PDA

View Full Version : 14 Easy Steps to a Better Compendium



Borror0
01-16-2009, 03:08 PM
This is a thread I should have wrote long ago, but since laziness is part of my charm and procrastination just is fun, I have avoided writing it. I have been trying to convince myself to write it for a while, as my signature shows, and GoldyGopher editing the quest section (or rather creating it) in the last few days has been the last thing I needed to motivate myself to write this thread.

Some of it is simply personal gripe with their Compendium, but most of it are suggestions are needed to make the Compendium the useful tool it should and was intended to be. Anyway, enough rambling and let's go directly to the core of the subject.

Remove the <no edit> tags. Many page contain incorrect, mislead or incomplete information. For example, take the description of Evasion (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Evasion) that has yet to contain anything explaining the user that it only works if you are wearing light armor or no armor. Players did edit the page, however, one has to scroll down and look unofficial information. The presence of your HTML "official data" makes the page much uglier and less pleasant to read.

If you are concern about players editing pages to insert misleading and incorrect information, then I would like to remind you that our accounts are linked to our forums account which are themselves linked to our real game accounts. In other words, someone cannot simply create a new account to vandalize any page. Besides, vandalism is a rare problem on any wiki and there are extensions that can be used to address this problem, like FlaggedRev (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs) which shouldn't be too problematic to include in your wiki if that really is the concern.


Add parser functions (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions). These are required for the existence of any wiki, as they contain basic functions such as #if, #ifeq and a few others that are needed in the construction of most good templates. I'm not talking about useful stuff like variables, which would be of a great help, but really basic required stuff if you want this to be a wiki.


Create, or let us create, template for those pages to replace your current HTML template. As I started earlier, the mix of regular text and those black boxes make the page not so enjoyable to read. But, beyond that, there is a more practical reason: HTML structure is less confusing than a "fill-in the blanks" wiki template. Editing the template is more complicated, but since most user would simply add/correct information, it wouldn't be a problem.

If this means you have to stop pulling data directly from in-game, then so be it. On that topic, I would like to remind you that the information that I call incorrect and misleading is pulled word for word from the game. This means that the in-game feat, enhancement and spell description is as misleading or incorrect. It would be worth revising the descriptions to clarify any question. I'm surprised this wasn't done in the NGE.


Create meta templates and other rules to have a somewhat uniform structure. For any web page to exist, there needs to be set rules of usage and consensus made on how the web site should be structured. A wiki does not escape that rule. In fact, it needs it more than any other type of website. Since a wiki is the contribution of multiple users, with different preferences, visions and backgrounds, there needs to be a common ground on how the website is built.

The DDO Compendium has avoided chaos thus far because it is extremely repulsive to edit. However, if it starts being used more, there will be a need for these. It is better if turbine publish them, since they will have a better control on what the wiki will look, then if they let us users decide on it. Also, deciding on those rules can lead to a lot of drama unless dealing with very mature and professional editors.


Create help pages. Currently, the DDO Compendium lacks any. In fact, when you click the tiny Editing help button at the bottom of an edit page, it leads to this page (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Help:Editing) which ironically states "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Special:Search/Editing) in other pages or edit this page (http://compendium.ddo.com/index.php?title=Help:Editing&action=edit)." Obviously, this needs to be fixed right away. It is also to make this button bigger to that others can see it. Right now, it's hidden and hard to notice.


Stop the heavy usage of namespaces. For a reason that escapes my understanding, Turbine felt it was appropriate to use as many namespaces as possible. The only logical conclusion I can make that it was easier for them when pulling information from the game, as it will avoid any conflict between possible homonyms rather than having to give the problem descriptor in parentheses.

This, however, is not a sufficient reason to create extra confusion.

On the user and editor side, it is really annoying. When linking to page, instead of linking to [[Alertness]] the editor has to link to [[Feat:Alertness|]]. This is useless word typing. The problem arises on the readers' side when he is looking a page, and is useless clutter.

And, more importantly, it is confusing when adding some information.


Does a category listing quests by location goes into the Quest: namespace?
Do we need a new namespace?
Can a page have no namespace?
What about basic stuff like AC and ability scores, do we put them on a namespace?

The list goes on. Heck, even for more obvious situations there still is confusing as the existence of these two (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Stone_of_Good_Luck) pages (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Item:Stone_of_Good_Luck) demonstrate.


Stop wasting space on a page with redundant pages. Anyone who ever tried to use the Compendium knows how space is wasted by listing information that could be contained in one page. Maybe this unclear, so I will give an example. The feat category (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Category:Feats) lists all kinds of Greater Weapon Focus and all Favored Enemy when each could have been contained in one article. At worse, the Greater Focus pages could have been at least regroup into four categories: ranged, slashing, bludgeoning and piercing, like it really is in the game.

On top of being annoying to the reader, it is also misleading because there is no such feat as Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Repeating Light Crossbow) for a fighter to take since that "feat" is merged with the Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons feat.


Allow the creation of a community. A community is crucial for the survival of a wiki. The more contributors there is, the more update there is, exponentially. Without a vivid community, a wiki will die. However, give it an active community and it will grow in accuracy. People adding the Recent Changes page (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Special:Recentchanges) to their RSS feeds, watching pages, wanted pages will be made, the quality of information found will increase and so on.

Encourage the community to participate. Try to find incentive for users to get started and break the invisible barrier that is the first edit. Create a structure.

A wiki has different level rights. The basics are are bots, normal user, sysop and bureaucrat. Or, you can customize the groups as you want. Granting these to trusted users would go a long way in managing the wiki. A good start would be those owning fansites, like Ustice, Jerry, a few DDOwiki editors and knowledgeable posters on the forums. Promotions could then be given if an editor is capable and knowledgeable of the wiki.

It doesn't matter if it is totally biased and subjective at first. Those who deserve it will get promoted one day or another.


Allow EU players to edit the wiki as well. EU players are also DDO players, but do not have neither forums or Compendium access. If possible, it would be a great move to allow them to be able to edit the wiki as more hands is always good. They'd love forum access as well, but there might be legal reasons to why they don't.


Give us access to that pop-up feature through the means of a template. A personal request but I wanted to throw that one out there.


Change the skin. The current skin is tiring on the eyes and makes browsing the Compendium for too long not a pleasant experience. The design is also too vertical. When trying to display thumbnail, information boxes or even ToC, it looks horrible as it takes way too much of the horizontal space. As a result, pages are really vertical which makes them more complicated and pleasant to read.


Give us access to edit pages important pages like the home page. Just because it's important. Nothing more to add.


Create pages explaining the basic information about the game, such as Armor Class, ability scores, spell points, alignments and so on. To players with no D&D background, this can be very confusing. Even so, there are many things that have changed between the tabletop game and the video game so being able to read about it would be a great help to the new and less knowledgeable players.


Link the Compendium with the game and/or find a way to inform new players of its existence. Every new player starting any video game will have tons of question. This is even truer for DDO because of the huge learning curve there is if you are unfamiliar with 3.5 D&D. If there is a way for them to be informed of the presence of the Compendium or even being able to consult a glossary while playing, it would be a fantastic.

It would have been nice to see such a feature added in the NGE.
As I said earlier, some of them are just personal gripes, but most of them are really important and should be considered.

If they are not, then you should seriously question yourself on the validity of a wiki format for your Compendium, Turbine. A wiki requires more effort to maintain, especially if you have no community watching and correcting bad edits, which is the current situation.

The current black boxes that distinguish the official information from the unofficial is not any helpful. At best, it is a cop out but it is in no means helpful for the player. either the player knows it is unofficial information and decide to not trust it, remaining uninformed, or the player is mislead by false or out of date information (if it is) left by someone to fill in the holes left in the information that you gave. And there are a lot of them, even prerequisites are missing!

Also, it is simply disrespectful to user like Zenako and GoldyGopher who are going through the efforts to improve your Compendium. If you really have no intentions of improving your Compendium into something more usable and editable, then they are wasting their time when they could be updating a real wiki, even if it is managed by the community.

Either make a non-wiki website with better information or improve your wiki, otherwise you are hurting your own game.

Borror0

Ustice
01-16-2009, 04:10 PM
Great suggestions. Most are even things that can even be just added with little more effort than point and click.

Sojourner
01-16-2009, 05:08 PM
1) Just direct everyone to DDO Wiki (http://ddo.enterwiki.net)

Borror0
01-16-2009, 05:13 PM
1) Just direct everyone to DDO Wiki (http://ddo.enterwiki.net)
LOL, glad to see you're back.

Ustice
01-16-2009, 06:30 PM
It would be nice to have Turbine in on it though. There is info that is just hard to get any where else. Plus this is where new players will look.

Borror0
01-16-2009, 07:04 PM
It would be nice to have Turbine in on it though. There is info that is just hard to get any where else. Plus this is where new players will look.
Aye, #14 would be great to have.

Hafeal
01-16-2009, 07:20 PM
Nice post and good suggestions.

Steiner-Davion
01-17-2009, 07:41 AM
Kinda makes you wonder what they were thinking when they decided to go the Wiki route. Granted, everything takes time and Time = Money

But that is no reason to do a halfassed job, either do something like this right or don't do it at all. I know the few times I've tried to use the compendium, I've been extremely frustrated trying to navigatge it, and by the lack of easy to use, useful information.

Lorien_the_First_One
01-17-2009, 08:33 AM
Kinda makes you wonder what they were thinking when they decided to go the Wiki route. Granted, everything takes time and Time = Money

But that is no reason to do a halfassed job, either do something like this right or don't do it at all. I know the few times I've tried to use the compendium, I've been extremely frustrated trying to navigatge it, and by the lack of easy to use, useful information.

I've also found the compendium less than friendly...and less than useful. Phrases like "some chance" or "improves" or other vaugeness in the descriptions make it useless. I need to know "+1 to the DC", "3% chance", etc. DDO wiki is where I tend to go. I only go to the compendium of the DDO wiki doesn't have the answer. It would be nice if the compendium was a properly functioning wiki so that it could be the focus of research and everything could get migrated here in the end.

Noctus
01-17-2009, 12:13 PM
... Phrases like "some chance" or "improves" or other vaugeness in the descriptions make it useless. I need to know "+1 to the DC", "3% chance", etc. ...

I wholeheartedly agree.
This vagueness need sto be replaced by the correct numbers to make the compendium a worthwileplace to go when planing a build / need to check some facts.

Sojourner
01-17-2009, 06:31 PM
My first answer "send them to the ddowiki" was a bit snarky. But also contains a grain of truth.

In the perfect world, if Turbine were to implement Borror0's suggestions, then DDOWiki would not be needed - the compendium would be the one and only place you needed to go for just about everything.

The problem right now is that

1) Developers can't edit the DDOWiki. Well, technically they can. But I'm sure they have restrictions against putting out information in unofficial third-party sites.

2) Players can't edit the Compendium. Well, technically they can. But, only some things, in some ways, on pages that are less than user-friendly.


DDOWiki is a great source of user created content that covers much more information in much better format than the official wiki. But, Turbine can't updated with new information it has and can't police anything on it.

Compendium is a good source of information. But, alot of it isn't the easiest to navigate. And, Turbine can't dedicate the manpower/resources to update it as completely or as often as player created documentation would be. (And I don't blame them -- that would be a fairly serious investment. The compendium we have now is better than many game official documentation, but still is far from perfect.)



So, to do it right, what we need is something that is updated by players like the Wiki and yet still updated and policed by Turbine like the Compendium.

The Compendium was a decent first attempt at doing this, but still has a ways to go.

Borror0
01-17-2009, 06:51 PM
Great post Sojouner, and it's basically the point I was trying to make in the OP.

By the way, I left a common to you on the talk page of the template you created, in case you've missed. I'm too lazy to leave you a PoI.:D

Ustice
01-18-2009, 09:23 AM
Case in point, when I saw how confusing the feats listings were with all of the Greater versions being listed together, I tried to edit them so that they would be listed like Spell Penetration, Greater, but I was twarted at evry turn by not being able to edit the no edit sections, and reiredct didn't seem to work. I ended up giving up and reverting the half-done changes that I had made. The experience made me frustrated and not wanting to contribute further, and I am one of those users that contributes a fair amount of content.

Pyromaniac
01-18-2009, 11:39 AM
I'd say it would be best to delete the official compendium and just post a link to the DDOWiki. The DDOwiki is definitely far superior to the official info.

Kraldor
01-18-2009, 01:57 PM
1) Copy 'DDOWiki'
2) Paste as 'DDO Compendium'
3-14) Enjoy.

Memnir
01-18-2009, 02:10 PM
I'd say it would be best to delete the official compendium and just post a link to the DDOWiki. The DDOwiki is definitely far superior to the official info.QFT...
Turbine should be ashamed, and deeply, of their official "effort".

Ustice
01-19-2009, 07:23 AM
QFT...
Turbine should be ashamed, and deeply, of their official "effort".

I don't think that they should be ashamed. The problem seems to be two conflicting motivations, and my guess is that it was not the fault of the web development team, but the management that didn't understand the point of a wiki, and how they work. My guess is that someone in management gave the order to make sure that they kept complete control, and that players knew what was "official" info, and what was user-driven.

If you think about it, the terrible black boxes are a pretty good bit of coding, since all of that had to be written from scratch, instead of just letting the wiki software format the data according to it's templates. It feels like percisely the type of project that starts out being designed one way and concludes with something completely different, (and wholly inferior) by too many people having input in major design decisions.

There's hope for it yet. Most of the thinks that Borror0 mentioned are standard install stuff, so it wouldn't take a huge time investment on that front. The hardest part would be getting the data from the current system (or from the game database). I would prefer that we go the second route, and that the API is opened up to player developers. :)

Memnir
01-19-2009, 07:35 AM
All I know is that the official compendium is usually a punchline - and I'm not talking abstractly or obliquity. It is literally a joke, and is openly considered as such by the vast majority of people I talk to (and I talk to a lot). So yes - I think for that Turbine should be ashamed into doing something about it. Have they? No. Nor do I have any hope they will decide to do anything about it soon. One more reason why they should be nothing but ashamed on the rare occasion they think about the topic.

Borror0
01-19-2009, 01:36 PM
[...] my guess is that it was not the fault of the web development team, but the management that didn't understand the point of a wiki, and how they work.
I would agree, but only to an extent.

The web team should have had explained to the management why it would be a bad idea to make of both the Compendium and Lorebook in this manner. Oh, by the way, the design of LotRO's Lorebook (http://lorebook.lotro.com/wiki/Lorebook_home) is easier to read although still too vertical. Their official edit also blends better with the background.

This is not an excuse to keep the "official entry" division, for reasons explained in the OP.

My guess is that someone in management gave the order to make sure that they kept complete control, and that players knew what was "official" info, and what was user-driven.
If they want perfect control over the content, they can add FlaggedRev (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs) and never give players reviewer rights. It's dumb and paranoid, but if it's what they want.

Ustice
01-19-2009, 01:51 PM
I would agree, but only to an extent.

The web team should have had explained to the management why it would be a bad idea to make of both the Compendium and Lorebook in this manner. Oh, by the way, the design of LotRO's Lorebook (http://lorebook.lotro.com/wiki/Lorebook_home) is easier to read although still too vertical. Their official edit also blends better with the background.

This is not an excuse to keep the "official entry" division, for reasons explained in the OP.

If they want perfect control over the content, they can add FlaggedRev (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs) and never give players reviewer rights. It's dumb and paranoid, but if it's what they want.

Talking from experience, in these cases the problem is that management doesn't understand the real issue, and they make a decision based on that. I think that had the web developers offered the FlaggedRev option, it likely would have been the road that management would have taken, but then they would likely have locked down most articles. I think that what we have is a compromise that just didn't work out as well as we would like.

Borror0
01-19-2009, 02:12 PM
[...] but then they would likely have locked down most articles.
Why would they protect pages?

I'll explain FlaggedRev quickly, so that others don't have to read the link.

Once FlaggedRev is installed on the wiki, you can make pages (some or all) require validation to be updated. For example, if you had a normal account (in other words, you do not have reviewer privileges/rights) and you would edit a page, your edit will not show until it is approved by one with proper rights.

There are two versions of the page: the stable and the draft.

The stable version is the last approved version of the page. If Turbine want to go control freak and be the only ones able to validate the pages, then they can. Since there is a disclaimer at the top of every page, users will know the state of the page they are currently viewing.

Example of disclaimers are:

This is the latest quality revision, approved on 17 November 2008. The draft can be modified; 0 changes await review.
There are no reviewed revisions of this page, so it may not have been checked for quality.
The latest quality revision (list all) was approved on 19 January 2009. 1 change needs review.

If they would add FlaggedRev to their wikis, they could change by who views the draft/stable version by default and more advanced users can change the page they view by default as well in their preferences. In this case, Turbine would most likely set logged on users to view the stable version and we would have to set view draft by default if we want to view the draft.

Oh, finally, anyone who edits the page edits the last version of the draft. Not the stable page.

Yertill
01-19-2009, 05:05 PM
I am continually complemented on my builds in DDO. Perhaps some of this is attributed to my previous knowledge of PnP D&D.

I only use the DDO Compendium for my research. I find the layout of classes and races with feats and enhancements extremely easy to navigate.

I Know before I build my toon what all their feats will be and enhancements right through to level 16. What levels to split-class, spells chosen at each level etc.

Speaking for myself alone, I hope the DDO Compendium stays. Improvements are allways welcome :)

Ustice
01-21-2009, 03:00 PM
I am continually complemented on my builds in DDO. Perhaps some of this is attributed to my previous knowledge of PnP D&D.

I only use the DDO Compendium for my research. I find the layout of classes and races with feats and enhancements extremely easy to navigate.

I Know before I build my toon what all their feats will be and enhancements right through to level 16. What levels to split-class, spells chosen at each level etc.

Speaking for myself alone, I hope the DDO Compendium stays. Improvements are allways welcome :)

Feats? Easy to navigate? Have you looked at G?




Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Greatclub)
Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Heavy Mace)
Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Light Hammer)
Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Light Mace)
Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Maul)
Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Morningstar)
Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Quarterstaff)
Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Unarmed)
Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Warhammer)
Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons
Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons (Dagger)
Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons (Heavy Pick)
Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons (Light Pick)
Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons (Rapier)
Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons (Short Sword)
Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons
Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Great Crossbow)
Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Heavy Crossbow)
Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Light Crossbow)
Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Longbow)
Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Repeating Heavy Crossbow)
Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Repeating Light Crossbow)
Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Shortbow)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Bastard Sword)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Battleaxe)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Dwarven Waraxe)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Falchion)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Greataxe)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Greatsword)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Handaxe)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Kama)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Khopesh)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Kukri)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Longsword)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Scimitar)
Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Sickle)
Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons
Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons (Dart)
Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons (Shuriken)
Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons (Throwing Axe)
Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons (Throwing Dagger)
Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons (Throwing Hammer)
Greater Weapon Specialization
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Club)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Greatclub)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Heavy Mace)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Light Hammer)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Light Mace)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Maul)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Morningstar)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Quarterstaff)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Unarmed)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Warhammer)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons
Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons (Dagger)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons (Heavy Pick)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons (Light Pick)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons (Rapier)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons (Short Sword)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons
Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons (Great Crossbow)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons (Heavy Crossbow)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons (Light Crossbow)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons (Longbow)
Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons (Repeating Heavy Crossbow)



That's just page one. Also, on the compendium itself, the columns are not wide enough to display all of that on one line, so each item is on two to three lines.

