wolfgang, > Your table of content is just one example how subforums could be > structured.
The problem with forums I expect is that they are 1) difficult to restructure and 2) need extensive and wise moderation meaning 1) from time to time I understand that some chapters should be shifted, merged, splitted etc. Like recently I understood that in terms of consistent documentation the "user data structures" and "macros" should be merged and in the future I also expect that "navigation" and "workflow" chapters should be redivided into other parts since they overlap already quite heavily. In forum, such restructuring seems to be quite a problem each time. 2) a new or just not very advanced user will not know from time to time where to post -- for instance, in the "user data structure" section or in a "workflow" one. In this terms there should be some moderators who will move threads here and there, and do it so that thread creators won't lose their threads and understand why the thread is moved, without hard feelings. Perhaps I'm making things more complicated than they are, but this is how I see it. > extracting Google's TW threads and assign them to their fitting subforum. This sounds incomprehensible. Are you talking about refactoring 55 thousands threads? > Where I willingly would give a hand could be taking part in placing the > threads in their proper subforum. Well, this is without a doubt a pro for forums.. *** Chris, > The hope, apparently not entirely well-founded, was that starting the > migration would get the ball rolling and the community at large would > do the rest. This didn't happen. So, this was not about the TiddlySpace technology? To me, this sounds quite strange. When I rewrite some notes/texts I usually do start to link them with others, understand more things, it provides further "rolling". But when some documentation get moved by different people from one place to another without any plan of its improvment, well.. it's even not clear what is rolling. > A small number of people helped to migrate additional content beyond what I > started. > Very small number, relative to the number of people reading this group. > To me that was evidence that the information was not considered relevant by > the community. Consider the following: for beginners it could be rather "oh, something is moving somewhere. I don't understand what's happening, so let the advanced members of community do the job properly"; and for advanced users.. ok, I'm not sure about others but for me, despite the fact that I tried to follow the threads about it, it looked like "we have a bit messy documentation; anyway, let's move it to TiddlySpace" (why? I haven't found a good reason) and then I haven't understood is it possible to contribute and how, but neither I haven't asked because I couldn't see a reason and a perspective in that move. *** Now in conclusion I can suggest that any refactoring of old documents or creation of new solid text should be at least led by sort of blog (or forum, but not a forum which will contain final version of information) where someone will post something like "Ok, guys, let's focus on the styling chapter. [proposal of text structure] [some materials, links] [some questions to be answered in the docs]". Then -- some discussion, then -- some writings, then some conclusions and afterward discussion. Without such "orginization" (or leading) I can't see other ways to succeed. And it's not accidental that I mentioned blog because such a "leading thing" must have some linear structure and feeds (RSS/mail/whichever is convenient for community people) so that everyone interested can follow. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
