Talk:History of television technology: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen
(order & system)
imported>Russell Potter
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
Hi Richard.  Hmm, in an ordinary reference work or index, that would make sense to me, but I'd want to be sure we follow the common nomenclature first.  Let's wait and see how that discussion goes, and/or join it at [[CZ Talk:Naming Conventions]].  [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 04:03, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
Hi Richard.  Hmm, in an ordinary reference work or index, that would make sense to me, but I'd want to be sure we follow the common nomenclature first.  Let's wait and see how that discussion goes, and/or join it at [[CZ Talk:Naming Conventions]].  [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 04:03, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
::putting the keyword first is a matter of logic. Otherwise many different schemes are possible: "Development of Television", "American Television History," "The Story of TV News", "Trends in TV", "Major inventions in TV history" etc etc. Each editor will do it differently and CZ will be hard to use and hard to edit. Order and system (We're like Buffon--was he the classifier?) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:14, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
::putting the keyword first is a matter of logic. Otherwise many different schemes are possible: "Development of Television", "American Television History," "The Story of TV News", "Trends in TV", "Major inventions in TV history" etc etc. Each editor will do it differently and CZ will be hard to use and hard to edit. Order and system (We're like Buffon--was he the classifier?) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 06:14, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:::I don't disagree with the logic, but one of the values of the wiki world, and of the internet in general, is that keyword searching removes the necessity for information providers to put their information "in order" since it can always be searched horizontally or every word of it searched; likewise, searchers can enter their keywords in any order and, for the most part, get the same hits (though, in Google, prioritized somehwat differently).  The most logical thing for CZ to do is to have a consistent policy -- whatever it is -- and to follow it in all pages; then at least those who use the site repeatedly will soon be able to figure out how to enter the terms in the standard way and get the results they want. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 07:55, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 07:55, 24 April 2007

I suggest we change the name to Television, History the goal is to get the major keyword first. Richard Jensen 00:42, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Hi Richard. Hmm, in an ordinary reference work or index, that would make sense to me, but I'd want to be sure we follow the common nomenclature first. Let's wait and see how that discussion goes, and/or join it at CZ Talk:Naming Conventions. Russell Potter 04:03, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

putting the keyword first is a matter of logic. Otherwise many different schemes are possible: "Development of Television", "American Television History," "The Story of TV News", "Trends in TV", "Major inventions in TV history" etc etc. Each editor will do it differently and CZ will be hard to use and hard to edit. Order and system (We're like Buffon--was he the classifier?) Richard Jensen 06:14, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
I don't disagree with the logic, but one of the values of the wiki world, and of the internet in general, is that keyword searching removes the necessity for information providers to put their information "in order" since it can always be searched horizontally or every word of it searched; likewise, searchers can enter their keywords in any order and, for the most part, get the same hits (though, in Google, prioritized somehwat differently). The most logical thing for CZ to do is to have a consistent policy -- whatever it is -- and to follow it in all pages; then at least those who use the site repeatedly will soon be able to figure out how to enter the terms in the standard way and get the results they want. Russell Potter 07:55, 24 April 2007 (CDT)