It's a mess. Like I said, I attempted to fix it, but was balked by restrictions, and I had to revert. I like the Compendium, in general, but it needs some serious work, and one of the best ways to do that with limited resources is to open it up to us wiki gnomes so that we can do it.

(Whew, I'm almost surprised that the forums let me post all that junk.)

Thanimal
01-21-2009, 03:32 PM
I am strongly in support of these improvements. I use the compendium constantly because I'm always looking for something new and interesting to build. But I find it sorely lacking in accuracy, completeness, and ease of navigation. DDOWiki is useful, too, but too often falls well out of date. It also seems to have tons of references to PnP, many of which are not marked as such. That really throws me off. (My apologies if that is no longer the case.)

Taking the best of each, this could be a GREAT resource that would make the game easier to learn for newbies while also making it more fun to explore new builds for us build-geeks.

Long term, this effort should save Turbine a LOT of time. I know from experience how hard it can be to prioritize efforts with limited short-term benefit even when they have huge long-term benefit. But we all know it's the right way to allocate time!!

It's a bit rare that this forum generates truly constructive input, but this is such a case. Please take it to heart!

Borror0
01-21-2009, 03:39 PM
DDOWiki is useful, too, but too often falls well out of date. It also seems to have tons of references to PnP, many of which are not marked as such.
I try to correct those as I go, but we are understaffed, doing this in our free time and human.

PM pages that needs to be checked to me or yk49, or just correct it yourself. :)

Thanimal
01-21-2009, 08:35 PM
I try to correct those as I go, but we are understaffed, doing this in our free time and human.

PM pages that needs to be checked to me or yk49, or just correct it yourself. :)

Rereading my comments, they seem mildly insulting to DDOWiki. That was definitely NOT my intention. It's an impressive accomplishment and often quite useful. I try to fix things up when I can, but I'm not yet an authority on much!

But having one single resource that is as accurate, complete, and timely as possible would obviously be best!

yk49
01-21-2009, 10:24 PM
Um yea i like the compendium in general, its interesting.
This is viewpoint from the other side tho, but somethin like G section of feats is the best part of the compendium at the same time.
I mean it. Yes, its a mess in terms of site navigation, it would suck for new players lookin for information, but it gives us better understanding, or guess of how the game is coded.
If its taken directly from data structure of the game, lets leave it at that is my opinion.

Imo, probably, what they should have done was exclude user editw from those game info and only allow them to post their guilds and characters, and fansite and such info. No idea how it can be done on wiki tho...
Oh yea, they have <official> and <noedit> tag, but it technically dosent prevent any player from editing.
They don't use neither flaggedrev and such, looks like they simply have no time and resource to maintain it.
Uum, then use protected subpage and inclusion? fugarr, its better than as is but no perfect solution...

Anyways, all efforts done by users on Compedium could go to DDOwiki and benefit us better...
Well hate to say this but current situation is kinda sad one, DDOwiki isnt getting the love which it deserves.
We have less articles than Tabula-Rasa wiki of which game is goin to be shut down...
Its partly because the Compendium is stealing editors form us, partly because lack of advertisement etc etc...
DDOwiki needs to get out of the downward spiral somehow.

Btw, dose anyone know why they disabled tag function of vBulletin on this forums?
Im pretty sure they took down the forums just for enabling it but then disabled it once again for some reason.
We could build something, if not perfect but something helpful with that.
Tagging and categorizing forum threads isnt a concept too far from building a wiki.

Borror0
01-21-2009, 10:30 PM
Imo, probably, what they should have done was exclude user editw from those game info and only allow them to post their guilds and characters, and fansite and such info. No idea how it can be done on wiki tho...
Can't you allow rights per namespace? Disallow users to edit anything but Guild: and character: namespace?

Anyways, all efforts done by users on Compedium could go to DDOwiki and benefit us better...
Well hate to say this but current situation is kinda sad one, DDOwiki isnt getting the love which it deserves.
We have less articles than Tabula-Rasa wiki which game is goin to be shut down...
Its partly because the Compendium is stealing potential editors form us, partly because lack of advertisement etc etc...
DDOwiki needs to get out of the downward spiral anyhow.
QFT

Btw, dose anyone know why they disabled tag function of vbulletin on this forums?
People was writing trash in the tags, I think.

geoffhanna
01-22-2009, 12:59 AM
Overall, I am surprised to find that I strongly disagree with much of the OP. I was excited when I realized what this thread was. But it turned to dismay rather quickly. Yet even so there are several points of agreement:

#5 and #9 - yes!
#13 and #14 - yes (but with no exclamation :) )
#6 and #7 - yes, but not if either conflicted with the ability to pull text out of the game

A couple that are 'meh' from my point of view, but do not seem actively bad...

#2, #8

These I think are just misinformed. There already is a template and a common structure. You just don't like it.

#4, #11

But these seem like they will rapidly defeat the compendium and reduce it to something I will no longer visit (let alone contribute):

#1, #3, #10 , #12

To me, the value of the compendium is that it is authoritative and (largely) accurate, and pulled directly from the game. Meaning it updates as the game updates. I like the template Turbine put in. I like that it looks (and acts) like a professionally designed, easy to read manual. I like that they don't let us screw it up with someone else's idea of what it ought to be instead.

Turbine has already provided two ways to correct <NoEdit> text: by adding corrective text in the edit area, and by reporting the page and asking for a correction. This is sufficient. I use the compendium ALL THE TIME. I like it a lot. I really, emphatically, strongly do not want to see some of these suggestions implemented. I am not saying it is perfect. But I really prefer the Turbine-controlled way they are doing it to-date.

But again, not perfect, in fact I'm going to add one suggestion of my own since I am already this far into the topic:

#15 implement the lazy load design pattern for the tab controls. The load time for complex pages (like class pages) is insane.

Thanks for bringing this up, it is a good topic and should be discussed. My apologies that I don't agree. But I don't.

Borror0
01-22-2009, 02:29 AM
#6 and #7 - yes, but not if either conflicted with the ability to pull text out of the game
Why is that? I can see for #6, but not #7. Redundant pages just are annoying and even misleading to new users.

A couple that are 'meh' from my point of view, but do not seem actively bad...
#2, #8
#2 might seem 'meh' from your point of view, but that is because you have never used a wiki actively. I think anyone with enough experience, that knows what a parser function is, will agree it is a must have for any wiki worth its salt. Without these, there is a lack of consistence between pages (or, there is a lack of information, it's a choice between the two).

As for a community, it's crucial if they even care about having a wiki. A wiki is the community working for the betterment of a website and the availability of information on a particular topic. If Turbine is not inclined to add incentive for a community to grow within the wiki and edit stuff, then perhaps they should revisit their choice and go back to the old fashioned website that only they can edit. I would be thankful of that decision, as they would at least stop drawing contributors away from a real wiki that really needs help.

