CellarTracker Main Site
Register for Forum | Login | My Profile | Member List | Search

RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Cellar Talk] >> Release Notes >> RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 4:42:06 AM   
Colonel Lawrence

 

Posts: 1953
Joined: 4/24/2006
From: Arabia
Status: offline 		My head hurts.
I suspect I will be relegated to improving what you guys add.
L.

(in reply to JBaldwinRN)
Post #: 31
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 9:38:05 AM   
J_Hayden

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 10/13/2007
Status: offline 		"in the Wiki section I would only show the Wine Wiki entry"

I think this is the best solution as things are quickly getting out of hand. You already mentioned this Eric, but tabs (Wine Detail/My Holdings, Wiki, Tasting Notes/Reviews) would solve the problem, but I know thats a pain in the short term. 

< Message edited by J_Hayden -- 12/9/2007 9:39:26 AM >

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 32
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 11:48:22 AM   
drdebs

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline 		Eric, no problem. I thought you wanted feedback, so I just wanted to let you know that I love this as a feature, but my only frustration so far has been where it is placed. I like the idea of links in the white section next to those categories in the header, or moving it to the bottom. But whatever--it's a great innovation and can only get better as you and those in HQ tweak it. 

(in reply to J_Hayden)
Post #: 33
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 2:48:26 PM   
JohnNezlek

 

Posts: 208
Joined: 12/14/2006
From: Gloucester, Virginia
Status: offline 		Dear All,

I think the Wiki feature is fine, but for one of my holdings, it has already filled the better part of a page. My sense is that for most of us, the following order reflects our priorities: 1. the wine,
2. how much we own of it,
3. others' comments,
4. and then professional reviews.

Elaborate (and potentially interesting) digressions into Wiki-world are just, elabaorate digressions. I favor including the Wiki feature -- it could be a lot of fun. I think however, that the information the Wiki section it is likely to contain will be of secondary importance for most users for most of their purposes, and I think its place on the page should reflect this.

(in reply to Colonel Lawrence)
Post #: 34
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 2:57:47 PM   
Eric

 

Posts: 5590
Joined: 10/10/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Working on some deeper tweaks to streamline all of this new information. Moving the Wiki closer to the bottom for now.

_____________________________

Cheers!
-Eric LeVine

(in reply to JohnNezlek)
Post #: 35
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 4:41:28 PM   
tommyvernieri

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline 		Do normal wiki style links work? The wiki page URLs are not human readable like they are in most wikis. If I want to link the Green Path designation page to the Organic One Wines producer page do I have to do [http://www.cellartracker.com/showwikirevision.asp?JoinType=Producer&iIndex=45640 Organic One Wines]?

It would be nice if I could do something like [Organic One Wines (producer)], which is relatively close to Wikipedia's convention of URLs like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(disambiguation) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(bishop)

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 36
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 4:54:19 PM   
tommyvernieri

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline 		Here's another suggestion. You could try using CSS to decorate links rather than going in and adding /i\ to every producer website link. Wikipedia uses a class called "external" on all of its links pointing to external websites. Then this CSS puts the little box and arrow icon after each link (from http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?102):

/*
** keep the whitespace in front of the ^=, hides rule from konqueror
** this is css3, the validator doesn't like it when validating as css2
*/
#bodyContent a.external,
#bodyContent a[href ^="gopher://"] {
background: url(external.png) center right no-repeat;
padding-right: 13px;
}

(in reply to tommyvernieri)
Post #: 37
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 5:08:10 PM   
Eric

 

Posts: 5590
Joined: 10/10/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tommyvernieri

Do normal wiki style links work? The wiki page URLs are not human readable like they are in most wikis. If I want to link the Green Path designation page to the Organic One Wines producer page do I have to do [http://www.cellartracker.com/showwikirevision.asp?JoinType=Producer&iIndex=45640 Organic One Wines]?

It would be nice if I could do something like [Organic One Wines (producer)], which is relatively close to Wikipedia's convention of URLs like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(disambiguation) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(bishop)


The "internal articles" are not stored in the Wiki namespace--rather they are just rendered with the Wiki display engine. That does make linking awkward. The standalone Wiki pretty much works as expected. If you have longer articles that you want to link to from the embedded/integarted ones, perhaps author in the standalone Wiki and then link to these from the integrated.

I like your CSS idea on the information balloon. I will play...


