...and the strength of the database is that it can be added to by anyone at all. Anyone who, for example, knows of kangaroo diagrams that aren't listed in the database could simply add the model using the 'Add model to Database' link.wolf wrote:...and therein lies the drawback of relying on the origami database as a sole source - it's not yet a comprehensive listing of what's out there!
yes, and that's also the biggest weakness. if the diagrams of webpages are includes, there's always a very big risk, that the webpage may be offline, or have a changed URL. the diagrams could also be deleted and so on. it's better, not to include the web-diagrams into the database!...and the strength of the database is that it can be added to by anyone at all. Anyone who, for example, knows of kangaroo diagrams that aren't listed in the database could simply add the model using the 'Add model to Database' link.
It's the biggest weakness of the web, not the database. Anything that catalogues web based items or contains links has this problem.TheRealChris wrote: yes, and that's also the biggest weakness....
right, but we would take over this problem into a good working systemIt's the biggest weakness of the web, not the database. Anything that catalogues web based items or contains links has this problem.
just let three or four years pass, and the number of deadlinks will rise to the sky. who will check the links? and who will edit them? maybe too much effort? what's the use of an diagram-link, that may already be dead? I mean, there would probably be hundreds of links to hundreds of maybe-online-diagrams. who will keep an eye onto those maybe-online-diagrams. and who will find the new webpage, when the database link isn't working?A simple email in the comments/corrections will cover URL changes etc.
so I'll stop herehowever, we're a bit off-topic here
I agree that it is a little involved. The long load is simply to try to avoid duplicate entries, buut we could probably simplify this.wolf wrote: Right now, the "Add Model" routine is mostly tailored to books and magazines; it's also a fairly involved form to fill in (the drop down menu in the "book/model checking" routine takes forever to load!). After which it has to go past the editors before being added to the database. It's a robust system involving many checks, which is good because it maintains the high quality of the database.
My arguments here have always been that firstly, websites don't actually change that often, and even if they did, then only the base name will change, not the contents, in which case a simple email will fix it. Secondly, I've also tried to get people to keep their own website entries up to date, but with little success.wolf wrote: For websites however, is it really worth the submitter's/editor's effort to process something which could go obsolete the next day, month or year? Plus, one would have to routinely do link checking and updating to ensure that the database is kept up to date.
This is pretty much what the Origami Database is! A moderated, user-editable database. The problems arise with making such a thing searchable in a sensible way. At this point you need specific fields and names and formats or it just ends up being a mess.wolf wrote: A Wiki-style, user-editable database for online diagrams might be the way to go. There's always the risk of Wiki abuse, but this can be kept to a minimum by moderators, log-in only editing, edit history, etc.
Would it be possible to add the duplicate checking after the submission process? Basically, all submissions would be placed in a queue that can be processed at a later stage. I can see that having the duplicate checking during submission will prevent submitters from unknowingly adding duplicate entries (and hence wasting their time), but perhaps the onus of checking for duplicates should be placed on the submitter. Perhaps a big "CHECK THIS LIST BEFORE SUBMITTING!" sign at the submission page? Submitters can then ignore it at their own peril...denori wrote:I agree that it is a little involved. The long load is simply to try to avoid duplicate entries, but we could probably simplify this.
It's more the dead link problem, and knowing netizens, sending simple emails is easier said than done.denori wrote:My arguments here have always been that firstly, websites don't actually change that often, and even if they did, then only the base name will change, not the contents, in which case a simple email will fix it.
If you could automatically feed the WWW entries into a linkchecking site, that could help prune down the number of dead entries.Guilty as charged.denori wrote: Secondly, I've also tried to get people to keep their own website entries up to date, but with little success.
My excuse is that sometimes it's not the website owner that does the submission for their sites, but a third party. So website owners may not even know that their entries have been placed on the database.I was thinking something bigger, really, more like a comprehensive online encyclopedia of origami history, tips, tricks, techniques, what-have-you. The origami model database would then be a subset of this, and the wiki search options can be configured to search the database only, if the user so wishes. As it is now, I think the search on the ODB works nicely; often you don't get too many returned results that it's impractical to look them over by eye.denori wrote:This is pretty much what the Origami Database is! A moderated, user-editable database. The problems arise with making such a thing searchable in a sensible way. At this point you need specific fields and names and formats or it just ends up being a mess.
I didn't know that could be done! Can you email me privately with some details please? Thanks.If you could automatically feed the WWW entries into a linkchecking site, that could help prune down the number of dead entries.
All of these could be incorporated into a Wiki and then built upon by subsequent Wiki users. I think it might be an interesting experiment to try, does anyone out there want to volunteer to set it up?denori wrote:If a Wiki were to be started, then one good place to start would probably be (I think ) Dorothy Englemann's site. I think it was she who started the 'Encyclopaedia Origamica'. Then there's the wealth of knowledge contained in David Lister's stuff on the BOS site.
I've sent you a private message here with more info on this.denori wrote:I didn't know that could be done! Can you email me privately with some details please? Thanks.
