[thesite] Community News Category

[.jeff]

rudy,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: rudy
>
> hmmmm...  time to revisit the idea of a flag on the
> categorys record?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i've been thinking that for awhile actually.

it still means adjusting various content grabbing queries though.  it may
also mean a slight adjustment to the article submission category dropdown
(ie, we may want to group articles categories, meta data categories [faq and
suggestions], and news categories [news, community news, and jobs] under
headings).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> hey, there already *is* a flag on the categorys --
> the foreign key to cattype
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

yes, quite true.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> right now, all the existing categories are connected to
> the cattype "Center"
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

could change that to "Category"

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> CAUTION:  as long as the different types of categories
> are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

+1

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> michele mentioned "... Community News will be treated
> in the same manner as FAQ articles are, except that it
> will appear on the front page and it will appear from
> the drop down box..."
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

ah, but it's not like faq then.  it's more like the regular news category,
hence my reasoning for grouping them and jobs together as one.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> but with this method, we won't constantly have to add
> to the list of categoryids to check, since this could
> get awfully complicated, as jeff will surely agree,
> when it comes to testing categoryids in the various
> different queries for different purposes -- instead,
> just check for the cattypeid
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

+1   i like this approach alot better.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> note the join to the cattype table is not necessary,
> just check the cattypeid in the categorys table
>
> makes sense?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

completely

this has some added benefits.

1)  we could now create a cattype of tips and create
    all sorts of tips categories.  we can also start
    to migrate the quality tips from the tips table
    to the content table.  now they're available on
    w.e.o. where more people can use them.

2)  we can set only content that's in tips or articles
    categories to use ratings.  (maybe even as flags
    for functionality on the cattype records)

3)  we can set only certain types of content to use
    the comments feature.

just a though,

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/