Personal Video Database
English => Feature Suggestions => Topic started by: CAD on September 01, 2010, 02:01:30 pm
-
As I have already said, I have had great success running a wiki in my work environment.
It is designed more as a web page with editable content.
I have thrown together a rough version usinging tikiwiki. (by no means professional but gives an indication of how it could work)
http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-index.php?page=UserPagecadishere
As nostra is administrator of wiki and PVD is his baby, i'll leave the decision up to him whether a wiki redesign is ok.
-
As nostra is administrator of wiki and PVD is his baby, i'll leave the decision up to him whether a wiki redesign is ok.
That's not how a wiki is supposed to work. I'm also an administrator of the wiki, so I'll answer for nostra. If you have an idea for improving the wiki, go ahead and do it. It's administrators are not editors—users are the editors. That's what makes a wiki a wiki. If an administrator or another user doesn't like your changes, they can easily undo them or make their own changes.
It's the common assumption that a wiki is maintained by "someone else" that causes a wiki to fail. I believe my proposal for an Integrated Help Forum (http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?topic=2082.0) naturally overcomes the barrier this faulty assumption creates. Seeing a help topic being discussed and revised in very same thread in which it's being read makes it obvious it's user-created and maintained documentation.
-
I have thrown together a rough version usinging tikiwiki. (by no means professional but gives an indication of how it could work)
http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-index.php?page=UserPagecadishere
imo the content of your home page is better than the existing one so I would be in favour of replacing it with yours. Well done.
-
imo the content of your home page is better than the existing one so I would be in favour of replacing it with yours. Well done.
Thanks Patch.
I've asked rick for edit access to home page. if he gives me access I will modify it to be more like
http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-index.php?page=UserPagecadishere
(hopefully better) ;D
That's not how a wiki is supposed to work.
It doesn't have to be something that is super dynamic and content changes a lot.
My experience is that the pages are fairly static (especially how it is used now).
I would think that if it was laid out nicely and had a few simple "how to do stuff" guides that are clear and concise.
New users could go there and have a "getting started guide". Anything more complex would be through the forums.
It's the common assumption that a wiki is maintained by "someone else" that causes a wiki to fail.
This may true, but there is no indication that it has failed. Is there a hit counter on the wiki? Maybe users go there read the content and it is enough for them to do what they want to. Just because it is not updated does not mean its not working. Probably the opposite. If it is getting hits, it probably means the content is good and doesn't need to be updated.
My experience is they fail because the design does not meet the needs of the users.
I believe my proposal for an Integrated Help Forum naturally overcomes the barrier this faulty assumption creates.
Maybe... there is no reason why they can't co-exist and complement each other in ways we haven't thought of.
-
Is there a hit counter on the wiki? Maybe users go there read the content and it is enough for them to do what they want to. Just because it is not updated does not mean its not working. Probably the opposite. If it is getting hits, it probably means the content is good and doesn't need to be updated.
There is a hit counter on each page see the page list (http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-listpages.php)
btw I quite like a table of contents which shows most of the available pages, the uniform hierarchy display as shown in the semi automatic contents (http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-index.php?page=PVD-Manual) is also good imo.
Not to say a linked contents (http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Manual) could not also be used, I'm just not convinced I would like to use it yet.
Links from each PVD "menu option" / "menu bar option" straight to the relevant wiki page could be good though.
-
Page list is good.
I've not had much luck with table of contents. It is too hard to order contents easily.
I have found wiki trails work quite well to provide a logical order and can be used to create a table of contents automatically.
I don't know if tikiwiki has the functionality to do this. Unfortunately the mark up language is a lot different to what I use at work (pmwiki) and i'm still trying to work out its quirks. Im also trying to figure out what its feature set.
Links from each PVD "menu option" / "menu bar option" straight to the relevant wiki page could be good though.
This is coming - I have done it using pmwiki and it is really good.
http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1692.0;attach=480
was created with pmwiki and dynamically created. Click "create pdf" button and it gathers all the pages in it "breadcrumb trail" and created a dynamic page, with links to different sections. Makes it easy to create a user manual.
BTW i have updated wiki home - completely ripped off forum home page (sorry). :-[
-
BTW i have updated wiki home - completely ripped off forum home page (sorry).
That's not appropriate. This is the "home" of PVD. The home page of the wiki should be doing nothing to confuse that fact. Probably the most effective home page for the wiki would be a completed, properly organized table of contents. It could have a concise statement at the top that the site is the wiki for PVD, and that the home is here. There should also be an acknowledgement of the original creator and host of the wiki. That could be at the bottom of that page or in a separate "About the Wiki" page linked to the top of the table of contents.
Also make sure whatever changes you make do not adversely affect Russian users.
-
i have updated wiki home - completely ripped off forum home page (sorry). :-[
I liked your previous home page (http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-index.php?page=UserPagecadishere), what happened to that.
