otw_news | Proposed list of tags:fanarchive

Proposed list of tags:fanarchive

A few days late - sorry, new job, hectic week. I tried to keep this concise and yet cover everything I could think of that might crop up. I've set it up to follow the two- or three-tier system that

thefourthvine and I use in our sidebars, created by

murklins. If a one-tier system is more desirable I can re-think this. The main categories are archives, fanarchive, features, and planning.

In the meantime, comments? Additions? Questions? Deletions? Have at!

archives:audience & community (suggested change: archives:users and community)
archives:history
archives:legal issues
archives:meta
archives:other archives
fanarchive:admin
fanarchive:weekly summaries
features:discussion
features:suggestions
(alternatively, the prior two could be subsets of "planning")
planning:coding
planning:design
planning:funding
planning:issues
planning:moderation
planning:people & volunteering
planning:resources & maintenance
planning:tools and software
planning:universal access

Questions thus far: do we need a "content" tag? If so, where might it go (under archives, planning, etc.)? Should universal access be under "planning"? Should "archives" be plural?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I definitely prefer multi-tier tags, fwiw.

agreed.

What an auspicious occasion today is! For the first time in the history of EVER, I beat you to commenting!

ourloveissoquickoffthetrigger

i would have been faster, but my computer was across the room playing "doctor who" :)

gold star for you!

I'm fairly certain teh layout doesn't allow for a two tier system (basic account/limited custumization).
Or do you have more info on that?

well, even if you can't have 2-tier display, you can still use a 2-tier structure, but that's definitely something to consider.

(reposted in the right place)

so I did some more checking.

And it looks like a multi or bi-level tag system requires making changes in the adavnced customization area.
Which you can only access if you have a paid account.

I think this is not just a display issue? i.e. without that function, the ":" won't be counted as a seperator, so that if you click on the tag "archives", the entries that are only tagged "archives:meta" won't show up?

I just tested it in my own journal.
tagged one entry "test"
tagged another one "test:one"

when I clicked "test" only test showed up.

There is no "archives" tag under this system, regardless of display style, unless you tag, for example, an archives:meta post both "archives:meta" and "archives." You can see the difference in my tags, where, for example, there is no "rpf" tag (you can't click on it and see all rpf) but there is a "due south" tag (in addition to themed tags) that lets you see all due south recs.

A single-tier system (including some suggested revisions) might look like

admin
archive history
coding
content
design
feature discussion
feature suggestions
funding
legal issues
meta
moderation
other archives
other issues
people & volunteering
resources & maintenance
tools and software
universal access
users & community
weekly summaries

uuuhhh.. okay.
so it's basically all an illusion.

I haven't used either system before (mostly because I'm too lazy to go through all my old journal entries and tag them) - I thought it was a nift hierachical tagging sturcture.

One could still fake it though. Provided that there aren't new tags added every week or so.
I would need to manually code a list with link tags, fiddle around with the format of the list a bit to make sure it all displays as it's supposed to - and enter it into a freetext box. (each tag has it's own url after all).

Not a very pretty solution. But I think it could work.
Not really sure though how fool proof that would be. (different screen resolutions, etc)

So it can be done (http://community.livejournal.com/testlayoutdummy/). And the size of the sidebox is fixed. So I don't think it could just get mangled by different settings.

Questions is:
How practical is it? (i.e. how often will there be new tags?)
And do the mods want it? (They would have do it, or I could keep doing the changes myself. But I'm not sure they want me lurking around on that level :)

Someone just gifted us with 12 months paid time. So you can try it the usual waif you like.

shiny! \o/

Oh, huh, I love this visual design for the tags listing. It seems to me that this achieves the value of the two-tier naming scheme without actually having the two tiers, although of course it doesn't show up this way on the tags page, but most people will be seeing the tags through the front page of the comm.

I can always change it to that hacked / pseudo version.

And the way I set up the pseudo version, it does till have the archives:whatever tags. So they would show up in order on the tags page. (the way it does with the multi-tier tags)
You don't, however, get that shiny counter at the end of the tag.

The pseudo version, by the way, works with a free account.
Although this is only doable if the tags don't change all that often. (Who really wants to mess with that box every other day?)

Note: We DO have a paid account and if we run out of paid time, the actual tiered system changes made to layout WON'T go away.

On another comm I run, we bought 2 months of paid time, fixed it how we liked it, and let it expire. No problems.

You could even link to the tags page via the header of the box.

Or to a dummy tags page where things do show up in order, if you go for simple tags like "design".

Do you mind a question about the "audience" tag? I keep coming back to the issue, for myself, of writers as users of archives, and the hope that the design for this one will keep writers' interests front and center, as well as readers'.