It would be in their interest too, as there would at least be one website iwth accurate information: the DDOwiki ran by the community.

As for they, they would have the old style 'accurate' website.

These I think are just misinformed. There already is a template and a common structure. You just don't like it.
#4, #11
There is no structure, not on the user side.

We have no rules to operate with. If you view the Compendium as a Turbine-run website, you are right. They do have rules, but we don't have them and most of them are not relevant for the user. Even there, there is a lot of lacking information for the user and the structure is incomplete.

Again, that might be something not so obvious to you if you don't have any experience with a wiki but it does not make it less important.

But these seem like they will rapidly defeat the compendium and reduce it to something I will no longer visit (let alone contribute):

#1, #3, #10 , #12
Sorry, but did you ever try contribute heavily to a wiki?

I apologize ahead, as this is going to sound extremely condescending, but this comment can only be said by someone with little knowledge and experience on how a wiki works. Because, if you were to compare the DDO Compendium to a wiki, you would feel the Compendium is immensely inferior in many ways and superior in no ways. At least, if you are competent in your job. Since I have no formation in the area, I assume Turbine's employee can pull it off. As Ustice said, if we have the lousy Compendium we have now, it is probably because of management's unfounded fears. I don't blame them, fear is normal. But it cannot be argued against anyone who knows wiki half-correctly.

If one your major qualm is accuracy, a community-run wiki wins hands down over the Compendium in its current form. Should I point you out the multiple pages that Tolero had to delete and that lingered for a long while? Yes, I am talking about feats like Arcane Lore, Religion Lore and Ranged Power Attack. (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=151447) Ranged Power Attack was the most vicious one as it could be extremely misleading to some (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=1767838&postcount=8). Or, should I point out enhancements present in the feat section (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=1767841&postcount=9)? What about Evasion (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Evasion) still having its pre-Module 4.1 description? What about the Monk page still listing Philosophy: Path of Harmonious Balance and Philosophy: Path of Inevitable Dominion as "not available at level 3"?

There are tons of inaccuracies that could have been corrected by me or others. Don't mention the report button, I reported those months ago.

Perhaps you are scared of vandalism, but I can speak by personal experience by saying I have encountered so little of it through months of experience with the wiki. The most notable was someone replacing words on the paladin page by sexual comments. I won't go into details, but I'm sure you get the idea. In other words, those were done by someone who found himself funny. I'll remind you that to edit the wiki, you have to own a copy of the game and an active subscription. If someone feels like being funny, Turbine can ban him off the wiki in a minute or less. (I tell you, it literally takes 1 minute -or less- to ban someone on a wiki.) Most of the vandalism I saw was made by bots, but this is solved by requiring an active subscription (or a good captcha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha) for other wikis).

If you scared of inaccurate edits, then I'll accuse you of having poor wiki knowledge. I know you edit the Compendium quite often, so I guess you know of the Recent Changes page. What you may not know is that in an so-so active wiki, a bad edit is reverted in a matter of hours. And that's so-so active wiki! If the wiki is really active, it will have editors watching nearly 24/7. I, for instance, have the DDOwiki added to my RSS feeds. I know a lot of editors have important pages on their watch list. A bad edit won't stay there long. Pages can be protected if need be, and only given access to users with a certain amount of rights.

And that's if you don't have FlaggedRev!!! Add FlaggedRev an that worried goes away, totally!

Then, you try to claim the template they have looks good. Really? Oh, really? Let's take two common feats and look at how each wiki display it.

First, let's start with the DDO Compendium:

Combat Expertise on the DDO Compendium (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Combat_Expertise)
Evasion on the DDO Compendium (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Evasion)

Now, let's take at what could be achieved if Turbine made a proper template:

Evasion on the DDOwiki (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Evasion)
Combat Expertise on the DDOwiki (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Combat_expertise)

Note the the display on the wiki could be improved, I just don't have access to the right to do that now. I know that the category box at the bottom looks messy, but that can be corrected. Since I cannot access the wiki myself, I can't change it. But Turbine could.

So, which one looks the best? Which one is the most informative?

Borror0
01-22-2009, 03:14 AM
I pressed submit without to one point you made. Here is the continuity.

#15 implement the lazy load design pattern for the tab controls. The load time for complex pages (like class pages) is insane.
It seems as if Turbine cannot find the just middle between too modular and too general.

The class pages have more information than they should, while pages like this one (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Weapon_Focus_(Greater):_Bludgeoning_Weapons_( Warhammer)) or that one (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Enhancement:Barbarian_Toughness_IV) are too modular.

The first category of pages could be as informative by redirecting us to another page where we could view the content separately. That would reduce loading times and make the pages more concise, to the point. As for the second category of page, regrouping pages that are similar together would allow better information and make navigation easier. Yoko5000 is working on something like that (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Template_talk:Enhancementline) for the enhancement template, although it is still experimental. Multiples pages like on the DDOwiki also try to direct the user might find informative, like Evasion (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Evasion) and Combat Expertise (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Combat_expertise) pages I linked above do.

In other words, there are better workarounds.

That problem is simply an error committed by Turbine when they designed their Compendium.

Thanks for bringing this up, it is a good topic and should be discussed. My apologies that I don't agree. But I don't.
What would you suggest other than what I have brought in this thread?

Fenrisulven6
01-22-2009, 06:02 AM
Nicely done Borro. I take back everything bad I said about you ;)

Ustice
01-22-2009, 06:37 AM
I pressed submit without to one point you made. Here is the continuity.

It seems as if Turbine cannot find the just middle between too modular and too general.

The class pages have more information than they should, while pages like this one (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Weapon_Focus_(Greater):_Bludgeoning_Weapons_( Warhammer)) or that one (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Enhancement:Barbarian_Toughness_IV) are too modular.

The first category of pages could be as informative by redirecting us to another page where we could view the content separately. That would reduce loading times and make the pages more concise, to the point. As for the second category of page, regrouping pages that are similar together would allow better information and make navigation easier. Yoko5000 is working on something like that (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Template_talk:Enhancementline) for the enhancement template, although it is still experimental. Multiples pages like on the DDOwiki also try to direct the user might find informative, like Evasion (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Evasion) and Combat Expertise (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Combat_expertise) pages I linked above do.

In other words, there are better workarounds.

That problem is simply an error committed by Turbine when they designed their Compendium.

What would you suggest other than what I have brought in this thread?

