know I'm leaving some goodies out, but I wanted to get the ball rolling on two items.
One that needs some brainstorming from the researchers is the ability to assign status to an entry - we have 6 to play with. We can change the names and how we use them - please suggest!
Currently they are:
Stub - I envision this for "we need this entry, but I'm hoping to persuade some other vict..., er, researcher to do it," and "I have a quote for this one, but I'm entangled in too many others to take this on in full."
In Progress - the equivalent of "claimed, but not done"
Review - if we want comment before it 'goes public.'
Basic - a published entry that has basic information but could use elaboration and quotes
We can decide how to use these, whether we need to denote what needs revision, or a priority, or needs quotes vs. needs format fix, vs. needs total redo.
I have an "inprogress" which is "Morgoth Captures Elves as Spies and Slaves". I haven't gotten the hand of the intext links, so that's in progress. I'm also not sure of the format I've chosen, so although that's nothing new, I'd welcome comments on that, too!
Also, with the WYSIWYG editor, comes the question of whether we want to distinguish quotes from our statements with color, text change, or other fashion besides the quote marks vs. bracket question.
Re: New Tools! Lots of Goodies!
11 Feb 06 11:21 PM
Reply To: 45922
Yeah, I'm really pleased by the new tools - let me add my thanks to Ang, also!
I'd like to recap your list of status entries, because I believe it's important to distinguish between the two categories of status -- and, forgive me, but I can't remember exactly what we called them: was it "Private" (for entries that are not visible to anyone besides researchers) vs "Public" (for those that are visible to everyone)?
And, just for clarity, I believe that the Status field should only be used by and displayed to researchers, not regular readers; I don't believe that the 3 Public statuses would normally add any useful or interesting information to readers of public entries.
For Private/Draft entries:
- Stub ("please adopt me!" )
- In Progress ("I'm adopted, but the lawyers haven't finished the paperwork yet" )
- Review ("please admire, er, look me over before I go public!" )
For Public entries:
- Basic (the entry has enough information - at least one quote - to minimally define the topic, but more information is known or suspected to be *available* and should be added someday. So, the intent is to signal to other researchers that this entry could be expanded, if they choose.)
- Full (I am going to suggest changing the name and intent of this status, see below)
- Complete (the entry has all the quotes that can be found from the relevant major texts, including Hobbit, LoTR, Silm, & UT, edited to avoid redundancy -- and may indeed include even more quotes, from HoME, say. For example, an entry with only one quote, that happens to be the *only* quote available in the texts, would fall in this category. So, the intent is to signal to other researchers that there is no reason to go looking for more quotes to expand this entry -- but that would not preclude its expansion if an interesting and relevant Letter were found, for example.)
Lyllyn, please correct me if I have misunderstood any of the above.
Now, for the "Full" status, I'd like to change that name to something like "Needs Work", and use it for Public entries (for example, all our existing older entries default to Public/"Basic") that need some additional work. For example, our current standard is to have at least one quote in each entry.... we could mark older entries that contain no quotes by changing them to "Needs Work".... I tend to stumble across these when I'm busy with other, new entries, so don't necessarily want to stop and fix them right at that moment... but "Needs Work" would mean that I -- or any other researcher -- could later fill in the necessary information to change that entry to either "Basic" or "Complete" status.
Does that sound reasonable? I didn't suggest a mechanism to specify what needs to be changed, because, if the issue is not obvious, it can be posted in one of our discussions, as we do already. In my experience, the issue is almost always obvious (say, missing quotes), but in rare cases there are questions about, say, the accuracy of a date, that could be discussed in our forum.
*Sigh* sorry, this ended up longer than I planned...
Also, Lyllyn, since most of the changes we're talking about currently affect the researchers rather than the readers, should we move this discussion to our Workshop discussion?
Re: New Tools! Lots of Goodies!
12 Feb 06 9:37 AM
Reply To: 45924
Yes, thanks, Barbara, I goofed! I'll repost, and (I hope this is OK with you) add your suggestions, which are excellent.