if there was to be a Great Library Database....

[MarkG]

what fields would it need?

[SlowThinker]

What do you mean? A new field in the forum page?

[MarkG]

no, i'm talking about a separate page

so what do we need?
from the top of my head: title, author, content, posting date, last updated date, keywords

[KrazyHorse]

Is it valuable in SP/MP/Both?

Is it mere information or a strategy?

Some form of member rating

[Ming]

MarkG... I think what they really need is for one of the key people to made a moderator of the Civ Strategy forum so that person can update the GL without having to find one of us to unlock and then lock it for them.
As far as what else they need... good question Mark

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Beyond the identification of the thread, we might want a field to list what category it falls into, e.g. discussion, Info:, strategy. Titles aren't always telling of what a thread ends up containing, maybe an abstract (80? characters or some such length) field, too.

[Blaupanzer]

A set of indexed threads is not a database. A database is a set of interrelated tables, each with an identifying data element (primary key) and associated attributes (fields). The tables are related through attributes called foreign keys, which say how one table relates to another. In this way, data can be retrieved from the system based on the interests of the user. If this is not what you want, then call out what you do want so Mark can help.

A series of indexed threads can be made more efficient by creating a table that permits this indexing. This is what Mark offers in his message. Through that the user would be led to the thread of interest based on choosing any of the entries in the table. Would a table with the columns he suggests be sufficient? Who would be responsible for entering the data in the table? Who would be responsible for archiving or caching the associated threads?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
A set of indexed threads is not a database. A database is a set of interrelated tables, each with an identifying data element (primary key) and associated attributes (fields). The tables are related through attributes called foreign keys, which say how one table relates to another. In this way, data can be retrieved from the system based on the interests of the user. If this is not what you want, then call out what you do want so Mark can help.

A series of indexed threads can be made more efficient by creating a table that permits this indexing. This is what Mark offers in his message. Through that the user would be led to the thread of interest based on choosing any of the entries in the table. Would a table with the columns he suggests be sufficient?

couldnt say it better

Who would be responsible for entering the data in the table? Who would be responsible for archiving or caching the associated threads?

as for that, i'm hoping that we will have volunteers from this forum...

[Edward]

The most important fields would be the body of the item and all the key words it falls under.

And determine in advance whether you want to

A) make a neat way to access all the threads in the forum archives
or
B) make a neat way to get information on various aspects of Civ

These two goals will lead to radically different databases. (e.g. in (B) each item is a laboriously crafted summary (like entries in the current and wonderful Great Library); whereas in (A) each item is a poorly titled rambling thread who's pertinent information is buried deep in the 20th reply and resolved in another thread posted 3 days later)

[Blaupanzer]

Why does it sound like both A and B suck in your message, Edward? Could it be your wording? How about a third alternative. Someone (SG?) could pick which threads to stress, and the associated key words for each thread (SlowThinker?), and provide a way to access these from a central point (Mark G?). This would preserve the social aspect of thread development without sending the questioner into gigabytes of archives, guessing the real subject and importance of each thread.

[SlowThinker]

I am not sure if I understand:

Originally posted by MarkG
no, i'm talking about a separate page

so what do we need?
from the top of my head: title, author, content, posting date, last updated date, keywords

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
A series of indexed threads can be made more efficient by creating a table that permits this indexing. This is what Mark offers in his message. Through that the user would be led to the thread of interest based on choosing any of the entries in the table. Would a table with the columns he suggests be sufficient?

Do you mean an improved Great Library Index? It is doable with current "Great Library Index" (with added html), but I suppose MarkG would provide some more comfortable interface for both readers and editors. Am I right?

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Someone (SG?) could pick which threads to stress,

Blaupanzer, if you stress some threads, then you speak about Edward's item B) IMHO, i.e. an improved Great Library Index.

The method B) is very tedious IMHO, I am afraid we won't find a such volunteer. Realize that approx. one half of threads contain some useful information and one tenth(?) contains a very useful information. It is a huge amount of threads, incomparable with the current Great Library Index.
Or MarkG would have to make a very comfortable interface for editors: they should be able to index a thread directly from the forum page or the thread page.

I think that method A) might be interesting:
add one field with keywords to the forum page. Adapt "search forums" page.
Great Library Index might be created dynamically: Threads with no value would get no keywords or their keywords would be deleted. Threads with no keywords wouldn't be added to Great Library Index.
a refinement: Add a second field with "add to Great Library Index" tag for valuable threads. (the reason: we could add keywords to all threads; nobody knows exactly what is "unhelpful thread". And it is another reason I prefer A) over B)

10 or 20 people (or everybody?) could get the right to add keywords. Only few people would get the right to add "add to Great Library Index" tag.