Since Turbine has a talented group of web devs that are experienced with editing the wiki base code, they could implement some hijax techniques (http://domscripting.com/presentations/xtech2006/) that would help the page load faster. If the user does not have javascript, then it loads static pages, if they do then the pages load dynamically. It's better for users (it's faster loading and interactive interface), and it is better for Turbine (right now, the pages likely won't index as well on search engines).

geoffhanna
01-22-2009, 08:27 AM
I know that I am not going to persuade you to come around to my point of view. I knew that when I posted, frankly Borror0 you are not entirely the audience I was trying to reach.

You are not trying to persuade me either. You are trying to dismiss me. Your primary rebuttal is: I must just be ignorant of the wiki concept. If I knew more I would automatically endorse your view. This is not condescencing, it is just... dismissive? Obstructive? I disagree with you because ... I don't agree with you. Our base assumptions differ. I could do a point-by-point breakdown but all of the individual points are informed by our base assumptions. There won't be common ground; it would be futile.

The only reason I posted at all is because I want to be on record - in this thread - as being in favor of this concept:

A Turbine-run repository of authoritative game knowledge, drawn from the game itself, updating at the speed of game releases, augmented by users but only in ways that do not detract from or mar the Turbine-run repository.

I want thorough, accurate game documentation. I want it to conform with the vision of Turbine, who I am paying, and not the vision of a small number of self-appointed users, even when those users have "earned" the appointment by volunteering their time and effort.

As a side point, some of your specific suggestions fit very nicely with this, for instance, the formatting and template ideas fit well if they are limited in scope to the portions of the compendium intended for user input. But you do not limit scope to the user sections.

A wiki invites all users to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site, using only a plain-vanilla Web browser without any extra add-ons.
Wiki promotes meaningful topic associations between different pages by making page link creation almost intuitively easy and showing whether an intended target page exists or not.
A wiki is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the Web site landscape.
* Wikipedia article: Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki)

This is all well and good for the user portion of the compendium, but overall I want the compendium to be a "carefully crafted site for casual visitors". I want pages to be where I left them and holding the data that was there the last time I looked. I don't want ongoing creation and collaboration on core game documentation. I want it done, once, professionally, and updated only when the core changes.


What would you suggest other than what I have brought in this thread?

The same thing I want from the rest of DDO: more Turbine attention. Faster responses to the Report button. More pages like the Class pages which are just outstanding. Less pages like the Evasion page (which I assume will require coding - it is probably not a coincidence that there are three entries and also three different classes that have Evasion).

Or to simplify: More Content.

I applaud your work on DDOWiki and hope that you all choose to continue it.

Ustice
01-22-2009, 08:33 AM
#6 and #7 - yes, but not if either conflicted with the ability to pull text out of the game

If there was an API for pulling data from the game, then we could populate this info easily enough. For instance to pull the list of feats we could use a GET request to this address:

http://api.ddo.com/feats/list.json

If we wanted detailed info from a specific feat, we use this:

http://api.ddo.com/feats/124592.json

If we could pull the data from the game servers (or some cached version of it) in that manner then it would be easy to integrate into the Compendium while maintaining the ability of users to edit content.




A couple that are 'meh' from my point of view, but do not seem actively bad...
#2, #8
Improvements like these are important because they make it easier on the community editors and content providers. By encouraging people to edit, you get a better product. While this might not seem important to the end user, it would greatly enhance the quality of the content, thus helping the end user.


These I think are just misinformed. There already is a template and a common structure. You just don't like it.
#4, #11
I disagree on #4. Meta-templates just bring consistency to pages (or really to templates). It's so your templates are consistent.

As for the skin, well that is just personal taste. Other than the black boxes, I kind of like the skin.


But these seem like they will rapidly defeat the compendium and reduce it to something I will no longer visit (let alone contribute):

#1, #3, #10 , #12

To me, the value of the compendium is that it is authoritative and (largely) accurate, and pulled directly from the game. Meaning it updates as the game updates. I like the template Turbine put in. I like that it looks (and acts) like a professionally designed, easy to read manual. I like that they don't let us screw it up with someone else's idea of what it ought to be instead.

Turbine has already provided two ways to correct <NoEdit> text: by adding corrective text in the edit area, and by reporting the page and asking for a correction. This is sufficient. I use the compendium ALL THE TIME. I like it a lot. I really, emphatically, strongly do not want to see some of these suggestions implemented. I am not saying it is perfect. But I really prefer the Turbine-controlled way they are doing it to-date.
These suggested changes do not get made fast enough. There is plenty of reported wrong data, and even more that is missing data completely. The problem with just adding data at the bottom of the page is that it is too easily missed by newer users. By giving us the ability to correct things, it is most likely that the data will be updated on a very fast schedule.

The thing is that since this is a closed community, it would make it practically impossible for people to cause any trouble on the Compendium that lasted more than an hour AT MOST. Someone will fix it back, and if an edit is flagged, then it would be easy enough to censure that player accordingly.


But again, not perfect, in fact I'm going to add one suggestion of my own since I am already this far into the topic:


#15 implement the lazy load design pattern for the tab controls. The load time for complex pages (like class pages) is insane.

Thanks for bringing this up, it is a good topic and should be discussed. My apologies that I don't agree. But I don't.
You don't have to agree, and I appreciate your contribution. I agree with this point completely, and as I pointed out in another post, there are much better ways to handle this. Nice addition.

Ustice
01-22-2009, 08:56 AM
I want thorough, accurate game documentation. I want it to conform with the vision of Turbine, who I am paying, and not the vision of a small number of self-appointed users, even when those users have "earned" the appointment by volunteering their time and effort.

The great thing is that Turbine would still have complete power over the Compendium, and can guide it's direction by creating templates and the like. If someone is doing something they don't like, they can join in the discussion and let it be known, and ultimately implement FlaggedRev if necessary.

I basically want the same thing (authoritative source of info), and I think that even Borror0 does, which is why we want the Compendium to be better.


This is all well and good for the user portion of the compendium, but overall I want the compendium to be a "carefully crafted site for casual visitors". I want pages to be where I left them and holding the data that was there the last time I looked. I don't want ongoing creation and collaboration on core game documentation. I want it done, once, professionally, and updated only when the core changes.
Turbine just doesn't have the resources to do this, and there is always going to be errors and omissions. If you want an example of resources, look at the favicon. How long has that ugly thing been like it is? Tollero has been trying to get that changed for a while now, and it is still the terrible default.

Borror0
01-22-2009, 10:34 AM
You are not trying to persuade me either. You are trying to dismiss me. Your primary rebuttal is: I must just be ignorant of the wiki concept. If I knew more I would automatically endorse your view.
Please excuse me if this sounds arrogant, but yes, entirely.