Actually having two official PVD support sites is confusing which I think is the larger issue
-
That's not appropriate. This is the "home" of PVD.
No probs i'll change it.
just trying to get some content up in a format that shows the potential.
I wanted one of the menu bars on left or right side to act as TOC.
That would probably need someone with admin right to do it.
-
I wanted one of the menu bars on left or right side to act as TOC.
You can't do a proper TOC like this one (http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-index.php?page=PVD-Manual) in a menu bar, nor is that the purpose of it. If the home page is primarily a TOC, there can be no mistaking what is or what it is for. It's the sort of thing a user would expect to see when clicking a "wiki" link on an integrated site. Newcomers entering the wiki directly should be sent back here to learn about the software. The wiki is for those who are already users of the software.
If at all possible, any link on the wiki that directly or indirectly suggests home ("Home", "Personal Video Database," "PVD," etc.) should link back here. Similarly, any link that suggests a function already existing here (downloads, support, feature requests, etc.) should link directly back here. The wiki should be made to look and act—to the extent practical—as it were an extension of this site.
-
You can't do a proper TOC like this one in a menu bar,
i like what you've done. Just what i had in mind. - Links to high level content.
any link on the wiki that directly or indirectly suggests home ("Home", "Personal Video Database," "PVD," etc.) should link back here
Already does. any that i missed - let me know and i can (or you can) ;) fix.
The wiki is for those who are already users of the software.
I don't entirely agree - i think wiki would be for new users learning about the software, features what it can do, learning the basics etc.
Those who have used it for a while and have questions come here to the forums.
-
I don't entirely agree - i think wiki would be for new users learning about the software, features what it can do, learning the basics etc. Those who have used it for a while and have questions come here to the forums.
If they are "new users learning about..." then they're users, aren't they? And it's up to them to decide where they want to be. My point is the wiki must not pretend to be a second home for PVD. It's sole purpose is to provide help documentation for users of PVD. Users of PVD don't need a second introduction or sales pitch. Give them what they're looking for—without the bullshit.
If a non-user's first introduction to the software is the wiki, they deserve to know it's limited purpose, and where to find the actual "home" of the application. Some will stay, as reviewing help documentation is often a good way to determine whether a program will suit one's needs, while also giving a indication of it's quality. So all the more reason to keep the wiki clean, professional and focused on it's purpose.
I've made a few minor changes to the wiki that are, more or less, based on this idea. I put links to "PVD Home" and "PVD Support" at the top of the menu list. I don't care if they stay there, if there's a better way to "integrate" the two sites. I removed a few of the "fluff" features that add nothing to it's main function. I was tempted to remove the forum as well, but editors may want to use that to communicate with one another on wiki matters.
A great illustration of why I'm fussy about this...The wiki originally hosted the program installation file. This was an extraordinarily bad idea. If it wasn't a perfect mirror of what was here (and I don't believe it was) it could only be a source of potential trouble. Even if a new user got a good file, they would be deprived of the knowledge of the location of the official file archive (here). My fix for this was very simple—I removed the file hosting capability of the wiki.
i like what you've done. Just what i had in mind. - Links to high level content.
What did I do? My suggestion was to use a TOC as the main component of the wiki home page. That's something functional that every visitor needs. So cut the bullshit and give it to them!
BTW, you may want to clarify the likely future of the wiki with nostra before investing a lot of time in it. It's currently running like a ghost ship—hosted by someone we've had no contact with (AFAIK) for over a year. I would want to know what would happen to the wiki if the plug were pulled. I think it would be rather presumptuous to assume nostra would recreate it elsewhere. Aside from finding it ineffective and a PITA to maintain, this is why I was trying to discuss an alternative (http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?topic=2082.0).
-
I don't entirely agree - i think wiki would be for new users learning about the software, features what it can do, learning the basics etc. Those who have used it for a while and have questions come here to the forums.
If they are "new users learning about..." then they're users, aren't they? And it's up to them to decide where they want to be. My point is the wiki must not pretend to be a second home for PVD. It's sole purpose is to provide help documentation for users of PVD. Users of PVD don't need a second introduction or sales pitch. Give them what they're looking for—without the bullshit.
A wiki is a community maintained reference document. Ideally suite to cover basic and advance features of software.
Putting various forms of help documentation is sensible. Help documentation would normally start with a program overview so that could be added as well. Basically anything the community could reasonably expect to maintain.
Of course breaking copyright without permission is unwise, especially with nostra.
I've made a few minor changes to the wiki that are, more or less, based on this idea. I put links to "PVD Home" and "PVD Support" at the top of the menu list. I don't care if they stay there, if there's a better way to "integrate" the two sites. I removed a few of the "fluff" features that add nothing to it's main function. I was tempted to remove the forum as well, but editors may want to use that to communicate with one another on wiki matters.
Four links on the wiki home page to http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/ is just silly.
imo we do not need 2 PVD forum. wiki suport can be done here. While it is true the multi lingual support is better with the wiki software that applies to all PVD communication.
BTW, you may want to clarify the likely future of the wiki with nostra before investing a lot of time in it. It's currently running like a ghost ship—hosted by someone we've had no contact with (AFAIK) for over a year. I would want to know what would happen to the wiki if the plug were pulled. I think it would be rather presumptuous to assume nostra would recreate it elsewhere. Aside from finding it ineffective and a PITA to maintain, this is why I was trying to discuss an alternative (http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?topic=2082.0).
Yep we know you do not like the wiki rick and would like it to die.
However your Integrated Help Forum (http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?topic=2082.0) is not an alternative. Sure it will give the moderators / thread originators power trip but it will do nothing to encourage community participation in the arduous documentation task, and users will be left to wade through crap to find their answers. Forums and wiki have different strengths and weaknesses. They can compliment each other well.
-
What we miss at the moment in any form is what I call "Undocumented or "hidden" but very powerful PVD features". Maybe it would be good to establish a separate board for this, just for the start?
And I mean here on things like keyboard shortcuts, multiple editing, working with operators in advanced search, various commands in context menus, etc, etc...
-
A wiki is a community maintained reference document. Ideally suite to cover basic and advance features of software.
Putting various forms of help documentation is sensible. Help documentation would normally start with a program overview so that could be added as well. Basically anything the community could reasonably expect to maintain.
I think we all know what a wiki is. What has this got to do with the simple point I was making?
Of course breaking copyright without permission is unwise, especially with nostra.
What are you talking about? Where is the copyright issue in this?
Four links on the wiki home page to http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/ is just silly.
Are you suggesting I delete CAD's work while it's in progress? As I explained, I made a few simple changes to the menu to illustrate a possibility. I suppose as the "wiki-hater" I should stay out of it, but it's something only an administrator can do.
imo we do not need 2 PVD forum. wiki suport can be done here.
Fortunately for those who may need it, I don't listen to your advice.
Yep we know you do not like the wiki rick and would like it to die.
My, how pathetically judgmental of you. ::)
Sure it will give the moderators / thread originators power trip but it will do nothing to encourage community participation in the arduous documentation task, and users will be left to wade through crap to find their answers.
Nonsense. I presented a perfectly sound proposal of which encouraging community participation and making the whole process easier and more efficient were the cornerstones. You made this silly claims before, and then failed to support them. It seemed you couldn't even be bothered to read what I had written. It's a proposal for an alternative to the wiki. You don't have to agree with it. I'm not sure I do. But there are very good reasons for considering alternatives. All you're demonstrating here is that you don't have the capacity to consider such things.
-
What we miss at the moment in any form is what I call "Undocumented or "hidden" but very powerful PVD features". Maybe it would be good to establish a separate board for this, just for the start?
You're welcome to post whatever you like to the Support forum. Your topic might be on one such feature, or a group of them according to some theme. If they're good, we'll make them sticky. If there's many of them, we can move them to a new forum.
You're also welcome to add whatever you like to the wiki. The original author did an amazing job of covering most of the obvious topics, many holes remain unfilled. And those tend to be the more advanced ones that users really need help on. Also lacking are the "how to" type topics that actually explain how to do something complex and may require the use of many different program features—as well as external tools. For example, how to get started, import data from an existing database, mass import different meta data from a variety of sources, design a work flow for adding videos on a regular basis, etc.
-
I've not had much luck with table of contents. It is too hard to order contents easily.
I have found wiki trails work quite well to provide a logical order and can be used to create a table of contents automatically.
I don't know if tikiwiki has the functionality to do this. Unfortunately the mark up language is a lot different to what I use at work (pmwiki) and i'm still trying to work out its quirks. Im also trying to figure out what its feature set.
Where has everyone been looking to work out how to use "structures" which I think is what is behind the toc?
This tiki wiki structure manual page (http://doc.tikiwiki.org/Structure+User) looks interesting
Problems with structure order is discussed here (http://doc.tikiwiki.org/Mods+clean+structure)
btw, Like the header they have on the tiki wiki site and the all documentation page (http://doc.tiki.org/Documentation). I wonder how they do it. Makes me wonder if we could put the equivalent of the http://www.videodb.info header to increase integration and provide uniform navigation buttons.
The integration will be limited by having to maintain 2 logins and associated profiles however imo it could be a step in the right direction.
-
want to clarify the likely future of the wiki with nostra before investing a lot of time in it.
This is a good point - I don't want to invest a lot of effort in this if it is going to be dumped
Nostra? :)
I guess i have shown that there is potential outside of simple wiki.
Where has everyone been looking to work out how to use "structures" which I think is what is behind the toc?
i really don't know enough about tikiwiki markup yet.
I know pmwiki well and TOC / structures type stuff was really hard to get working well.
I ended up dropping it in favour of wikilinks. - one page links to another creating an index trail.