[MarkG]

i'm discussing a database separate from the forums, where information is stored as the outcome of the dicussion at the forums

example: in the "gl index" thread you link to the thread "Unhappiness caused by number of cities". i dont want to read an entire thread with various opinions and discussion on testing stuff, etc. i want the result of the discussion, in a concrete short form.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by MarkG
example: in the "gl index" thread you link to the thread "Unhappiness caused by number of cities". i dont want to read an entire thread with various opinions and discussion on testing stuff, etc. i want the result of the discussion, in a concrete short form.

There are only three such threads now :-( and so they don't need a special database presently.
I keep links to them here: "The Great Library: a hierarchical structure" thread

[Marquis de Sodaq]

The Info: type threads (the 3 that SlowThinker mentions) are probably the summary that you envision, MarkG. They require a significant amount of work to put together, then a fair amount of editing as new information or clarifications get posted. (I'm falling behind in mine... ) To summarize all the topics in ST's hierarchy, we'd need a handful of people to be willing to cull the relevent info from the threads. Someone else could put the Info: threads together, as long as the summary submitted was thorough. If there were enough of these threads, a database might be worth making. In the meantime, all the key info you seek is buried within piles of verbiage...

[Edward]

B

If we want a database that only contains useful, concise information, I think the current Great Library is it:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...&threadid=2723

Yes, as MarkG points out, currently many of it's links go to threads with rambling posts. This, IMHO, is exactly the reason that taking the "normal" threads (those that arise naturally through forum discussion) and selecting some of them, or linking to them, or databasing them, or indexing them, etc. is a bad idea if you're going for objective B ("make a neat way to get information on various aspects of Civ").

In addition to the thread links, there are some polished Great Library entries (thanks, slow thinker et al) that are wonders of detail and summary to behold (e.g. Diplomats and Spies http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum1/HTML/001678.html?36). My assumption is that eventually all Great Library entries will look like this. It's just that it'll take time to create the summarized entries. With all the talent that's currently working on the Great Library, it's hard to see how a separate and new effort (database or not) will create these wonderful summaries any more quickly.

In the interim, the scribes at Great Library have already "stressed" important threads by making links to them until they get around to summarizing them. I believe the "add to the Great Library tag" is, in effect, already implemented by the existing Great Library.

If we lack summaries, it's due to a lack of people working on the Great Library as opposed to a poorly organized Great Library.

---

A

If we want, instead, objective A ("make a neat way to access all the threads in the forum archives") then a database could be a helpful. Right now we have a more general search function:
http://apolyton.net/forums/search.php
The biggest advantage a database would add is that each thread would have some keywords that the thread is actually about. Then searching on keywords would eliminate a lot of extraneous threads. However, that would still leave the daunting preliminary task of reading all the threads and assigning them keywords - and then adding keywords as new threads arise and recent ones change topic.

---

p.s. As Blaupanzer points out, the social aspect of the forums will be preserved by preserving the forums. The forums function differently than any Great Library (existing or imagined) and one could never replace the other.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Edward
This, IMHO, is exactly the reason that taking the "normal" threads (those that arise naturally through forum discussion) and selecting some of them, or linking to them, or databasing them, or indexing them, etc. is a bad idea if you're going for objective B ("make a neat way to get information on various aspects of Civ").

Yes, it is not ideal, but it is an interphase on the way to "Info:" (condensed) threads.

The biggest advantage a database would add is that each thread would have some keywords that the thread is actually about. Then searching on keywords would eliminate a lot of extraneous threads. However, that would still leave the daunting preliminary task of reading all the threads and assigning them keywords - and then adding keywords as new threads arise and recent ones change topic.

Unfortunately, my idea of keywords (described in "The Great Library: a hierarchical structure" thread) stagnates. I thought that people (topic starter or anybody else) would add keywords to almost every new thread and to important old thread. In fact, few threads has keywords attached now.

p.s. As Blaupanzer points out, the social aspect of the forums will be preserved by preserving the forums. The forums function differently than any Great Library (existing or imagined) and one could never replace the other.

I agree perfectly

[TCO]

A branching thread structure would be a useful mechanism (although not perfect) for classifying/organizing info.

[KrazyHorse]

You and your damned branching thread structure.