Your main rebuttal, as I understand it, is that somehow the Compendium would be of a lesser quality or would contain (more) misinformation. I can see how you come to believe that as it is a common misunderstanding, but those arguments are unfounded. I often hear people talk about the low quality of information in wikis, but research as shown that isn't usually the case (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/online-encyclopedias-put-to-the-test/2005/12/14/1134500913345.html) (if you want more links, I can dig a few more). The power of people coming together to achieve a goal is surprising.

Given the proper tools and rules, a wiki will be of greater quality than most websites you can find on the topic. A wiki's weakness is that they are strongest in subjects that a large portion of the users are knowledgeable in, and weaker other areas of knowledge. This is often the case on Wikipedia.

DDOWiki and the Compendium are an entirely different case though.

Since most of the users are fairly knowledgeable on the subject, we are likely to get very accurate and concise articles on all subjects related to DDO.

The other problem of Wikipedia is that there are so many edits per day (if you check the Recent Changes of the English version of Wikipedia, there has been over 500 edits in the last 2 minutes or, if you hide the minor edits, 500 edits in the last 5 minutes) by editors with sometimes questionable knowledge on the topic that incorrect information is bound to appear.

A gaming wiki won't have this problem. In fact, I am ready to bet that WoWwiki (http://www.wowwiki.com/Portal:Main) contains information of a greater quality than anything released by Blizzard, both in details and accuracy. Edits happen at a slower pace: twelve hours has lapsed since the last 500 edits, or eighteen hours if you remove minor edits. Also, everyone knows the topic better so if something misleading slips, it's very likely to get corrected quickly. This slower pace of new information and edits make it easier for dedicated editors to track changes and be involved.

I want it done, once, professionally, and updated only when the core changes.
Users can produce content that is of professional quality, as long as they all use rules and agree on a structure (hence the need for templates).

If you want information in greater quantity, quality and accuracy, you want it user-made. If you want to be able to complain at Turbine if the information is incorrect, in order to feel better, well then you want it to be done by Turbine. The first option is more likely to get the change you want though.

The same thing I want from the rest of DDO: more Turbine attention.
That would be ideal, but sadly they don't. I would love it if I didn't have to spend time working on a wiki to have valuable information at had, but I do.

We can beg Turbine to fix it, and hope they do, or we can ask for the tools and fix it ourselves. My way is far more realistic, as they don't have the resources to fix everything.

Ustice
01-22-2009, 11:40 AM
New suggestion.
Implement the basic functionality of EtherPad (http://etherpad.com), for instant collaboration of articles. Submit the code back to mediawiki. :)

That is all.

Borror0
01-22-2009, 11:42 AM
New suggestion.
Implement the basic functionality of EtherPad (http://etherpad.com), for instant collaboration of articles. Submit the code back to mediawiki. :)

That is all.
Ever read Wikipedia talk pages? The drama we have here is nothing compared to what they have there.

In a perfect world, it would be great but...

GoldyGopher
01-22-2009, 01:51 PM
As the schmuk who is currently entering and organizing a large amount of data into the wiki I would like to add my two cp worth.

To a large extent I agree with Borror0 has written, but not everything. As I am also a Sr. Systems Engineer who as one of my very minor responsibilities I have to baby sit my companies Wiki Server (used for internal communications thank god).

The use of Namespaces makes perfect sense to me, not that I could explain it, maybe it is the nearly 1 million pages I get to look at once a month from an OS standpoint rather than user or inputter.

The issue is not the use of Namespace but rather the complete lack of consistency throughout the server by both Turbine Staff and those of us who have entered information. We need a standard.
As an example “The Coin Lords” vs. “Coin Lords” or “Waterworks” vs. “Waterworks” vs. “The Waterworks” vs. “the waterworks”.
Since I could not find a standard nor could I stand the lack of one and as I have taken some responsibility for the Quests sections (since I could only find a quest listed) I have created a standard and I am enforcing it on a number of pages.

As for the look and usefulness… The look and basic layout is out of my control so as the saying goes "it is what it is." As for usefulness, without information it is damn near useless. Putting data and having everyone agree the data is correct is 75 steps in the right direction.

Ustice
01-22-2009, 02:01 PM
Ever read Wikipedia talk pages? The drama we have here is nothing compared to what they have there.

In a perfect world, it would be great but...

Of course this would be something that could be turned on and off as needed. :)

Borror0
01-22-2009, 02:25 PM
The issue is not the use of Namespace but rather the complete lack of consistency throughout the server by both Turbine Staff and those of us who have entered information. We need a standard.
As an example “The Coin Lords” vs. “Coin Lords” or “Waterworks” vs. “Waterworks” vs. “The Waterworks” vs. “the waterworks”.
Exactly, and you have no idea of how silly and technical it can get.

Try to guess what it the difference between "quest" and "adventure" in DDO. that one is an headache.
Spell me all base weapons correctly, as they are in-game.

I warn you, both are trick questions. Think about it.

Before you say it's unimportant, it is. The naming used has a lot of impact and is at the core of a wiki's structure. The users must agree on a way to spell and choose the correct naming for everything. If not, the first user that comes in front of this challenge may have to decide himself and it will become the standard. That is rarely a good thing.

The usage of namespace in the Compendium makes little sense because it is against wiki standards (meaning, newcomers have to learn something totally new), because it makes browsing/editing harder and because it causes a lot of problem when trying to add more content on the wiki. Under what namespace do I put AC? Agents of Argonnessen? Charisma?

It's an overuse of categorization, with no gain.

There's a thing called category. Use it Turbine. It serves at purpose, at least.

Ustice
01-22-2009, 02:40 PM
After reading about namespaces on Mediawiki's meta-wiki (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace) I now agree with Borror0. Categories are a much better choice. Namespaces should basically be used for creating sub-wikis (Help, Special, United States, China, Europe, and Japan would likely be the ones used here)

GoldyGopher
01-22-2009, 03:32 PM
After reading about namespaces on Mediawiki's meta-wiki (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace) I now agree with Borror0. Categories are a much better choice. Namespaces should basically be used for creating sub-wikis (Help, Special, United States, China, Europe, and Japan would likely be the ones used here)

Just to be be clear on my end. I understand Turbine's use of Namespace, it makes perfect sense to me why they did what they did; However I don't totally agree with what they have done.

However when in Rome.....

Borror0
01-22-2009, 03:34 PM
it makes perfect sense to me why they did what they did.
Why did they do it?

GoldyGopher
01-22-2009, 03:43 PM
Why did they do it?

Yeah got about Six weeks? Actually this course might be an entire semsister in length, let me pull out my course guide.... Yeap 5 Credits....

Might I suggest "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" by Abelson and Sussman as the light reading to prepare for the course.