_____________________________

Cheers!
-Eric LeVine

(in reply to tommyvernieri)
Post #: 38
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 5:09:29 PM   
tommyvernieri

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline 		Ah ha! So are there two Wikis? One that is integrated with the wine pages and one that lives at http://www.cellartracker.com/ow.asp?TitleIndex? How do these two sets of pages relate to each other? I see that wiki links work as expeced for ow.asp, but I still haven't figured out how those relate to pages like http://www.cellartracker.com/showwikirevision.asp?JoinType=Designation&iIndex=49468.

(in reply to tommyvernieri)
Post #: 39
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 5:21:12 PM   
Eric

 

Posts: 5590
Joined: 10/10/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Yes, two Wiki's of sorts. Basically just special built in (versioned) text fields integrated into the wine detail pages based on the wine metadata (the wine fields). And then a standalone Wiki.

Look at my internal and external Giacosa stuff as an example of how to use them together. http://www.cellartracker.com/showwikirevision.asp?JoinType=Producer&iIndex=20


_____________________________

Cheers!
-Eric LeVine

(in reply to tommyvernieri)
Post #: 40
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/9/2007 5:25:31 PM   
tommyvernieri

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline 		Thanks Eric. At first it wasn't clear to me that the integrated wiki was only intended for brief information and that there was a more conventional wiki for longer articles. I definitely am behind that concept. It will be nice to keep the wine pages unclutterd but at the same time be able to add important tidbits of information.

What might make this more apparent is if the wine pages also gave links to pages in the standalone wiki with a little note that more detailed information should go there. That does bring up the problem of what to do with name collisions, since you could have two unrelated wines pointing to the same standalone wiki page. Conversely there might not really be a good way for a standalone wiki page to be linked back to the producer/designation/appelation that it was created for.

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 41
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/10/2007 11:04:35 AM   
WetRock

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/9/2007
Status: offline 		I'm thinking I would like to know what people hope to get from the Wiki sections as we go forward.

For myself, I was wanting a repository for technical type of information so we can place things in there they are not covered in the basic info on CT.  But from what I've seen so far the Wiki Wine sections are being filled with writeups from winery websites.  I know where that information is if I need it and I rarely EVER read such things as they amount to marketing.  Technical info on teh other hand is not always readily available so it would be nice a place to put it when it is found on the page of the wine.

Any thoughts on that or other related subjects?  The few I have viewed linked here are really starting to just look like clutter. 

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 42
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/10/2007 2:02:17 PM   
nwinther

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 7/28/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WetRock

I'm thinking I would like to know what people hope to get from the Wiki sections as we go forward.

For myself, I was wanting a repository for technical type of information so we can place things in there they are not covered in the basic info on CT.  But from what I've seen so far the Wiki Wine sections are being filled with writeups from winery websites.  I know where that information is if I need it and I rarely EVER read such things as they amount to marketing.  Technical info on teh other hand is not always readily available so it would be nice a place to put it when it is found on the page of the wine.

Any thoughts on that or other related subjects?  The few I have viewed linked here are really starting to just look like clutter. 


I can understand what you are saying. Elsewhere, I suggested a standardized table with technical data that we could fill in (vines pr. ha, exact grape varities, alc., etc.) but wiki-material is also interesting - what does the producer hope to acheive by making a certain wine, what kinds of food does the winery or other (professional?) knowledgable people suggest, how (long) does the producer suggest you keep a certain wine etc. After all, some producers are honest with their wines and can provide a certain look at the wine.

But give it some time to develop. It's been airborne for some 48 hours, and it is, after all, a wiki.

_____________________________

What I lack in size I make up for in obnoxiousness.

(in reply to WetRock)
Post #: 43
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/10/2007 10:37:55 PM   
Eric

 

Posts: 5590
Joined: 10/10/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Airborne ... sounds like a disease...

I just made a few display changes:
  • Now instead of having headings for each of the Wiki sections (Wine, Producer, Type, Variety, Designation, Vineyard, Country, Region, SubRegion, Appellation) they are just appended together with newlines between them. There are hyperlinks to edit after each one.
  • The links to create new articles are now separated out into a separate row as with all of the other data blocks.
  • At the top of the screen there are information bubbles next to the wine characteristics IF there is an associated article.
  • If the Wiki block is STILL too heavy for you, there is an option to only display the Wine and Producer articles expanded. Click MY ACCOUNT at the upper right and look for the Wiki display setting.
  • And as before, the Wiki block is still lower on the page. I will keep it there for the forseeable future.


_____________________________

Cheers!
-Eric LeVine

(in reply to nwinther)
Post #: 44
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/10/2007 11:25:25 PM   
babnik

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 1/4/2005
Status: offline 		Okay, so I started kicking the tires on this Wiki thing tonight.  Great potential for us all both ITB and as collectors.  Anyway, I added a bit to our Match Vineyards listing and then tried to create a general wiki entry to my winemaker.  I think I made a mistake by titling the page Gott, Cary as I then couldn't link to the wiki page except using HTML.  Help.

_____________________________

Randy Sloan
Match Vineyards

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 45
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/11/2007 12:03:47 AM   
Eric

 

Posts: 5590
Joined: 10/10/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Randy, all cleaned up.

_____________________________

Cheers!
-Eric LeVine

(in reply to babnik)
Post #: 46
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/11/2007 6:29:26 AM   
JBaldwinRN

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 12/8/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Eric

Airborne ... sounds like a disease...

I just made a few display changes:
  • Now instead of having headings for each of the Wiki sections (Wine, Producer, Type, Variety, Designation, Vineyard, Country, Region, SubRegion, Appellation) they are just appended together with newlines between them. There are hyperlinks to edit after each one.
  • The links to create new articles are now separated out into a separate row as with all of the other data blocks.
  • At the top of the screen there are information bubbles next to the wine characteristics IF there is an associated article.
  • If the Wiki block is STILL too heavy for you, there is an option to only display the Wine and Producer articles expanded. Click MY ACCOUNT at the upper right and look for the Wiki display setting.
  • And as before, the Wiki block is still lower on the page. I will keep it there for the forseeable future.



Very nice!  Much better and condensed. I think most will like this new layout.

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 47
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/11/2007 3:36:23 PM   
WetRock

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/9/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nwinther

quote:

ORIGINAL: WetRock

I'm thinking I would like to know what people hope to get from the Wiki sections as we go forward.

For myself, I was wanting a repository for technical type of information so we can place things in there they are not covered in the basic info on CT.  But from what I've seen so far the Wiki Wine sections are being filled with writeups from winery websites.  I know where that information is if I need it and I rarely EVER read such things as they amount to marketing.  Technical info on teh other hand is not always readily available so it would be nice a place to put it when it is found on the page of the wine.

Any thoughts on that or other related subjects?  The few I have viewed linked here are really starting to just look like clutter. 


I can understand what you are saying. Elsewhere, I suggested a standardized table with technical data that we could fill in (vines pr. ha, exact grape varities, alc., etc.) but wiki-material is also interesting - what does the producer hope to acheive by making a certain wine, what kinds of food does the winery or other (professional?) knowledgable people suggest, how (long) does the producer suggest you keep a certain wine etc. After all, some producers are honest with their wines and can provide a certain look at the wine.

But give it some time to develop. It's been airborne for some 48 hours, and it is, after all, a wiki.


I have plenty of patience....sometimes too much! 

I was more interested in other users ideas for what they want from it or how they would use it.  More like searching for things I haven't thought of in order to gain more ideas for use.

(in reply to nwinther)
Post #: 48
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/11/2007 3:38:51 PM   
WetRock

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/9/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Eric

Airborne ... sounds like a disease...

I just made a few display changes:
  • Now instead of having headings for each of the Wiki sections (Wine, Producer, Type, Variety, Designation, Vineyard, Country, Region, SubRegion, Appellation) they are just appended together with newlines between them. There are hyperlinks to edit after each one.
  • The links to create new articles are now separated out into a separate row as with all of the other data blocks.
  • At the top of the screen there are information bubbles next to the wine characteristics IF there is an associated article.
  • If the Wiki block is STILL too heavy for you, there is an option to only display the Wine and Producer articles expanded. Click MY ACCOUNT at the upper right and look for the Wiki display setting.
  • And as before, the Wiki block is still lower on the page. I will keep it there for the forseeable future.




Nice work.  I like these changes a bunch thus far.  Much cleaner but clearly integrated.

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 49
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/11/2007 4:09:10 PM   
Eric

 

Posts: 5590
Joined: 10/10/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Thanks.

