Utmost respect JD, but has that policy "Posts are assigned to sections based not on their subject matter but on their type of discourse." worked so well for this place?
Too late now of course, but perhaps it's time to see that just cos someone wrote that a decade ago, doesn't mean it is still relevant today. A lot has changed in the interim.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
Suck that fhit
| [reply] |
Fair question.
My feeling is that if we have N sections, we will have eN arguments (or at least considerations) about posts being in the wrong section. Of course, by this logic, we should have only one section.
And indeed, I think we should following Carter's Compass toward having only one section. With posts differentiated by keywords/tags. And, as I've said, the 'title' field serves as our keywords field. Not that this is ideal, but it's fine. And as long as we don't have a true keywords field, with properly controlled vocabularies, we use sections as essentially a controlled vocabulary for one facet of the post.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |