Stephen D. Williams writes:
> Gordon Mohr wrote:
> > > Are you going to add more metadata options for this, or what? The
> > > current options are pretty limited.
> > We will continue expanding the tag-types for new file formats
> > and expressed user needs -- but initially, we don't want to
> > overwhelm people with too many options.
> There's only one way to do this now that I would approve of: allow
> arbitrary XML tags in the description area. Use an XML/full-text style
> indexer that allows people to search for arbitrary tags with synonyms.
> Accept certain often used tags as 'standard' for a subcategory and
> present them to users as suggested options.
This is very much along the lines of our current implementation and
We're not quite ready for people to add a "frabazzle" element in the
middle of our already-defined "Audio Track" or "(Plain Text)
Description" tags. Instead, we'll want such innovation to occur inside
a to-be-defined framework allowing experimental tags, with the most
useful recurring formats eventually being promoted to prominence.
> The whole relational style field thing is passe. Dead. Brain damaged.
> Morally corrupt.
Easy to say! But an awful lot of businesses have died trying to discard
(internally) or compete with (externally) the relational model.
> > We'll also be tweaking the rating system as necessary to promote
> > participation, deter gaming, and highlight the most-popular,
> Deter gaming? There's got to be a story or interesting fear there.
Nothing specific. We'd like to offer tangible rewards for volume
contributions or top ratings, but we don't want people to then
perform those activities unthinkingly, creating bad content, just
for the rewards. That's all.
Gordon Mohr - email@example.com
CTO, Bitzi - http://bitzi.com
Personal - http://xavvy.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:26:09 PDT