On Do, 2011-07-21 at 13:46 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 13:32 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Do, 2011-07-21 at 11:10 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > I suggest some simple structural changes to the website, to make things
> > clearer:
> > 1. Remove the wiki link.
> > We should just accept that the website _is_ a wiki. That "main page"
> > page has become a target of random user feedback. That's not the best
> > place for it.
> > Partly because of the text sizes and layout, the comments look like main
> > (rather random) content at first glance.
> I agree that this is problematic. But technically there is a difference
> between the rest of the web site and the Wiki part: normal users may
> only edit the Wiki pages.
> Are you suggesting that all pages should be editable by anyone?
Actually, yes, though I'd lock the front page. It needs you to be
careful about only allowing edits when logged in and having some bot
protection for new user creation. But that's probably a problem that you
already have with the wiki pages.
If you want only a sub-section of the site to be user-editable then the
distinction needs to be clearer. Personally, I think it leads to
fragmentated content instead of improved content.
I agree. The Wiki feature was added later, we never got around to
integrating it properly.
I don't mind granting more people the right to edit pages. Spam has been
a problem only in the comments, not in Wiki pages themselves. But I
guess that's just a matter of time :-/
> > 3. Add a real Downloads page.
> > This is currently just a directory listing. There should be some brief
> > text and a description of each binary and how to install it.
> What kind of text and description would you expect for, e.g.,
I'd link to http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/
and describe it without referring to any particular version.
So in other words, a page which wraps downloads.syncevolution.org
lists the currently relevant files?
> > 2. Remove comments.
> > The comments don't seem like the best way to deal with feedback, and
> > they distract from the main contact. Even in the best case, old comments
> > will still be there after their feedback has been dealt with by
> > improvements in the page itself, distracting from that content and
> > giving the initial impression that those problems still exist.
> Just to be sure, you suggest to remove obsolete comments, not the
> comment feature itself, right?
I'm suggesting removing comments, though you are the best judge of how
it has been used so far.
Laissez-faire and preserving everything except for spam comments.
At the very least, I would change the text layout so that comments
> Would it make sense to move comments to an "archive"
Yes, restricting comments to a single discussion page would be an
improvement. But I really doubt that it's a good way to handle feedback.
Indeed, it should only be used for comments which are obviously not
referring to the current page or became obsolete.
> Many users left comments randomly anyway, without directly
> referring to the current page.
Yes, which makes things seem neglected.
Which is the case to some extend. I could use help on an on-going basis
for keeping the web site in good order. I know from past experience
that I will not always have the time to do this myself.
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.