Re: Archive
Robert Craig wrote:
[snip]
> Igor Kachan wrote:
> > The above news is very good, but the *recent* Elektrostatic file is now
> > hidden in the Sound category between more or less *happy* files.
> > So, do not sort, please, files inside a category by happy and add the
> > very recent one to the end of a file.
> > Then the files will go from the very *first* one to the very *recent* one.
>
> I have a program that reads the archive database, archive.edb,
> and automatically generates all the pages on the Web site
> that contain file descriptions, even the main page (recent 6).
Ok, is this program strongly private or you can share it, say,
on your contrib page or rds page? It is very interesting program
anyway, along with your tools for work on archive.edb.
> For most categories, things are sorted primarily by MicroEconomy
> dollars, but where the MicroEconomy is equal, the sorting is
> by date. That's why you see a whole bunch of items at the end
> of each page with no MicroEconomy, but sorted by date.
So, there is some combined sorting by MicroEconomy and by date,
and dates go from recent to first, from the middle of a page to the
end of a page.
Yes, and now the *resent*, i.e. most interesting, description of
esl0.01.zip file sits after the old happies and is hidden from the
reader of lib.htm file anyway. Anyway your visitor has to go to
the home page for recent news and then search for new description
in lib.htm, maybe, if he wants to check if category is properly
stated - some files may be related to many categories just by taste.
> Recent User Contributions is different. It is sorted
> primarily by date. Where the dates are the same, the sort
> is by "new contribution" first, followed by "updated contribution".
> And if those are the same, then MicroEconomy decides it.
So, this sorting by date is almost the same as on archive pages,
i.e. from resent to first, but MicroEconomy has here some minor
role too.
Good, but now we have the separate dedicated category for
MicroEconomy, and those total combined sorting order by ME and
date which hides new items on other category pages anyway.
But, with new category Top 100, we can have Recent page, sorted
strongly by date from recent to first. We can have category pages,
sorted strongly by date from first to recent, so news will not be
hidden. And we already have Top 100 category, which may have combined
sorting by dollars plus by date, if dollars are equal.
> > Make several files inside a category, short enough, say 40 or 50 items,
> > and give them a 'next' link to the next file of given category.
>
> I realize that many of the categories have grown very large.
> I used to get complaints about slow page loading times,
> but not lately. A much higher pecentage of people now have
> high-speed Internet compared to a few years ago.
Who knows, maybe they just do not want complain anymore? 
I'm sitting on dial-up 33.6, 12 hours per month at home,
and it is not too bad here, in St.Petersburg, Russia.
You can get ADSL 64 or 128 here, if your phone line is good
enough, but it is very new and not very cheap thing now.
> I should add some new categories.
> Any ideas?
This question is very complicated, your new and old categories are
very good, do you remember we discussed this question years ago?
No, I have not a new good idea about categories.
Maybe, some files need to be rerelated to other, but existent,
category, but it is not some urgent work, I think.
An archive must have some stable constant structure, I just use
some convenient moment to say about some new things just about
current sorting on existent and new pages.
[snip]
> > Ok, and a more difficult suggestion for future, about sorting
> > by fields in categories.
>
> Maybe someday...
Ok, but you can just make now this sorting different on different pages,
say, on recent and home pages - by date from recent to first, on category
pages - by date from first to recent, and on Top 100 page - by dollars
plus by date. Then anyone can ask you for sorting by author's name
(you do have it in search already), by platform (you do have it in search
already), by size of a file (who needs? I do not need anyway) and ... by
... what else? ... it seems to be nothing.
All at all are sorted on almost any taste. Plus your tools for work
with archive.edb - say, for the Archive translators into other langs.
Yes, the current old good sorting has its good sides and makes sense
for some people, I agreed with Matt, but, I think, it is not very
convenient for more deep and special work with archive, say, you can not
now just visit lib.htm page once per week just to see and d/l some new
or updated libraries without rebrowsing the whole lib.htm page, which
is like to a little book now. The recently updated *rich* libs will be
here, at the end of a file, automatically, to be under attention as
*new & happy* and become more rich.
Well, think Rob, maybe these suggestions are not that bad.
Good Luck!
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
