Author Topic: stackoverflow-like site for DC. Would it work? Now free (Read 32379 times)

wraith808 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 18, 2010, 11:40 AM »

I use tinyportal on my site... it integrates with SMF and turns it into more of a CMS/portal without diluting the forum feel to the site. And I personally don't agree that something couldn't be added alongside donation coder without diluting it... but it seems that I'm one voice in the wilderness

nudone · « **Reply #26 on:** April 18, 2010, 11:43 AM »

could the first few steps of presenting the same information in different ways be done using a tag system?

e.g. a forum thread that has been around for a month or two and is primarily a set of answers to the original post is tagged as "q&a" by one of the mods - who would also be able to tag specific replies as "nonessential" to the question and answer discussion. (perhaps even a colour system could be used to indicate non important replies - like a reply having a grey background). all this gets automatically duplicated in the Q&A section of the site.

or is this too obvious? or is it too much work anyway?

i suppose this is assuming there wouldn't be a Q&A area where people could post new questions - only read old ones from the forum.

urlwolf · « **Reply #27 on:** April 18, 2010, 04:09 PM »

today I needed to find a total commander clone for linux I liked. It was on DC. I even installed it, but didn't remember the name. After 15 min of searches, I gave up. There's way too much info on filemanagers, and I didn't find it. I think we do need to improve organization. there's where a SO-like thing would help the most.

btw, it was double commander.

mouser · « **Reply #28 on:** April 18, 2010, 04:18 PM »

agreed, this is something that could be improved on all forum sites.. but it's really more in the line of trying to figure out a way to improve search results, perhaps by doing some tagging of posts and adding ways to better retrieve and filter information that is already on the forum.

40hz · « **Reply #29 on:** April 18, 2010, 08:45 PM »

Any librarians in the membership that can offer some input or insight? This sort of thing is right up their alley.

Those people wrote the book on information cataloguing, classification and retrieval. Biggest mistake the web ever made was not involving librarians from the get go.

Perry Mowbray · « **Reply #30 on:** April 18, 2010, 09:27 PM »

But it's not just searching... some people like browsing, others prefer to use a site map: the aim is to make as many different ways to the same information as possible.

As 40hz implies: not everyone who gets a book from a library uses the catalog, some just browse for the book they want...

JavaJones · « **Reply #31 on:** April 19, 2010, 02:06 AM »

I love the idea(s) of leveraging existing content and systems (forum) and presenting that information in different ways/"views". I could see a simple extension of the blog-oreinted tagging system working for that, and I don't see it as necessarily being a mod-only task. If we empowered users to tag things more readily, we could end up with "tag clouds" and perhaps augmented search results that could help people find the info they need more easily. So I think that's an interesting direction to explore. It avoids any potential disruption to existing, functional systems and the general community, while potentially exposing info better to certain audiences.

Beyond that I think it's interesting to consider ways of exchanging info between a forum and a wiki, or other systems. A tabbed interface with really easy copy/paste (similar to the javascript quote function here in the forums) might be one approach. Perhaps a way to tag forum threads so that they're associated with particular wiki entries, e.g. "File managers" would have about 50 threads attached to it.

Then as you're reading a thread, if a new one gets mentioned, you just select the text that describes it, hit "copy to wiki" and it puts it over there, ready for you to edit further and integrate it into existing content. The biggest problem I see with that approach is attribution and copyright...

- Oshyan

urlwolf · « **Reply #32 on:** April 19, 2010, 03:46 AM »

could the first few steps of presenting the same information in different ways be done using a tag system?

e.g. a forum thread that has been around for a month or two and is primarily a set of answers to the original post is tagged as "q&a" by one of the mods - who would also be able to tag specific replies as "nonessential" to the question and answer discussion. (perhaps even a colour system could be used to indicate non important replies - like a reply having a grey background). all this gets automatically duplicated in the Q&A section of the site.

or is this too obvious? or is it too much work anyway?

i suppose this is assuming there wouldn't be a Q&A area where people could post new questions - only read old ones from the forum.
-nudone (April 18, 2010, 11:43 AM)

I'd not like a system where admins prune and delete threads at will. I've had that in the past and it doesn't feel right. We had the discussion here. It was some autocomplete program. The admins were here defending the position that 'deleting is good because it makes other stuff more findable'. I just don't buy it. Plus, it shows that you don't get the point of the internet : 'everyone can say anything about any topic'.

nudone · « **Reply #33 on:** April 19, 2010, 07:12 AM »

agreed, editing threads isn't a good idea. not the original threads anyway - but i appreciate how editing the copied threads in the Q&A section could well get out of hand too - opinions would differ about how relevant a reply was.

so, i'll just say let's go with the copying method - simply duplicating threads into another section of the site.

wraith808 · « **Reply #34 on:** April 19, 2010, 08:21 AM »

Perhaps a way to tag forum threads so that they're associated with particular wiki entries, e.g. "File managers" would have about 50 threads attached to it. Then as you're reading a thread, if a new one gets mentioned, you just select the text that describes it, hit "copy to wiki" and it puts it over there, ready for you to edit further and integrate it into existing content. The biggest problem I see with that approach is attribution and copyright...
-JavaJones (April 19, 2010, 02:06 AM)

This. That's what I meant about a SO question creating a forum thread (or vice versa). You have your place to discuss the issue, and your place to have a question and answer. I've had more than one that someone has backdoored me a question by PM because the forum was too noisy. Yes, the conversational approach is nice, but when you're searching for an answer, it makes the forum seem too noisy, and not helpful.

40hz · « **Reply #35 on:** April 19, 2010, 03:37 PM »

I've had more than one that someone has backdoored me a question by PM because the forum was too noisy. Yes, the conversational approach is nice, but when you're searching for an answer, it makes the forum seem too noisy, and not helpful.
-wraith808 (April 19, 2010, 08:21 AM)

I guess that would all come down to whether you're participating in the Supplicant or Symposium mode.

(BTW - Glad to see some Sages finally PM-ed you your answers. Sages love to use "back channels" to get things done. It's one of their characteristics. PMs and 'guru level' IRC chats are big favs when you're a Sage.

)

wraith808 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 19, 2010, 04:24 PM »

I guess that would all come down to whether you're participating in the Supplicant or Symposium mode.

(BTW - Glad to see some Sages finally PM-ed you your answers. Sages love to use "back channels" to get things done. It's one of their characteristics. PMs and 'guru level' IRC chats are big favs when you're a Sage. )
-40hz (April 19, 2010, 03:37 PM)

Ummm... maybe I didn't make myself clear? It was people coming to the forums for the first time that saw me comment in a thread that PM'd me for answers, instead of me doing the asking... :shrugs:

40hz · « **Reply #37 on:** April 19, 2010, 05:52 PM »

Ummm... maybe I didn't make myself clear? It was people coming to the forums for the first time that saw me comment in a thread that PM'd me for answers, instead of me doing the asking... :shrugs:
-wraith808 (April 19, 2010, 04:24 PM)

Um...nope! You were clear - I misread it.

I had just got off the phone with Charter Communication's high-speed internet tech support "experts" so forgive me if I was seeing double when I wrote that.

Allow me to correct myself:

Glad to see some Supplicants PMed a Sage and finally got their answers.

-----

Semi-OT follows. Feel free to ignore.

So Mr. Wraith808, you old Sage you! Here's a research question:

Do you tend to prefer private message exchanges (or focused/expert's colloquies) when sharing/discussing technical information over the more unstructured discussion mechanisms like open forums?

Enquiring minds want to know...