A big part of MY motivation is to put things in their right place. Right now a LOT of stuff makes it into tasting notes that are not really tasting notes. That's going to change. Partly the user-interface needs to be more clear so people realize where they should be putting stuff.

Next up: I am making a super admin page for myself so that I can 'wage war' on winemaker notes that are masquerading as Personal Tasting Notes. For example, 90% of this user's notes are going to be moved to the Wiki and OUT of the tasting notes area: http://www.cellartracker.com/list.asp?Table=Notes&iUserOverride=21063

I won't have it in the first revision, but I am also going to wage a war on the "Gave to Bob & Mary" or "Had with Fred" notes. My super-duper page is going to let me push stuff info private notes, consumption notes and ultimately professional reviews. I will also soon add a link next so that anyone can click to 'complain' that a note needs to be moved. In the past when people used to complain I would groan, as I don't have snazzy admin tools. That's changing.

I know that a LOT of people have wanted me to take a harder stance on this. Consider this as a TOP priority on my New Year's Resolutions (and coming sooner).


_____________________________

Cheers!
-Eric LeVine

(in reply to WetRock)
Post #: 50
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/11/2007 10:20:41 PM   
tommyvernieri

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Eric

Thanks.

A big part of MY motivation is to put things in their right place. Right now a LOT of stuff makes it into tasting notes that are not really tasting notes. That's going to change. Partly the user-interface needs to be more clear so people realize where they should be putting stuff.

Next up: I am making a super admin page for myself so that I can 'wage war' on winemaker notes that are masquerading as Personal Tasting Notes. For example, 90% of this user's notes are going to be moved to the Wiki and OUT of the tasting notes area: http://www.cellartracker.com/list.asp?Table=Notes&iUserOverride=21063

I won't have it in the first revision, but I am also going to wage a war on the "Gave to Bob & Mary" or "Had with Fred" notes. My super-duper page is going to let me push stuff info private notes, consumption notes and ultimately professional reviews. I will also soon add a link next so that anyone can click to 'complain' that a note needs to be moved. In the past when people used to complain I would groan, as I don't have snazzy admin tools. That's changing.

I know that a LOT of people have wanted me to take a harder stance on this. Consider this as a TOP priority on my New Year's Resolutions (and coming sooner).



Eric, I think this is awesome! I love that there's someone in charge here and that it's not just a Web 2.0 abyss of random user-written data.

I like the more steamlined look of the new integrated wiki section. It is a little bit backwards in that you have to read the edit link at the end of the line to figure out whether the wiki entry is for the producer or appelation or some other field, but that's easy to get used to and it's nice that it's so compact.

I tried to let the info bubbles grow on me but I just don't think they make sense on things like links to producer websites. The convention all across the web is that hyperlinks are blue and underlined, I don't think the extra decoration adds any value (well they're not underlined on CT, but that's OK ). There's no clear criteria for why one link should have an "i" balloon and another one shouldn't; even if there was some criteria there wouldn't be a good way to enforce it automatically. What really drove it home for me is that now you're also using that same image at the top of the page to link to the view revision page. I think that's fine (it's an extra link beyond the already hyperlinked name it sits next to), I see it as an example of how those images can be used effectively in contrast to the way they're used in the integrated wiki pages.

Like I said, I'm glad that you're the one that makes decisions about how the site should be used so while I hope I can convince you to see this my way, I'd much rather you maintain a single vision for the site instead of having it run by committee. You can't please everyone.

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 51
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/11/2007 10:46:28 PM   
tommyvernieri

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WetRock

quote:

ORIGINAL: nwinther

quote:

ORIGINAL: WetRock

I'm thinking I would like to know what people hope to get from the Wiki sections as we go forward.

For myself, I was wanting a repository for technical type of information so we can place things in there they are not covered in the basic info on CT.  But from what I've seen so far the Wiki Wine sections are being filled with writeups from winery websites.  I know where that information is if I need it and I rarely EVER read such things as they amount to marketing.  Technical info on teh other hand is not always readily available so it would be nice a place to put it when it is found on the page of the wine.

Any thoughts on that or other related subjects?  The few I have viewed linked here are really starting to just look like clutter. 


I can understand what you are saying. Elsewhere, I suggested a standardized table with technical data that we could fill in (vines pr. ha, exact grape varities, alc., etc.) but wiki-material is also interesting - what does the producer hope to acheive by making a certain wine, what kinds of food does the winery or other (professional?) knowledgable people suggest, how (long) does the producer suggest you keep a certain wine etc. After all, some producers are honest with their wines and can provide a certain look at the wine.

But give it some time to develop. It's been airborne for some 48 hours, and it is, after all, a wiki.


I have plenty of patience....sometimes too much! 

I was more interested in other users ideas for what they want from it or how they would use it.  More like searching for things I haven't thought of in order to gain more ideas for use.


I think that it's going to be important to leave out information that's obvious or readily available. Even if information isn't readily available from the web, I don't think it should be included in the integrated wiki if it doesn't add much value. If someone does want to include it for easy future reference I think the standalone pages would be a great place to put that kind of information (with a link in the integrated wiki page).

Of course deciding what information is or is not readily available and what information adds or does not add value will be different for different users. Personally, I would sometimes find winemakers' notes useful and not quite readily available. Many producers don't maintain tasting notes for vintages older than their current releases and even if they do navigating wine producers' websites is not always the easiest task. I'm not saying winemakers' notes should necessarily be included because I generally don't put much stock in their value, but my point is that I could go either way.

So far I've used the integrated wiki to provide information about the packaging of a wine (since it's different than the norm) and alcohol content. I'm sure that the alcohol content is listed somewhere on the producer's website but it's much more convenient to see it listed here than to go searching for it.

I'm in favor of including technical info (residual sugar, TA, SO2, etc.), though I don't understand how to read information so right now it wouldn't be adding that much value for me.

I'm not in favor of including links to other general wine websites. On the USA, California, and Sonoma pages there are links to http://wine.appellationamerica.com/, http://www.california-wine.org/, and http://www.sonomawine.com/. In my opinion these links do not add much value by showing up on every single Sonoma wine page. Appellation America is a great site but wouldn't a link to that be more appropriate on the links page (where it is already listed). If anything I would say this should be on a Sonoma page in the standalone wiki pages where more information could be included without cluttering up the wine pages. Though I am in favor of including a link to the producer's website since that will generally apply to a pretty specific set of wines. Even for more obscure appellations, I think the links to things like the governing body website or enthusiast websites should be on the standalone wiki, not on the wine pages. One problem with going that route is that I haven't seen a really apparent entry point not the standalone wiki, but I'm sure that will come about in time.

(in reply to WetRock)
Post #: 52
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/12/2007 8:50:46 AM   
Eric

 

Posts: 5590
Joined: 10/10/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tommyvernieri
I like the more steamlined look of the new integrated wiki section. It is a little bit backwards in that you have to read the edit link at the end of the line to figure out whether the wiki entry is for the producer or appelation or some other field, but that's easy to get used to and it's nice that it's so compact.

I tried to let the info bubbles grow on me but I just don't think they make sense on things like links to producer websites.

I agree on the info bubbles in the articles. I ran a query last night to remove most of them. Need to make a pass through to clean out the rest. I am still using the INFO bubble at the top of the screen for the wine characteristics where there is a linked article (since those words are already hyperlinked).

My thought on the trailing hyperlinks versus the headings is that the type of article isn't actually entirely important, and there was too much emphasis and screen real estate on that.




_____________________________

Cheers!
-Eric LeVine

(in reply to tommyvernieri)
Post #: 53
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/12/2007 2:52:12 PM   
WetRock

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/9/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Eric

Thanks.

A big part of MY motivation is to put things in their right place. Right now a LOT of stuff makes it into tasting notes that are not really tasting notes. That's going to change. Partly the user-interface needs to be more clear so people realize where they should be putting stuff.

Next up: I am making a super admin page for myself so that I can 'wage war' on winemaker notes that are masquerading as Personal Tasting Notes. For example, 90% of this user's notes are going to be moved to the Wiki and OUT of the tasting notes area: http://www.cellartracker.com/list.asp?Table=Notes&iUserOverride=21063

I won't have it in the first revision, but I am also going to wage a war on the "Gave to Bob & Mary" or "Had with Fred" notes. My super-duper page is going to let me push stuff info private notes, consumption notes and ultimately professional reviews. I will also soon add a link next so that anyone can click to 'complain' that a note needs to be moved. In the past when people used to complain I would groan, as I don't have snazzy admin tools. That's changing.

I know that a LOT of people have wanted me to take a harder stance on this. Consider this as a TOP priority on my New Year's Resolutions (and coming sooner).