However in a nut shell my one sentance response; Turbine took a bureaucratic approach to the data system causing stove piping of the data to allow for easier manipulation by automated systems.

Ustice
01-22-2009, 03:51 PM
However in a nut shell my one sentance response; Turbine took a bureaucratic approach to the data system causing stove piping of the data to allow for easier manipulation by automated systems.

... which could have been accomplished, and to better effect with categories. At first, I did agree with you, Goldy (for the same reasons, being a code monkey myself), but after learning more about what they are for, it doesn't make sense.

Keeping a heretical structure, though does make sense. Subcategories take care of that nicely. I was thinking of them like namespaces in code, but that doesn't really apply here. They are very different animals.

Thanimal
01-22-2009, 04:02 PM
heretical structure
Pretty awesome Freudian slip there! :)

GoldyGopher
01-22-2009, 04:08 PM
... which could have been accomplished, and to better effect with categories. At first, I did agree with you, Goldy (for the same reasons, being a code monkey myself), but after learning more about what they are for, it doesn't make sense.

Keeping a heretical structure, though does make sense. Subcategories take care of that nicely. I was thinking of them like namespaces in code, but that doesn't really apply here. They are very different animals.

Stop Editting....

In my understanding of media Wiki (as opposed to a different Wiki product we use) Catagories and Subcatagories only effect the way data is displayed not nessecarily the way the data is stored nor how it is interacted with by automated systems.

The wiki we use at my work was chosen because it is a more hieratical structure as opposed to the flat structure of others. This allows the automated systems (Everything from search engines to automated data creation) to ummm flow/run/umm, not the exact word I want but whatever, with fewer issues.

geoffhanna
01-23-2009, 07:43 PM
... Your main rebuttal, as I understand it, is that somehow the Compendium would be of a lesser quality or would contain (more) misinformation. I can see how you come to believe that as it is a common misunderstanding, but those arguments are unfounded. I often hear people talk about the low quality of information in wikis, but research as shown that isn't usually the case (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/online-encyclopedias-put-to-the-test/2005/12/14/1134500913345.html) (if you want more links, I can dig a few more). The power of people coming together to achieve a goal is surprising...

<sigh>

No that is not even close to my "main rebuttal"

<deep sigh>

I do not fear the wiki. I use ours. I read yours. I've even made a handful of very minor contributions to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Geoffhanna).

It is not about wiki=good or wiki=bad at all. It is about suitability of the tool to the task. Most of your suggestions are fine - awesome even - for the parts of the compendium that are intended to be user content. But some of the compendium is intended to be the game documentation: professionally designed by graphic artists, easy to use, authoritative, and stable.

I already quoted the guy who invented wiki. Even he believes you do not use wiki for everything. Pick the right tool.

Hammers are great! GREAT! but they make lousy toothpicks.

Borror0
01-23-2009, 08:08 PM
But some of the compendium is intended to be the game documentation: professionally designed by graphic artists, easy to use, authoritative, and stable.
Let's review each aspect:

Graphic artists: Which page wins for aesthetic this one (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Evasion) or that one (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Evasion)?
Easy to use:

If the users find it hard to use, they can redesign it. Which is easier to use this page (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Feats) or that page (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Category:Feats)?
If FlaggedRev is added, the user does not have to ponder on whether or not the unofficial information is accurate.
Please explain how the current version would be any easier to use than a wiki.

Authoritative: I already addressed that point.
Stable: Stability is meaningless if it is misinformation.


I already quoted the guy who invented wiki. Even he believes you do not use wiki for everything. Pick the right tool!
If you are referring to the comment I am thinking of, he said "A wiki is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the Web site landscape."

In other words, a wiki was not editor friendly by nature. Many improvements have been done in the nine years that passed since then. I am not saying it is still not scary for the user, but there is little differences between the current version of the Compendium and a real wiki. The users that would be scared by a real wiki would still be scared by the current version.

geoffhanna
01-23-2009, 08:33 PM
I can't defeat repetitive arguments without also becoming repetitive. But there was never a chance of changing your opinion, I knew that going in, and I'm cool with it. :cool:

Turbine, if you read this thread (possible) and made it this deep in spite of all the vitriol on the first page (unlikely), please count my vote on this topic as:

PLEASE DO NOT IMPLEMENT SUGGESTIONS #1, #3, #10 or #12 FROM THE OP.

I'm out :)

Borror0
01-23-2009, 08:38 PM
I can't defeat repetitive arguments without also becoming repetitive. But there was never a chance of changing your opinion, I knew that going in, and I'm cool with it. :cool:
I'm more than willing to change my position, but you're not bringing any solid argument here.

By the way, there is no reason at all to reject request #10 and #12. At least, none you have brought up.

Ustice
01-23-2009, 08:47 PM
[/LIST]
Stable: Stability is meaningless if it is misinformation.
[/LIST]


Moreover, since the game changes over time, stability would be a weakness. We need a dynamic system. Wikis are one of the most fluid documentation types available.

Borror0
02-06-2009, 04:03 PM
Post Script: On an unrelated note, your parser tags are in the next Compendium update, just got a confirmation on it yesterday :)
Woot! /dance

Mercules
02-06-2009, 04:19 PM
Talking from experience, in these cases the problem is that management doesn't understand the real issue, and they make a decision based on that. I think that had the web developers offered the FlaggedRev option, it likely would have been the road that management would have taken, but then they would likely have locked down most articles. I think that what we have is a compromise that just didn't work out as well as we would like.

Could be like my work. New manager....

New Boss: "What Merc? You have 14 years of Technical Support Experience with various products/companies, and 3 years working specifically with this product? That is nice. We put our tech support team together in about a year and now have 14 techs supporting our customers base. We know what we are doing and you will do things our way."

Me: "Funny, we have 3 techs supporting an even larger user base and getting better service level numbers and work closely with the development team and QA to assure the customer gets what they want with a true flow of ideas, not some hierarchical game of who gets to claim the credit."

We mentioned 4 months ago there would be an issue with international support when we took it over from one of our distributors concerning returning a hardware device. "Oh, well we can address that if it becomes an issue." It will become an issue. "But you don't see it being a 'big' issue, do you?" Well no not too many, but isn't one ticked off customer who can't use our product and therefore is not spending money on it an issue?

So... last week. the issue came up, 2 weeks after we took over for the distributor. Now we have to have meetings about it. The Proposed solution is to send the device to our regional office, then to us, then back to the regional office, and then back to the customer... all international shipping and not by air if there is a cheaper options. So a month later the customer can generate a report for a client or court date? Um... not going to work.

The Web Design team could have explained the possible issues in detail, but management didn't believe it would actually be an issue. Happens ALL the time in business.