Seriously, I very much would appreciate your input on that. (Feel free to PM if you'd rather.)

wraith808 · « **Reply #38 on:** April 19, 2010, 05:56 PM »

Do you tend to prefer private message exchanges (or focused/expert's colloquies) when sharing/discussing technical information over the more unstructured discussion mechanisms like open forums?
-40hz (April 19, 2010, 05:52 PM)

Actually, I like the discussion format. I just see where it can be discouraging and/or frustrating to the user who's just trying to find the answer to a question and has to repeatedly attempt searches to try to find the answer they seek. I've been in that position, and it's no fun.

40hz · « **Reply #39 on:** April 19, 2010, 06:03 PM »

Actually, I like the discussion format. I
-wraith808 (April 19, 2010, 05:56 PM)

Understood.

But do you have a distinct preference for one over the other in general?

Perry Mowbray · « **Reply #40 on:** April 19, 2010, 06:29 PM »

I'm not sure what category I sit, but that's my experience with some threads (with lots of discussion, some or maybe more off topic) is that it's hard to read -- sometimes you want to cut to the chase and come back for all the interesting discussion later.

Good Post / Bad Post seems to be a SMF mod that tries to address that as the user has control over what they see, and anyone can rank the post. Not that I've seen it, but it seems that you can only leave the good posts on... making it easier to read and understand. And that's not just questions, it's general discussion.

40hz · « **Reply #41 on:** April 19, 2010, 07:05 PM »

Good Post / Bad Post[/url] seems to be a SMF mod that tries to address that as the user has control over what they see, and anyone can rank the post. Not that I've seen it, but it seems that you can only leave the good posts on... making it easier to read and understand. And that's not just questions, it's general discussion.
-Perry Mowbray (April 19, 2010, 06:29 PM)

Good lord! Are they for real with that add-on?

Maybe it's just me, but that looks like a cure that's worse than the "problem" it's attempting to address.

Perry Mowbray · « **Reply #42 on:** April 19, 2010, 07:31 PM »

Good lord! Are they for real with that add-on?

Maybe it's just me, but that looks like a cure that's worse than the "problem" it's attempting to address.
-40hz (April 19, 2010, 07:05 PM)

Really? I didn't see a problem... what can you see?

wraith808 · « **Reply #43 on:** April 19, 2010, 08:19 PM »

I didn't see a problem either, so I'm curious...

As to which I prefer- QnA or Discussion, as the questioned, discussion tends to have more possibilities of knowledge being exchanged than QnA. But as the questioner, it depends on the time-sensitivity of the question, and the nature of the question.

JavaJones · « **Reply #44 on:** April 19, 2010, 09:14 PM »

That SMF mod looks like a Slashdot-esque moderation system. Seems to work ok over there. But not really what I'd like to see here.

I think the "noise" issue in forum threads may be a separate (though obviously related) one. A way for normal users to split threads, or at least formally vote to split threads, might help. Most of what I see are people just trying to conduct several different discussions at once. Threaded forums handle that better, but I have yet to see a threaded forum display model that I actually like.

- Oshyan

Perry Mowbray · « **Reply #45 on:** April 19, 2010, 09:16 PM »

As to which I prefer- QnA or Discussion
-wraith808 (April 19, 2010, 08:19 PM)

In reality (it's probably cheating) but I'd like both:

The discussion exists in the thread
If there are possibilities to filter the posts in the thread based on something like GP/BP then that has the possibility of making it easier to read (if user so desires)
Re-mash the content by tagging it as a Q&A type post and displaying just the OP and the highest rank reply (which I presume could change over time: eg what's the best abc last year may not be the best this year) somewhere else on the site.

Perry Mowbray · « **Reply #46 on:** April 19, 2010, 09:19 PM »

That SMF mod looks like a Slashdot-esque moderation system.
-JavaJones (April 19, 2010, 09:14 PM)

Oh, OK... the way I read it was that it was selectable by the user (viewer) so moderation didn't result in posts disappearing or becoming unviewable. Did I read it wrong

?

40hz · « **Reply #47 on:** April 19, 2010, 09:45 PM »

Good lord! Are they for real with that add-on?

