Conversation started Oct 19, 2016 at 17:29.
orthocresol
orthocresol
Oct 19, 2016 17:29
@M.A.R. ok, you've gotta explain what you're planning to do..
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
Aug 7 '15 at 6:59, by inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M
@Martin after I close my drama show on meta I wanna write the all-in-one new-user guide.
To sum up, I'm thinking of these things:
orthocresol
orthocresol
I see.
That's ambitious...
Yeah, go on. Sorry.
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
- Closure policies policy-making
- All-in-one new user guide
- Some missing but important FAQs for the guide
- A reincarnation of TRE
- Gaining rep so I access 10k stuff
- MAYBE write some more guidance meta posts for more veteranish users, inspired by Brian's complaint
- Canonical version of dainty bounce
- Creating a vision of how our tags are so the tagging system becomes invulnerable to messiness.
The missing FAQ are at least one good FAQ for how to write a good title and what to and not to put in the title field.
orthocresol
orthocresol
Eh, no. I thought you were just talking about your all-in-one guide.
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
Also how to format the question body in the correct way.
@orthocresol I'll get to that.
orthocresol
orthocresol
Oct 19, 2016 17:40
Great. I'll go and make dinner first.
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
I wanna bookmark this for later use, since I'm forgetful.
ffahim
ffahim
Good evening ........ everyone
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
@ffahim Evening
TRE II will to have be something more comprehensive than TRE I.
We should not only edit bad tags, but also titles, body, formatting etc.
The all-in-one guide will be a big meta post with a separate TL;DR; answer.
It will include a summary of all the sections. In short, it will get users started.
We already wrote something about tagging.
And there's the numerous mathjax posts.
ffahim
ffahim
I would like to discuss about chemistry naming problem ... would u mind to help me ? @M.A.R.
Organic chemistry
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
@ffahim Let me make a separate room, and we'll chat there.
ffahim
ffahim
Oct 19, 2016 17:43
Okay hmm better idea
orthocresol
orthocresol
@M.A.R. How basic is your mathjax section going to be?
I don't see a basic mathjax post being significantly shorter than what I wrote. At most we simply remove the entire section about units.
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
@orthocresol It's not going to be basic. It's just not going to teach that much. I mean, you can only learn so much when you've never seen the syntax.
It's gonna be something that doesn't make people go dizzy.
All we're trying to do here is to smooth up the learning curve.
orthocresol
orthocresol
How much?
M.A.R.
M.A.R.
As much as is possible.
AIWS, the sections in the all-in-one user guide include, but are not limited to, sections about site UI, special pages, tagging, what is appropriate as a question and as an answer, how to write a good title, how to format properly, what correct typography looks like, and what meta and chat are for.
I don't have a good vision of what FAQ's for veteran users will look like, but they'd contain a lot of links.
They'd prolly introduce useful sites and pages they didn't know of, and some meta.SE or meta.SO pages on how to do cool stuff.
The 'Hidden points of editing' meta post was a success, and the tips are actually very good.
It's pretty clear what the meta post for writing canonicals will look like. It will follow dainty bounce's style.
Questions that fit a certain criteria, but are too broad, will be candidates for canons.
Moving on.
The last option that just occurred to me is inspired by a situation we have on ELL.
To make a long whining short, ELL's tagging system is a hell.
So I thought of fixing it, but whenever you retag a question with a bad tag, another bad tag pops up.
That made me think, and I have a vision of a post, a series of posts or whatever that can contain info that contains the vision we have of tags.
What should tags denote?
How broad or narrow should they be?
If we're to allow few meta tags, what will those tags distinguish?
etc etc.
They are questions a clear mind on tags will answer.
And with such a vivid outlook, no bad tag can easily sneak in and gain popularity.
It's a very strong answer to most tagging problems in the future, but since it'll be a first, we need to first figure out how to pull such a thing off.
Do we want a tag hierarchy?
Do we want a system of a few large tags that the smaller tags redefine and specify?
 
Conversation ended Oct 19, 2016 at 18:12.