All I can say is AWESOME!  All of the notes like you mention as well as the cut and paste from producers or Garagiste emails are a BIG pet peeve of mine.  I wasn't sure of your policy so I pretty much let it slide with no complaints. 

Let us know if you need anyone pointed out to get at some of these when you get it all settled. (licks chops) 

Cheers! 

_____________________________

Cris Whetstone

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 54
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/12/2007 3:05:16 PM   
babnik

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 1/4/2005
Status: offline 		So I guess I should stop... I keep screwing up.  Do page titles have to be in the format FirstWordSecondWord?  I created a Match Vineyards page but can't link to it... I'm thinking I should have created a MatchVineyards page instead?

Sorry, Eric.  I'm causing you extra work.

_____________________________

Randy Sloan
Match Vineyards

(in reply to WetRock)
Post #: 55
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/12/2007 5:27:49 PM   
drdebs

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline 		Eric:

I like the new streamlining, and thanks for  moving the wiki's down. They are exactly right for me.

I wrote up a compact producer description for Ft. Ross, a winery I know well. Yes, they have a website, but I thought the point was (in part) to provide something brief, readable, and accessible right on CT. Was I right in that? This was a trial balloon, so if it isn't what you and others had in mind, just delete it.

And, thank you from the bottom of my heart for removing the Garagiste tasting notes from the Consumer Notes to the Private Note or some other field. (personally, I put mine in the private note field if I want them for reference, but the number of Garagiste buyers who plunk 8 paragraphs of texts into the tasting note field is awful.)

Yours in CellarTracker devotion,

Deb

(in reply to Colonel Lawrence)
Post #: 56
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/14/2007 11:54:14 AM   
GalvezGuy

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 5/10/2007
From: Galveston, TX
Status: offline 		Wow Eric,

It just keeps getting better.  Great job on making a USEFUL tool for us sickos.

_____________________________

If you're gonna be dumb you better be tough

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 57
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/14/2007 12:46:27 PM   
Eric

 

Posts: 5590
Joined: 10/10/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: drdebs

Eric:

I like the new streamlining, and thanks for  moving the wiki's down. They are exactly right for me.

I wrote up a compact producer description for Ft. Ross, a winery I know well. Yes, they have a website, but I thought the point was (in part) to provide something brief, readable, and accessible right on CT. Was I right in that? This was a trial balloon, so if it isn't what you and others had in mind, just delete it.

And, thank you from the bottom of my heart for removing the Garagiste tasting notes from the Consumer Notes to the Private Note or some other field. (personally, I put mine in the private note field if I want them for reference, but the number of Garagiste buyers who plunk 8 paragraphs of texts into the tasting note field is awful.)

Yours in CellarTracker devotion,

Deb



Deb, short synopsis type stuff is GREAT!

I'm WAILING away now on winemaker notes, copyrighted stuff, "had wth Bob & Fred" etc. Have moved hundreds and hundreds already. Will add UI soon so all of you can "report" a problematic (copyright, consumption instead of tasting note, winemaker note) note. But now when do report I can whack it into the right spot REALLY easily. I love cleaning up the neighborhood...


_____________________________

Cheers!
-Eric LeVine

(in reply to drdebs)
Post #: 58
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/14/2007 2:41:41 PM   
paulyp

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/18/2006
Status: offline 		Hi Eric--

2 questions:

1) Will you be adding the summary view to the Wiki Articles search.  Being able to veiw summary Wiki data by Article Type, Author, Producer, Vareital, etc would be interesting.

2) What sort of impact has your thinning of Tasting Notes had on the overall number of CT Tasting Notes?  Was it 5% or 10% etc . . .

Love the Wiki idea and have been trying to add Producer Websites for Oregon producers.  A lot of fun.

Thanks,

Paul

(in reply to Eric)
Post #: 59
RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! - 12/14/2007 3:18:49 PM   
Eric

 

Posts: 5590
Joined: 10/10/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Pauly, you can already filter the Wiki by article type. Click SEARCH OPTIONS at the left in the Wiki view...

The overall impact on the number of notes has been neglgible. I think I have moved about 300 so far out of 450,000 potential... The percentage that are clean is much higher than I expected, but it's so nice to root these out.


_____________________________

Cheers!
-Eric LeVine

(in reply to paulyp)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Cellar Talk] >> Release Notes >> RE: v 3.9.1 - YEEHAW, it's WIKI TIME! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.391