Im not sure if tikiwiki has this or some sort of equivalent.
i'll probably have install it locally to find out all its quirks, and then get rick or nostra to make admin changes or get them to grant me admin privileges if i needed.
Headers etc are good. was planning to groovy every thing up a bit as i figure out how :)
The integration will be limited by having to maintain 2 logins and associated profiles however imo it could be a step in the right direction.
I don't understand this??
-
The integration will be limited by having to maintain 2 logins and associated profiles however imo it could be a step in the right direction.
I don't understand this??
In an ideal world we could fully integrate the wiki and the forum.
I think nostra looked at it when the wiki was first proposed and decided the time investment it would take him to move the forum to a platform which supported a wiki would be too demanding on his time. So the wiki was hosted on different software, by a PVD supportive user. (Actually there were separate English and Russian wiki if I remember correctly which were then combined into one.) If this was to be reconsidered I have no idea what software would be used as the forum in tiki wiki (http://tiki.org/tiki-forums.php) looks inferior to what is currently used here.
A way of making the wiki appear to be part of http://www.videodb.info would be to make the home pages identical.
Most of the links on the wiki home page would then direct the user to http://www.videodb.info pages, except of course the wiki tab.
Where this fails though is the logins/registration are separate between the different sites/software.
None the less, a wiki home page which looks and feels similar to http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php and mostly links to www.videodb.info has merit imo from an integration perspective. Nostra would have to not object of course.
The alternative is we just make it as good as we can make it in its own way. Nostra would then be able to later move new useful functionality back here later if he thought some new features had merit.
-
In an ideal world we could fully integrate the wiki and the forum.
ok - get it.
look and feel should be technical feasible.
Look is based on css of smf forum software. I don't know if this is subject to copyright etc.
i am happy to try and get it as good as it gets at this (early) stage.
for me content, in a an accessible, logical format comes first - bells and whistles second.
+ there is the learning curve of making it happen.
I think what i have done so far is a good start and should make it a bit easier for users to find stuff.
-
I think nostra looked at it when the wiki was first proposed and decided the time investment it would take him to move the forum to a platform which supported a wiki would be too demanding on his time. So the wiki was hosted on different software, by a PVD supportive user. (Actually there were separate English and Russian wiki if I remember correctly which were then combined into one.) If this was to be reconsidered I have no idea what software would be used as the forum in tiki wiki looks inferior to what is currently used here.
This is not an accurate characterization of the history of the wiki. I strongly suggest reading PVD Wiki is now online! (http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?topic=1226.0) There's also important information there that is being overlooked in this discussion and in the changes being made or contemplated.
A way of making the wiki appear to be part of http://www.videodb.info would be to make the home pages identical.
A similar look and feel would be desirable, but making them appear identical is not feasible, necessary or desirable. The wiki theme can easily be changed, but the theme has to support the unique and fully-integrated feature set of TikiWiki. Having multiple links back to PVD is silly, remember? Generally, having "one way in and one way out" has to be the cleanest and least confusing approach. Any link that goes directly a specific section of this site should only be used in a specific context where it will be understood and helpful. For example, "If you require further assistance, please ask in the Support forum (http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?board=1.0)." But even this has to be considered carefully, as it assumes the reader is already registered here, or would be able to figure out how to do so. This is just one of countless examples where successfully pretending to be the same site will only cause problems.
I've already recommended using a TOC as the homepage for the wiki. This is what users expect to see when using the wiki link here. A similar look and feel would be nice, but there's no advantage to making it look identical. It's a completely different system on a different site—and the user has to understand that.
Please bear in mind that whatever "structural" changes you make compel Russian users to do the same (which may just be translating your work), or doing it their own way (I don't know—it might be easy for them just to keep their existing version). I think you should at least give them a heads-up about any significant changes you plan to make. You should be able to seem from the logs who you should be communicating with.
Nostra would then be able to later move new useful functionality back here later if he thought some new features had merit.
As I've suggested, you should probably let nostra speak for himself on such things. I suspect he'd strongly prefer a user-managed solution that didn't require his attention or time. That might rule-out hosting TikiWiki here. Using anything else—including a properly integrated SMF solution—probably means only the existing wiki content would survive. And speaking of a properly integrated SMF solution, we should be looking at what might be possible with the soon-to-be-released SMF 2.0. If the much simpler solution (http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?topic=2082.0) I proposed is unacceptable, this is probably the next best thing.
-
look and feel should be technical feasible.
Was thinking mainly in terms of adding a Wiki site header (http://doc.tiki.org/Look+and+Feel) with tabs on it similar to http://www.videodb.info and linking to locations here such as Download, forum, Donations.
This should remove the need for a whole pile of links which imply the user is at the wrong site.
Would be good to have a search box there to.
We would need to label the login as "Wiki Login" so as not to confuse it with the forum login here.