Maybe it's just me, but that looks like a cure that's worse than the "problem" it's attempting to address.
-40hz (April 19, 2010, 07:05 PM)

Really? I didn't see a problem... what can you see?
-Perry Mowbray (April 19, 2010, 07:31 PM)

I didn't see a problem either, so I'm curious...

-wraith808 (April 19, 2010, 08:19 PM)

I think the problem I have is that Good Post/Bad Post plays into something I believe is one of the most negative aspects of web technology - the ability to screen out comments, opinions, and news that you'd rather not hear or think about.

This is a problem with much of what passes for "being well informed" in the new order of things. More and more people are tuning out what they don't want to hear, and zeroing in on sources and commentary that already supports their present opinions.

It's basically a form of censorship masquerading as "personal choice," and IMHO, it's a very dangerous trend.

I'm sure much of my attitude is shaped by my upbringing, education, and the times I grew up in. But I've noticed a distinct difference in willingness on the part of people younger than myself to be pushed outside their philosophical comfort zone. And that goes along with a greater willingness to indulge in what I see as forms of groupthink.

So my personal warning bells go off when I see something that basically says: "Let's all privately vote on something's merit, and then use the results to screen out anything we don't deem worthy of attention."

In Plato's Apology, Socrates argued for the role of the 'gadfly' in human society.

I'm inclined to agree with him on that point.

Just my two δραχμαί...

40hz · « **Reply #48 on:** April 19, 2010, 10:24 PM »

Most of what I see are people just trying to conduct several different discussions at once. Threaded forums handle that better, but I have yet to see a threaded forum display model that I actually like.
-JavaJones (April 19, 2010, 09:14 PM)

100% with JavaJones on that point.

I have yet to see a threaded forum model that is readable after a half dozen responses. They also become instantly unreadable once they 'nest' beyond one level deep.

Examples:

A) This works.

-------------------------------------------------------

B) This works too.
   - One level deep and it's still readable.
   - So long as it doesn't go deeper.

-------------------------------------------------------

C) But with something like this
   - Where you have a response
   - And then a response to a response
   - And possibly a response to a response to a response
   - Just gets confusing
   - Especially if this line is in response to the reponse to the response
   to the response in the nest above!

Threaded forums are also useless if you want to initiate long thoughtful dialogs since individual threads soon start sounding like conversations being held in separate rooms.

I cannot stand threading a discussion. Bad mojo! If you're gonna go the non-linear multi-channel dialog route, you're far better off with a wiki.

Perry Mowbray · « **Reply #49 on:** April 19, 2010, 10:33 PM »

I think the problem I have is that Good Post/Bad Post plays into something I believe is one of the most negative aspects of web technology - the ability to screen out comments, opinions, and news that you'd rather not hear or think about.
-40hz (April 19, 2010, 09:45 PM)

I completely agree with that, but I was assuming that the following (bolded) meant that actual posts were not screened out: that the user chooses to view, view greyed or not view those posts. To my way of thinking that isn't censorship, but purely adding the ability to add value to the discussion. But I'm more than willing to be shown that this isn't the case...

Features
The following features are supported in SMF 1.1.x and SMF 2 RC2:
Post voting, either up or down. One vote per post per member.
Posts voted below a given number are hidden. ("Bad posts")
"Respect" is displayed for each member both in posts and in profile. Respect is the sum of all received post votes. (Pseudo Karma system)
Members choose to either hide Bad posts, or grey them out, or none and display them normally.
Members may view hidden posts.
New statistics tracked: Top 10 Post Voters & 10 Most Respected members.
Toggle post voting by board.
Customizable: Membergroup permissions include "Vote a post", and "View hidden posts". Bad post hiding/greying-out/bypassing are also theme settings.
Configurable settings: The post-hiding score, toggle Respect display and toggle new Stats display.
Works either with or without Javascript enabled (includes AJAX post voting).