Meta Discussion

Keywords, categories, templates [#2667]

Back to forum

New reply

tapir: Keywords, categories, templates (2011-11-29 13:56) [#8879]

Opinions needed on KeywordTemplate + CategoryTemplate?, preferrably in this thread.

Some questions...

Are keywords a good method of organizing pages?

Are there better methods of organizing pages?

Should there be one general method for organizing pages? Or can we combine different methods?

To give my answers, I prefer keywords over a full-fledged category system, as they are way more useful in customizing searches. To achieve this the number of keywords needs to be limited and must be used. At least this is more likely with keywords than with categories. With 32 keywords we are on the upper limit for a useful keyword system already - as evidenced by most deshis being confused about which keyword to use - having index and path, problem and life&death, opening and joseki, tactic keyword next to all keywords referring to specific tactics... you often end just using one of several applicable keywords, thus compromising the usefulness of the whole system.

I feel the necessity for some ways to generate lists easily and semiautomatically - with the edit being on the page listed although invisible (like this you can easily recognize whether or if the page is listed elsewhere, without going through all the back links) not on the page with the list.

Maybe this is just an odd personal preference, but I was a bit lost when editing endgame problems.

X Re: Keywords, categories, templates (2011-11-29 17:40) [#8880]

I agree that a way to generate lists semi-automatically and invisibly is good. I would like to use the new templates for things like "American Amateurs" (or perhaps top american amateurs", to avoid confusion). I don't think this purpose would be well suited to separate keywords. --Hyperpapeterie

Dieter: ((no subject)) (2011-11-29 17:58) [#8881]

Whatever instrument for maintenance we are discussing, there are simply not enough active librarians left to do the library work of maintenance. I don't think better instruments will bring more librarians but you can always try.

In any case, the current instruments suffer from not being used enough, rather than be used too much (which would be the prime case for extra instruments).

A very effective way to keep a place tidy is to throw away stuff regularly. This has not been a popular practice at SL. I can understand the owners' spirit of live and let live but that way searches deliver either unmanageable lists or too short lists.

SL only stands a chance of survival if it can somehow merge with L19, to which many contributors seem to have moved away, though it may be inevitable for people who prefer to iterate through topics rather than oscillate around them.

X Re: ((no subject)) (2011-11-29 18:19) [#8882]

I disagree with the point about library work and maintenance, though the issue may be terminological. Much of the valuable work you and tapir have done recently involves cleaning up pages that have not been touched for quite some time. As the quantity of edits has decreased, I think the quantity of 'damage' done to organization and quality by naive editors has decreased. In the current state, the prominent parts of the wiki will continue to improve, albeit slowly. So if maintenance just means keeping the wiki from falling into disrepair, I think things are ok.

There may be some topics which require timely content that can't be kept up to date. But even there, I'm not sure. Valerio's work with professional players seems quite useful, and I think the coverage is improving there. The biggest loss may be the sorts of extensive discussions you used to see about particular players who are prominent at the moment. Consider the relative content concerning Lee Sedol or Lee Changho and Gu Li.


tapir: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-11-29 19:06) [#8883]

I personally removed several hundred of pages and while this is nothing to be proud of, it pretty much shows your argument about not being able to maintain because of an entrenched culture of not removing anything at all is a straw man. "Live and let live" can well be the policy, even if you clean up the beach after failed attempts. It was much more the choice of the librarians not to touch the biggest ruins (e.g. SystematicJoseki) than it was a decision of MortArno, especially years after the contributors themselves gave up on their attempts. What is the real reason for a certain inability to handle pages nobody at all needs, wants or likes anymore is the lack of feedback on remove requests. This is linked to the lack of editors, but it was the same when activity was higher.

I strongly believe SL is in a much better position to survive phases of inactivity than a discussion forum, where the community is everything and past content is lost for practical purposes. And I just recently spotted "decline warnings" on L19 as well, post numbers are going down too afaik, which is no surprise given the limited demographic of community-oriented, internet-addicted, english-language go players.

Dieter: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-11-30 01:29) [#8885]

Sorry, it's late and I'm not in the mood for a gladiator argument to the last man standing. There's not too many of us left to work the library and if you feel you're the only one then don't worry about creating new instruments for your own.

tapir: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-11-30 10:44) [#8886]

Sorry, but it definitely feels strange to get an answer like yours to a rather specific question.

Everybody checking RecentChanges is pretty much aware of reduced activity, how declaring the imminent death of SL at every opportunity will change this fact isn't obvious to me. In the L19 discussion on SL ([ext] earlier the year some people were in fact declaring it is dead 5 years already, but nonetheless the most useful online resource. The only possibility I see is patiently working on navigation, improvement here and there, keeping the faster changing part of the core content (professional tournaments / players) up to date, even if it isn't very detailed and indeed throwing away stuff where necessary. Overall most of the content on SL was written by about a dozen people, so when we gather a small, dedicated team that works on those less rewarding issues, it would help a big deal already.

Dieter: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-11-30 12:22) [#8887]

I reread the L19 forum discussion on the state of SL and you seem to be right: the returning comment is that SL is great but could do with more library work, with a focus on

  • cleaning up articles, so WME, which we have been doing
  • better and easier navigation, underneath which request one can sense the frustration of frequently arriving at poorly crafted pages or lingering discussions

So, as long as I feel the (renewed) energy, I'll keep working alongside you and I vow to be less despondent. Being two of the more active librarians these days, we have a natural alliance which we should both foster rather than explore our differences. Well, I shouldn't tell you what to do, but I know what I will do.

Bottom line: go ahead with making what you need to do the work and I will see if I can use it myself. Keep up the good job!

tapir: Re: ((no subject)) (2011-11-30 14:03) [#8888]

Thank you.

I am asking myself if I was overreacting to your post, but if I did, it is because there is a good part of truth in them which resonates with my own doubts.

Throwing away stuff: Actually, we agree on that. My idea would be to keep the general attitude "everything is welcome", but start to clean up if things clearly aren't needed anymore. Someone even ventured, and I liked, the idea of expiration dates for some pages (not all obviously) - but this wasn't so well received in general. This attitude evolved over time, and I was surprised how much emphasis I now give to removing stuff, because it doesn't fit in the dualist inclusionist/exclusionist perception I was used to from Wikipedia - and I was very much an inclusionist over there. If we manage to produce a little collectivity on this - that is giving feedback to each other about remove requests or already effected removals - it is much easier to reach decisions. As is, at least I tend to touch only the most obvious cases.

tapir: Request concerning existing keywords (2011-12-01 15:53) [#8892]

The drop down menu should have an option for "no keyword". Not that I personally need it, but many people seem to be confused when making e.g. homepages, and many of them are accidentally listed as joseki, middle game or whatever.

tapir: ((no subject)) (2011-12-09 16:56) [#8957]

All keywords we have:

  • Opening
  • MiddleGame
  • Endgame
  • Joseki
  • Life&Death
  • Tesuji
  • Ko
  • Shape
  • Tactics
  • Strategy
  • Problem
  • Question
  • Rules
  • Variant
  • Theory
  • Culture & History
  • Game commentary
  • Go term
  • Proverb
  • People
  • Clubs & Places
  • Books & Publications
  • Equipment
  • Software
  • Tournament
  • Humour
  • Online Go
  • Ongoing Game
  • SL Description
  • Index
Back to forum

New reply

[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Login / Prefs
Sensei's Library