Similarly the title should be something like "Personal Video Database Wiki"
for me content, in a an accessible, logical format comes first - bells and whistles second.
+ there is the learning curve of making it happen.
I think what i have done so far is a good start and should make it a bit easier for users to find stuff.
I would really like to get toc / structure functionality working. That way displaying parts of the toc become trivial and ultimately easier to maintain.
The page ranking (http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-wiki_rankings.php) suggests that other users have found this format useful too.
I can see the structures (http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-admin_structures.php) OK. The PVD-Manual Structure (http://www.nimidia.com/pvd_wiki/tiki-edit_structure.php?page_ref_id=224) is also visible apparently in edit mode, but I can not work out how to add any new pages.
I wonder if it is a protection problem as edit structure rights (http://doc.tiki.org/Structure+Admin) are probably off by default for wiki users.
Would be worth trying to run the clean structure comand (http://doc.tiki.org/Mods+clean+structure) at some time to see if it fixes the numbering problem cwdean was having.
-
I would really like to get toc / structure functionality working
the TOC can be added at any time. what makes a toc work is a logical structure first.
Get the content in. lay it out so it makes sense and is easy to find. Build TOC.
any new content then gets added logically and TOC.
Search is good - i guess that will come as i come to grips with new wiki.
sphider is a good open source search engine.
-
Was thinking mainly in terms of adding a Wiki site header (http://doc.tiki.org/Look+and+Feel) with tabs on it similar to http://www.videodb.info and linking to locations here such as Download, forum, Donations.
Don't do this. It's a bad idea—for the reasons I've already stated.
-
I do not see much difference between forum and wiki in regard of providing help to the users. Both can be configured to provide similar functionality and it is equally easy to implement links to any of those in the application.
Rick has a good point: providing help topics in the forum is definitely less work to do. At the current state of things I would tend to use forum, but naturally, if some has time to provide a well structured wiki page I could reconsider this.
I do not have time to study different wiki engines and such, so maybe I just do not see some kind of easy solution thou. Also, if someone has a step by step instruction of adding wiki functionality to the existing forum engine, then it could be of great help.
-
I do not have time to study different wiki engines and such, so maybe I just do not see some kind of easy solution thou. Also, if someone has a step by step instruction of adding wiki functionality to the existing forum engine, then it could be of great help.
No solution involving separate wiki software is going to be "easy." Some might be "worth the effort"—if the creation, maintenance and administration effort is supplied by users. This is somewhat of a catch-22, as not many users will be willing and able to help unless the solution is easy to use. This was the main reason for my Integrated Help Forum (http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?topic=2082.0) suggestion. It's not particularly elegant, but it's easy to implement and offers virtually no impediment to user participation.
A better solution would be wiki functionality fully integrated with the forum software. That is possible using the WikiStyle (http://custom.simplemachines.org/themes/index.php?lemma=46) SMF theme—which is illustrated rather effectively by the SMF Online Manual (http://docs.simplemachines.org/). I suppose this would be little more than a polished version of the "Help" forum I suggested—"...topics are 'documents' and replies are 'comments'." The ability to sort topics means they can be presented in any form of TOC, and it seems this should be much easier to do than it is with TikiWiki. You'll also recognize integrating such help documentation with the program is as simple as linking the topic URL's via an HTML help file.
Others here, for reasons I can't fathom, have a strong objection to a solution that allows users to comment on and discuss help topics. It's commonly used elsewhere, and it seems to me a very effective way to engage the user community in the creation and maintenance of effective help documentation.
-
I do not see much difference between forum and wiki in regard of providing help to the users. Both can be configured to provide similar functionality and it is equally easy to implement links to any of those in the application.
The useful wiki feature for online manual maintenance as I see it are
1) Good page version control tracking who has made changes and easy reversion of changes. This enables liberal delegation of edit rights, encouraging all users to contribute to documentation maintenance. In contrast to a forum where topic header edit rights require administrator privileges which are sensibly only granted to a small fraction of trusted users. The inability to directly fix the documentation without believing knowledge justifies being a moderator and existing administrators agreeing will not increase volunteers to maintain forum documentation.
2) Structures, providing efficient generation of lists / contents. The information content is language independent so only needs to be done once across multiple language versions of the manual
3) Language translation and tracking support is more refined, consistent with the wiki focus on maintaining a reference document vs the forum focus on tracking and storing conversations.
The end result is maintenance of a document in a forum is clearly possible. However it will end up being done by the moderators and in multiple languages. Not a problem for an organisation with a document writer. Also not a problem if nostra, rick and reset are comfortable writing and maintaining it. Or perhaps you are happy with the current level of documentation, noob users support, in which case moving in to the forum environment is probably not to onerous.
Rick has a good point: providing help topics in the forum is definitely less work to do.
Agree administering one site is going to be easier than 2
At the current state of things I would tend to use forum, but naturally, if some has time to provide a well structured wiki page I could reconsider this.
