[Theforum] [---Dev] RE: [---tent] Article cleanup issue

Martin Burns martin at easyweb.co.uk
Tue Jul 23 17:44:07 CDT 2002

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, .jeff wrote:

> > From: Martin Burns
> >
> > > well, it's been that way as far back as the code that
> > > walker set us up with.
> >
> > OK, but I'm not sure that "It's always been that way"
> > is the right reason for it still being there
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> agreed, but that sort of change requires a decision by committee,

If DesDev come up with a recommendation which doesn't negatively affect
the content, then who else would have a valid comment on it?

Really, if it's only your group, you have the power to make that decision
(and of course be accountable for it)

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > > for one i think it's useful because you may know
> > > approximately when an article was published with
> > > respect to when another article was published.  so,
> > > you go back through the pages of approved articles
> > > from the homepage, page by page until you find it.
> >
> > I'd question how many people actually do that. I really
> > suspect that you'd page through the 1st page or 3 and
> > then search.
> >
> > It works for maybe 10 pages, but for 100? I really
> > wouldn't have thought so.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> agreed.  i don't personally use it that way, but i suspect some do (though not very many pages deep, for sure).

So we're agreed on the principle that the *whole* article list needn't be
returned, and are now just discussing how many/few pages of results it is?

imo, 10 pages of results would be plenty. Anyone got any more informed

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > We don't have a strong taxonomy that people can
> > hierarchically browse through - our site really is a
> > "view 1st page or 2 then search"
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> except the search sucks so they're stuck browsing for some articles.

I'm not sure it sucks that badly. I've not really had a problem with it.

I'm also wondering whether we oughtn't to just make the search a Google
search as per leo...

> fwiw, the changes you're talking about really shouldn't be discussed with regard to how the current cms works.  instead, they should be addressed towards the redesign and how the next version *should* work.



Also starring in fine email     | "Names, once they are in common use, quickly
productions such as             | become mere sounds, their etymology being
martin at easyweb.co.uk            | buried, like so many of the earth's marvels,
martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com | beneath the dust of habit." - Salman Rushdie

More information about the theforum mailing list