Special User Sections > Site/Forum Features

Discussion: How can we Improve DonationCoder?

<< < (6/18) > >>

IainB:
@Shades and @MilesAhead: Could we keep on-topic please? It would seem to be a diversion to talk about AJ. I only happened to make reference to AJ in passing, as an example of the sort of content quality improvement that we might consider for the DC site. AJ therefore was not the topic.

In fact, "improving the Search function" was the topic that was clearly focussed on in my last post, where I think you will agree that I added some real quality and much-needed technical foresight and clarity of vision to the otherwise dull points about Search being made in comments by @urlwolf and @JavaJones.

It is regrettable, and I am as disappointed as you no doubt were, that there was a prudish DMCA-style take-down of the extremely high quality example graphic file that I attached to that post.

IainB:
@40hz: Nice graphic image!
Oh, and I suppose the points you make are er, interesting, too.

Seriously though:
"Does Donation Coder have anything like a current mission statement?"
--- End quote ---
Absolutely spot-on.

If there is one- i.e., something like a mission statement or "vision" - then what is it, and why is it, and are the reasons for it being the way it is now changed?

If there isn't one, then should there be one, and why? If there is a "Yes", and a solid reason in response to this Q, then what could we do to help mouser to pull a coherent and useful mission statement or "vision" together?

This is the sort of thing that I was getting at in my initial post in this thread, before I had a behaviour melt-down to "jerk" status. From experience, if you use pretty basic questions like that, then there is a very real potential risk of discovering something useful - but I have only seen it work in a deliberately collaborative environment.

MilesAhead:
@Shades and @MilesAhead: Could we keep on-topic please? It would seem to be a diversion to talk about AJ. I only happened to make reference to AJ in passing, as an example of the sort of content quality improvement that we might consider for the DC site. AJ therefore was not the topic.
-IainB (April 25, 2010, 11:50 PM)
--- End quote ---

So discussing what you brought up is going off topic? That's a neat twist.

btw please don't discuss my response.  Let's stick to the topic.

IainB:
@MilesAhead: Sorry!
I was making (or trying to make) a joke there, but it was ironic and a joke on myself. (The "jerk" pot calling the kettle black - and yes, I thought it was a neat twist too!)
If you took it seriously, then I really do apologise. It was meant to make you smile. I really didn't mean for you to take it seriously. I maybe should have included a smiley or three.
Here they are:  ;D      :)       8)        ;)       :D      :P  (better late than never)

Perry Mowbray:
maybe one way to address gothic's ideas and also help make things easier to find in general is to have a kind of wiki system incorporated into DC where trusted people could keep an organized set of pages updated that helped catalog stuff on the site and was a navigational aid.
-mouser (April 23, 2010, 05:40 PM)
--- End quote ---

This is what the blog and the newsletter essentially does, isn't it? Just over a shorter time period...

and I think it's a grand idea to stop good stuff getting lost over time.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page