This maybe happening at the moment imo but that is open for debate.
I do not have time to study different wiki engines and such, so maybe I just do not see some kind of easy solution thou. Also, if someone has a step by step instruction of adding wiki functionality to the existing forum engine, then it could be of great help.
From what I have see software tends to do a forum well or do a wiki well but not both (imo). So doing both well would require the user logging into the forum and wiki independently if they wanted to write in either. (And yes I have looked at WikiStyle SMF theme (http://custom.simplemachines.org/themes/index.php?lemma=46). Similarly SMF Online Manual (http://docs.simplemachines.org/) is OK as a manual and reads as if it was written by a documentation writer with the comments mostly asking for support and being referred to the forum, not suggesting updates to the help pages. This is a perfectly reasonable approach if if one person wants control of the documentation, it is just different to a collaborative document. Interestingly they run two copies of the forum software and require a separate login for each)
-
From what I have see software tends to do a forum well or do a wiki well but not both (imo).
Your basis for trashing my proposal and most of your reasoning for supporting a separate wiki all seem to be based on this—your opinion. You still haven't presented any concrete reasoning why this should be so.
Yes, wiki software is designed for maintaining wikis, so it does offer unique features that might be useful in that regard. But do we need these features? Do we need them enough to justify sacrificing ease-of-use, accessibility and forum integration?
1) Page version control is a nice feature, but are we really going to have many users fighting over how to modify one page? I don't think so. If we have a concern about people making changes others don't approve of, we can adopt a rule that no changes other than simple edits or additions may be done without first archiving the previous version.
2) Structures are nice for complex environment, but for our needs it just makes things more difficult. In a forum board, the same can be done directly via a topic number.
3) Our only apparent need for multilingual support is the existence of English and Russian user groups. I'm quite sure each group would be just as happy maintaining their own help documentation, and not have to worry about whether it's a mirror image of the other group's documentation. If we want to, we can read each other's documentation using Google Translate, and copy any content we want.
However it will end up being done by the moderators and in multiple languages. Not a problem for an organisation with a document writer. Also not a problem if nostra, rick and reset are comfortable writing and maintaining it. Or perhaps you are happy with the current level of documentation, noob users support, in which case moving in to the forum environment is probably not to onerous.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. It sounds like a description of the problems we're having now relying on an external wiki. But from you said immediately before, I suppose it's repetition of the spurious arguments you've made in previous posts. And to which I've repeatedly explained...
Maintaining documentation in the forum would make it much more accessible to all—not just those needing the help, but anyone inclined to help maintain the documentation. My personal interest in what I proposed is I don't have time to do it, so I would like to see a mechanism that makes it easier for others to participate. I suggested anyone who asks should be given moderator privileges for the Help board. At the same time, it would make the task of helping users in the Support board much easier because posts can be easily moved and linked between the two boards. I'm sure there would be a similar synergy between feature suggestion and beta testing discussions.
So doing both well would require the user logging into the forum and wiki independently if they wanted to write in either.
Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. This, obviously, it one of the significant problems with using an external wiki. It's one I would hope can be resolved by using the forum. I'm not in a position to test and verify this, but from what I can gather from SMF documentation this should be possible. A theme (http://docs.simplemachines.org/index.php?topic=183) can be applied at the board (http://docs.simplemachines.org/index.php?topic=209) level of a forum (http://docs.simplemachines.org/index.php?topic=201). So the WikiStyle theme could be applied to a Help board, and that board would take on the look and feel of a wiki.
So it would seem perfect integration may not only be feasible, but very easy to implement. A huge advantage to this integration—in addition to the ability to move and cross-reference material between the boards—is the Help board would be searched using the existing (rather good) search facility. This means that one search would return results from the help documentation as well as items from any other board included in the search. That might be so effective, we could scrap the idea of an HTML help file entirely. Instead, program help would simply run a search. This can be done now with a Web search like...
http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?action=search;advanced;search=help 8)
The more I think about it, the more it seems we've been held back by the existence of the wiki. And the unfounded assumption a wiki must always be best for help documentation.
-
Unfortunately it seems like many users have difficulties when starting using PVD.
It's been a useful experiment, but the unavoidable conclusion is that no wiki is going to work very well in our circumstances.
Hits PVD Wiki Home :- English: 27432 Russian: 6802
Page Ranking English:
--PVD-Manual ie table of contants (11047) (Which was not easy to find in the old wiki)
--Launching-PVD-for-the-First-Time (4734)
Page Ranking Russian
--Руководство по PVD ie table of contents (2823)
--Запуск PVD в первый раз ie Launching-PVD-for-the-First-Time (2092)
You still haven't presented any concrete reasoning why this should be so.
we could scrap the idea of an HTML help file entirely. Instead, program help would simply run a search. This can be done now with a Web search like...
http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?action=search;advanced;search=help
Sorry rick I do not believe it is possible for me to explain the issues to you.
