Re: Idea for navigation

On Thursday 01 April 2004 09:26 pm, Jeremy wrote:

First, i think it's pretty cool that we are maintaining a dialog of some sort.  
This takes a lot of my time, and a lot of yours, and I'm hoping that it will 
prove fruitfull.


> > But my navigation links always get deleted because they are "not a part
> > of the manual of style"
>
> 	I hope you can see that it's desirable to have a consistent look
> and feel throughout the wiki, as opposed to having pages you enter look
> one way and pages every other user enters look another way.  You should

No, I really don't care about consistant look.  I'll try to comply with the 
style of other pages... and those tend to evolve into something functional,  
The style really doesn't matter all that much if the pages have the elements, 
and are not garbled.

> feel free to enter whatever info you like, but it will likely get edited
> to follow the format we follow.  Also, the "backlinks" you desire are only
> ever a single click away.
A link  that quite a few won't find unless they see some note about that 
capability of the wiki, 



> > now, here comes a user who actually finds bar/is familiar with the wiki,
> > and doesn't need the navigational structure  (moderators)  Does that
> > moderator put a link up from blarny to bar?  No! not currently.
>
> 	If they are related there should either be a link in the article
> text and a link in ==See also==.

Who defines what is related?
well... how about the person who sees the relation? Oh wait... Moderators 
ignore the ethics of wiki's and delete stuff that isn't harming the site...

It is a generally good to delay choices. Make your plans, do other stuff, keep 
an eye open for a better way to do things.. then act when needed...  (this 
obviously doesn't work all the time for everything, but i'm pretty sure that 
it applies to the wiki)

> > Here comes Aaron, or somebody else who cares about usability for the end
> > user, and not some religious  manual of style,   (who is willing to work
> > with the manual of style but got shot down)    and creates a link from
> > blarny to bar!
>
> 	I get the impression that when you say "willing to work with the
> manual of style" you mean write it as you see fit.

of course, however I would present my additions as options, and on a separate 
page discuss/encourage discussion on  the strengths and weaknesses of them, 
and have the first rule be,  If it ain't broke, don't fix it--append or move 
it when you make a "better" one.

>
> > Then along comes the manual of style fanatic, and deletes the link! 
> > without putting it elsewhere or fixing the problem in another way!
>
> 	If the link was relevant it should have been put someone in there.
yeah, but they get deleted!!!!!

> > This MoS fanatic effectively harmed Aaron!  and the community!   I put a
> > lot of effort into finding the back links.
>
> 	I appreciate any effort you put into it.  You however seem unable
> to accept that we use the "What links here" functionality in lieu of
> backlinks.
I can live without backlinks.. but a link to the backlinks page describing how 
to use the wikis "what links here" functionality  is a good thing.

Also, if you can make your template for un created/deleted pages automatically 
be backlinks pages!!!    The default action can be changed from /edit 
to /whatlinkshere

I'm not doing a very good job of proposing upgrades to the templates, but i'm 
trying...  Just a few tweaks in the template can save a lot of people a lot 
of time.



>
> --jeremy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lqwiki-list mailing list
> Lqwiki-list-cunTk1MwBs/4hYYZOrhEC/[email protected]
> http://lists.linuxquestions.org/mailman/listinfo/lqwiki-list

-- 
509 332 7697
ICQ 2302806