[WikiEN-l] Category destruction

[Derek Gottfrid]

check out how categories could be used via search as facets at
http://futef.com

better tools I think would make the problem more tractable.

derek


On 5/2/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/05/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > Perhaps this is why we are having a problem finding common ground in this
> > discussion. I am looking at WP Categorization strictly from the POV of a
> > reader.
>
> ...from the point of view of a high-level specialised reader who wants
> to do somewhat complex searches on datasets, though, not from the
> point of view of the average user. Very different beasts.
>
> > I came to your library, went to your catalogue system, and found it
> > did not meet my needs as a researcher. You, as the librarian, asked me what
> > my needs were, and I told you. Your answer seems to be that we cannot meet
> > your needs without revamping the entire system. I say: OK, I'll wait :-) -
> > as long as you are serious about doing so.
>
> My problem is this: we cannot revamp the entire system to meet your
> needs, in the way you suggest, *without breaking it for everyone
> else*; we cannot start increasing the number and size of categories
> without making them much harder to use as a navigational tool.
>
> Basically, there's a division here between metadata and search.
> Categories are metadata, applied to the individual articles. Opening a
> category and looking at it is a very crude form of search, surprising
> though it may seem at a first glance; it tells you all the articles
> listed under that particular heading.
>
> You want to do a more advanced form of search, on a larger scale than
> simple navigation, producing results like "all rivers in Eurasia" or
> "all people who were born in the 20th century". There are two ways to
> do this:
>
> a) Add more metadata, but keep the existing 'search'. Start slapping
> on more categories onto articles, so that - to pick an example - "1987
> births" is joined by "1980s births" and "20th century births"
>
> b) Get a better search, but keep the existing metadata. Develop a
> search system that can parse the existing categories, combine them in
> various ways, and spit out a list for the researcher.
>
> (a) is quick and dirty, but has problems; it makes it harder to
> navigate the existing category system from the point of view of the
> normal reader. It also rapidly becomes unworkable if we start thinking
> about more complex searches than just "the members of all daughter
> categories" - imagine if we had "1980s births of folk singers" and
> "20th century births of folk singers" and all the other possible
> intersections of the already-existing categories being added to pages!
> There are just so many possible category intersections for any given
> page... this really won't scale.
>
> (b) is elegant, and scales well. It has the major advantage of being
> completely disassociated from the metadata, unlike our existing
> 'search' method, as it's overlaid on top; it doesn't impact in any way
> the existing system beyond perhaps making us streamline and
> rationalise it a little.
>
> Unfortunately, it needs someone to go write it. This is what's holding
> things up.
>
> > All I am asking, in this age of creative technology, is that someone step up
> > and create a system that can meet the needs of as many of our readers as
> > possible.
>
> And all I'm asking is that if we're wanting to create a system, we
> create a system, we don't try to make the existing one sort-of-useful
> for everyone at the price of making it not-really-useful to anyone :-)
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>