-
The argument over which is better, wiki or forum is nonsensical. They perform different functions.
The forum is place to discuss PVD. The wiki is a place to store documentaion about PVD.
One is relatively dynamic, the other relatively static.
Version 2 of SMF appears to be forum software with CMS built in.
It is no different from what exists now except it is in one integrated software package.
It could just as easily be achieved with a WIKI or other form of CMS and using SMF APIs to achieve integration.
From what i can see - the wiki was created to create place where new users go to get help on how to use PVD. It was created as a way of creating a manual for PVD. This was done extremely well. The content is fantastic. The changes i have made with the wiki have been minimal and mostly around re-organising where pages live make access to them seem to be more of a manual.
Creating and maintaining documentation is always going to be difficult, no matter what system is used. It usually requires one or two people to own it.
I think documentation helps/how to etc needs to be separated from the forum otherwise they get lost amongst the discussion. New users are not going to wade through pages of discussion to get to the "how to content" and i can't see moderators moving the "good stuff" from the discussion to the top of the forum entry, so it is instantly accessible to those interested.
Here's how i think it should (and probably does) work. New users find PVD. Download and install, and then try and figure out how to use it.
They go to the wiki have a bit of a look around and then start asking questions in the forums if they can't work it out. Once they have a handle on the program they probably never go back to the wiki. Experience users come straight to the forum.
Given the power and with that , complexity, of PVD, I fear many users try PVD and drop it because it is too difficult. A decent manual (in whatever form) that is geared towards new users would go a long way to resolving this.
I can't see that the wiki is a failure given the no of hits it has received. I do see it as a failure in that it fails -"To provide assistance to new users" easily.
The wiki or any other CMS system is never going to replace the forums because they provide different functions.
The advantage of the forums is that they provide dynamic exchange of ideas. The advantage of the wiki (or other CMS) is it provides static and structured (and hopefully easy to find) content.
The way i see it, the wiki stores the content and the forums are where the content is created.
Your basis for trashing my proposal
Rick - This is harsh. No one has trashed your idea. we have discussed its merits and potential pitfalls. This is what a forum is for.
and most of your reasoning for supporting a separate wiki all seem to be based on this—your opinion.
It is more than opinion. I have extensive experience in operating a wiki. I researched and trialed many. The advantages of wiki style CMS, is that content can be easily restructured and reused, there are geared towards CMSs rather than forums, with the advantages highlighted above and they have a wide array of plugins to provide additional functions.
As i said before the two ideas / formats can coexist. For example - The forum method for creating and developing "how tos" and dynamic content and when they are stable copy and paste into the manual so "noobs" have easy access
-
Hits PVD Wiki Home...
How many of these hits are from bots? If you believe they're all from people, how do you explain the relatively tiny number of logins and page edits?
Sorry rick I do not believe it is possible for me to explain the issues to you.
That's okay. I don't need the issues explained to me. ::)
The argument over which is better, wiki or forum is nonsensical. They perform different functions...
The fact we're having an argument (rather than a debate) is nonsensical. The idea that something designed primarily for one purpose can't be used for another purpose is nonsensical. Have you never manipulated a large table or a small flat database in Excel, even though those are functions that are supposed to be in the realm of Word and Access respectively?
Version 2 of SMF appears to be forum software with CMS built in...
You are mistaken. Version 2 is no different than version 1 in this regard. The same theme that makes a board look and feel like a wiki works in both versions. The same level of integration cannot possibly be achieved using other software. While some degree of integration is theoretically possible, it would be a huge amount of work and an ongoing maintenance headache—for an inferior result.
From what i can see - the wiki was created to create place where new users go to get help on how to use PVD.
So what? That's why this forum was created too. So why are we trying to use two different tools at two different sites to serve the same purpose? Seems a bit nonsensical to me.
I think documentation helps/how to etc needs to be separated from the forum otherwise they get lost amongst the discussion.
The reasoning here remains as circular as was when it was first used. Your argument that the needed information will be lost is based on your assumption users will not maintain the topic. This is ludicrous. If no one can be bothered updating a topic at the head of a discussion thread they're participating in, obviously they're not going to go the a different site, log into a software system they're not familiar with, and enter the content there.
Here's how i think it should (and probably does) work.
Still circular. Because you think it should work this way, it should work this way. What is your objection to new users getting exactly the same content right here? If they have any question about the content, they can ask right in the applicable topic. If they want additional information, they might find valuable insights in other users' comments on the topic.
The wiki or any other CMS system is never going to replace the forums because they provide different functions.
Repetition of a false premise is not helping your argument. It's only making obvious that it's build on a false premise.
Rick - This is harsh. No one has trashed your idea. we have discussed its merits and potential pitfalls. This is what a forum is for.
