[thesite] code(this)

[Warden, Matt]

> seriously, i can add a new category, and leave active=0 for now

exactly.

> > a. the category must be submitable only to admins
>
> can you explain more why, please
>
> admins have to approve every article anyway, so i don't get the point

The point is that i don't want themembers to be a slave workforce to solve
programming/design problems people are having at work. This could end up
being a copy&paste from requirements docs and I don't want that. I want it
to be completely hypothetical situations.

Do you have a reason to make this submitable by all? You could review all
those articles and make the judgements if you want. I'd rather not. Plus,
I'd like to spread whatever(this) articles a bit so it doesn't get so old
that people don't look for them anymore.

> > b. the category should show on the front page
>
> default behaviour, i think

Yup.

> > c. the category probably shouldn't show up in searches
>
> that'll be trickier, and require coding

Really? We're doing this for FAQ cat aren't we?

> not sure why we would want the restriction, though -- are there any other
> categories that are excluded from searching at the present time?

FAQ I believe. We can leave it in search results if that's a problem.

> > d. the category probably should not show up on the user page's article
> listing if we're going to follow the precedent we set with the FAQ
category
>
> that precedent stinks, imho

um, why's that?

> but then, i don't understand why somebody who wrote a faq article would
not
> want it listed amongst his or her other articles

Well, then you just don't get it at all.

It aint' that people don't WANT them listed. But, Mishka didn't write that
FAQ article. She edited what we already had. It's why people were thinking
of using a user named "evolt"... it's not an individual thing. But, we
wanted a name behind the article. That doesn't mean they should show up in
the user pages. That doesn't make sense to me. I think .jeff agreed with me,
though I don't want to speak for him.

> so, um, what do we want to call it?    code(this)?  answer(this)?

go for answer(this) or Answer This!. Whichever. It's your call. cool?



--
mattwarden
mattwarden.com