Would "users and community" be more inclusive, maybe?

Also wondered, maybe in a related question, about where "content" would fall in this schema?

Thank you so much for doing this!

Good points; I'd love to get other folks' opinions, should I edit the post to request opinions?
And do you have a suggestion about where "content" might fall? archives:content?

I'm hearing that we may not be able to use 2-tier tags because of the basic account, so that's a concern too, though really, there's nothing that says you can't use 2-tier tags anyway, you just can't display them as prettily as with a paid account.

Well it's paid now.

Eeee! Beautiful Nony Mouse!

yes. thank you!

(and the tag system is working :)

ooo pretty! *G*

As someone said early, take lots of suggestions here, be thinky. I'm sure people would be happy to talk through some things. And then, my suggestion as mod, is to make a second post with the finalized list (or v 2.0 if you're still not sure) and explaining/giving an example of when you would apply each tag. Just so we're all clear. And *looks shifty* it's possible that it's something I want to integrate into the FAQ. *koff*

Oh, yes, an example of how to use each tag would be most excellent.

argh! Shiny was to you! The second posting was to the OP who is dealing with the tags thing.

Thank YOU for making the sidebar tags thing work. I know I needed help getting it done in my own LJ.

he. I figured that much out.

layout help comms rock. tutorials rock even harder.

(and this all would have been so much easier if I hadn't somehow managed to screw up an unrelated bit of code. *headdesk*)

AWESOME! Thanks, mouse!

Maybe, once everyone seems to have commented who wants to, publish the list again with the suggested changes listed next to the originals?

Gah. Information architecture gives me vertigo. I would think that "content" could fall under either "archives," as you suggest, if user-centered things like restrictions and interfaces and so on are the bigger concerns; or under "planning" if the issues have more to do with stuff like scalability, taxonomies, formats, and so on.

I'm pretty sure almost everybody knows more about this than me. *g*

Thank you again; this stuff is hard! Hope the new job's going well!

maybe update the post with proposed changes once you have a few?
Just so it's easier to keep track.

Why archiveS? Or did you mean archive's?

Why is universal access under planning?
(I'm actually not quite sure what you mean by that. I have a couple of different ideas that could fall under that heading.)

history: of this project or of archives in general?

I meant archives plural - part of the general discussion of what this archive should be seems to have a lot to do with the history, including legal, logistical, and other issues, encountered by the many existing fanfiction archives. Those general topics went under "archives" - planning was a more specific term,

And universal access is a general term used to desribe design that is friendly to people with a variety of ability ranges and accommodation needs. I don't know much about it myself, but I can't imagine that it would be very responsible to create an archive without considering those issues as part of the overall design and maintenance.

history: archives in general.

Universal Access:
Okay. that was one of the uses I figured. I didn't know it was an offical term.
(I think that this also covers the second meaning 'content' tag (i.e. content:planning that was talked about somewhere upthread.))

Archives:
I think that the talk is probably gonna be mostly about this archive's legal issues etc (- with reference to other archives of course.)
But S or no S, I think it doesn't really matter.

History:
Isn't History pretty much covered under "other archives"?

... this is what happens when I stare at a list of labels and think about what they cover for too long. at some point 2+2 doesn't equal four anymore. I start to question the meanign of "two" and "plus".

Those of course are just my personal and typo-ridden justifications for why I organized it that way. I am open to any and all suggestions for revision.

I don't understand how features:discussion and features:suggestions are different, asssuming that all suggestions posts would end up being discussions. Or is features:discussion solely for the discussion of current features (like if someone was having a problem with part of the website or something)?

Ugh. And of course, I meant to say: Great list!

What is the tag "planning:issues" intended for? "Issues" is really general, no? I mean funding and design are "issues". Or is it for issues with the planning process, like planning meta? Or do you mean it for contentious stuff, like allowing chan or fanfic in fandoms with fanfic-hostile owners or whatever?

I'm actually a little bit curious as to what goes in under "archives:history". Is this just history of other archives or is this other things as well... fandom phenomena like Mary Sues, or maybe even the language of fandom, maybe something along these (http://www.subreality.com/glossary/terms.htm) lines?

I like the multi-tier thing though. I've seen it work on other comms as well, and I've used it myself on occasion.

I wouldn't mind a tag for discussion dealing specifically with multimedia (fanart/fanvid) support.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Proposed list of tags:fanarchive

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Single-tier version

Re: Single-tier version

Pseudo Two-tier version

Re: Pseudo Two-tier version

Re: Pseudo Two-tier version

Re: Pseudo Two-tier version

Re: Pseudo Two-tier version

Re: Pseudo Two-tier version

Re: Pseudo Two-tier version

Re: Pseudo Two-tier version

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject