I agree with scain. Too much granularity is not healthy for the Monastery. Let's not forget the possible trends Seekers Of Tk/Perl Wisdom and Seekers Of ActiveState Perl Wisdom.
If you have a problem with a RegEx in your mod_perl script, would you post it to SOPW or to SOm_pW?
An error in judgement could make your question unavailable for that willing monk who thinks you are asking for something (s)he doesn't know. And when the answer comes, it will be flagged as belonging to that category where you asked, thus hiding it from the desperate eyes of the seekers of the other perl wisdom.
However, a welcome improvement would be a subject tag for each node, so that we could categorize each root node by one or more subjects, making it easier to search.
Example: a request about pattern matching from %ENV in a mod_perl script could be tagged as "mod_perl, CGI, taint, input, RegEx" and the answer could be useful to any user seeking advice in one of those categories.
_ _ _ _
(_|| | |(_|><
_|
| [reply] |
Does the Keyword Nodelet handle this?However, I don't know if, in general, posters and others remember to use it. I wonder what it's usage stats are like? Described at: New Keyword Functionality.
| [reply] |
AFAIK you can't search for info you entered in the keywords nodelet.
And anybody can add keywords to any node. I realized that when I activated my KW nodelet and looked at best nodes. Somebody entered a few not exactly positive remarks there.
For the keyword nodelet to be usable, we might need some re-organization of its I/O.
I was thinking about a list of subjects to pick from a checkbox and that can be later retrieved from the Super Search.
The subjects should be some categorization that goes across the current sections, i.e. the subjects "mod_perl" or "CGI" can equally apply to a node in SOPW, Cratf, Snippets, Cool uses for Perl, Meditations or Tutorials.
_ _ _ _
(_|| | |(_|><
_|
| [reply] |
I don't think that is a good idea for this example reason: would
you also propose Seekers of CGI.pm Wisdom? What about Seekers
of DBI wisdom? I think you can see where that would go.
Scott
| [reply] |
I partialy agree with you.
It would seem no less then fair to also introduce other 'Seekers of ... Wisdom' - On the other hand, there is nothing perldoc CGI or perldoc -m CGI (if you are bold enough) couldn't solve. Besides that: CGI.pm and DBI.pm are 'regular' perl modules, whereas mod_perl has a lot of irregularities, (not even mentioning all the Apache::modules) and so fort.
Sinister greetings.
"With tying hashes you can do everything God and Larry have forbidden" -- Johan Vromans - YAPC::Europe 2001
perldoc -q $_
| [reply] |
I'm posting about the checkboxes idea. We could do it with checkboxes, or a pulldown menu or links.
Each section of the site could then be virtually segmented into subtopics and maybe become more self-organizing. It could reduce the number of repeated newbie questions (well maybe). It might be an interesting way to preserve good bits, if this doesn't encroach on the Editors' territory.
This is similar to how I added a products page to a search engine here by making a multiple keyword search (like "millimeter or microwave or wave or antenna" for millimeter wave products) as you can see from the HTML source. The terms were chosen by working backward to cover as many pages as possible, and then a multiple keyword search is run on the inverted index.
I'm a little worried that it might really slow the site down though if Super Search is used without changes, since searching would become a major part of navigation. We might need to have more programming done and a new keyword index added in that case. Would like to hear from anyone with experience working on the search facility at PM. | [reply] |