It's not the least bit harsh. You made no attempt to address the merits (or lack thereof) of my proposal. You only argued that a wiki is designed for maintaining documentation and therefore must be a superior solution. Even after I repeatedly explained the merits (and, to be fair, even some of disadvantages and limitations) of the proposal, you refused to even acknowledge these points. The purpose of a forum is to discuss issues. To debate them, if necessary. You did not do this. You hijacked a topic, apparently because you believed the idea presented was one that would threaten the wiki. This is not particularly rational, as the wiki already faces real threats to its continued existence. This was one of the reasons for me making the proposal—we may very well need an alternative.
But, I suppose this argument—as negative as it has been—has still served a useful purpose. It's now clear any objective analysis of all the pros and cons of both alternatives can only come to one conclusion: Integrating the help documentation here is by far the most practical, efficient and useful solution. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest we focus on those pros and cons, rather than endless arguments based on circular reasoning and unfounded opinion. Or...
As i said before the two ideas / formats can coexist. For example - The forum method for creating and developing "how tos" and dynamic content and when they are stable copy and paste into the manual so "noobs" have easy access
...maybe this is what we should do. But I see no reason to arbitrarily restrict the forum help to so-called "how-tos." It would make more sense to duplicate the entire contents of the wiki, and let users decide which one is more convenient and useful.
-
how do you explain the relatively tiny number of logins and page edits?
People don't need to login and edit to read a manual. I would expect new users would not login as they would have no reason to.They would merely be reading content not participating.
Robots would hit the home page not sub pages. Stats indicate most hits are for the manual.
The same theme that makes a board look and feel like a wiki works in both versions. The same level of integration cannot possibly be achieved using other software.
I have done it.
If no one can be bothered updating a topic at the head of a discussion thread they're participating in, obviously they're not going to go the a different site
This is exactly point. They are not going to update the forum or the wiki someone needs to take ownership and do it.
This is why there is little activity on the wiki. People are lazy and want the answers given to them.
What is your objection to new users getting exactly the same content right here?
The fact that they have to search and then wade through multiple threads to find the information they are looking for, or as more often the case, they post and ask the same questions that has been asked many times before. You usually point them to the relevant thread in the forum, where they have to wade through it to get the answers they require. I have had to do this when I was starting out and found it to be very frustrating. Having common answers in a manual would have been much easier.
Some examples of concerns with your idea:
[redundant material deleted]
If they are "new users learning about..." then they're users, aren't they?
If they are "new users" who can't get help they will leave!
From what i can see - the wiki was created to create place where new users go to get help on how to use PVD.
So what? That's why this forum was created too. So why are we trying to use two different tools at two different sites to serve the same purpose? Seems a bit nonsensical to me.
The forum is used to get clarification ask questions etc when something is unclear. The wiki is the starting point, the manual. It is like buying a tv. If you can't figure something out, The first thing you do is read the manual. You don't call the help line or start searching/posting on forums.
So why are we trying to use two different tools at two different sites to serve the same purpose
They are different purposes. as already stated. "The wiki is the manual The forum is the help line."
You only argued that a wiki is designed for maintaining documentation and therefore must be a superior solution
This is incorrect, I argued that the content of the wiki should be separated from the forum. For the reasons outlined above. I do not particularly care where it is stored. I do believe it should be formatted in a way that geared towards people who have never used PVD before and are looking for starting point.
Still circular. Because you think it should work this way, it should work this way. What is your objection to new users getting exactly the same content right here? If they have any question about the content, they can ask right in the applicable topic. If they want additional information, they might find valuable insights in other users' comments on the topic.
The wiki or any other CMS system is never going to replace the forums because they provide different functions.
Repetition of a false premise is not helping your argument. It's only making obvious that it's build on a false premise.
You keep repeating this, but don't offer reasons why is it based on false premises other than it is your opinion that it is a false premise.
Even after I repeatedly explained the merits (and, to be fair, even some of disadvantages and limitations) of the proposal, you refused to even acknowledge these points. The purpose of a forum is to discuss issues. To debate them, if necessary. You did not do this. You hijacked a topic,
??? - You posted your idea, presumably because you wanted comment on it, and now you are unhappy because people have commented on it and its not to your liking. You didn't address any of the concerns raised and proceeded to attack anyone who disagreed with you. You even moved the thread to a different topic - How can this be hijacking??
Your argument that the needed information will be lost is based on your assumption users will not maintain the topic.
Please explain how it would work?
Would anyone be able to edit change the top level/Help topic?
as the wiki already faces real threats to its continued existence. This was one of the reasons for me making the proposal—we may very well need an alternative.
This is a real concern, it would be a shame to loose such valuable content.
The data should be backed up so it can be reused in whatever medium Nostra decides to make use of.
-
This discussion is no longer serving any purpose and will now end. If on nothing else, we seem to agree the two methods of maintaining documentation can co-exist. You're free to do what you like with the wiki. I have the right to advocate something I believe will greatly improve the effectiveness and user experience of this forum. I suggest we just leave it at that.