Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>   Also, in some few cases the contents of an existing page might become
>> obsolete and irrelevant, not worth linking.
> 
> 
> Somebody should tell Google :-( Currently the English-language version 
> returns <http://library.advanced.org/3285/> as second hit when searching 
> for "povray" or "pov-ray"...
> 
>     Thorsten

That's funny, when I did it I found Chris Colefax's include files as the 
second link.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Remember, guys, you can automate the tests. And each time someone opens the
> link page, for only that moment the bad links are not displayed. As
> automated tests are patient and never rest, each link is checked each time.
> 
> And here again, non-functional links can be flagged (was a good idea) with a
> flag date. If that link does not work - let's say - 1 month or 3 months
> after that flag, the link is removed from the databse, otherwise the flag
> and the flag date is being removed.

If you had read the oprigianl thread, as I pointed out before, you would 
know that I said this is already beging done. In fact, we even have a 
Google-like caching ever since the new page went online many yeasr ago. That 
cache just isn't accessible to users for the time being.

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:04:12 +0200, Sven Littkowski wrote:

> Remember, guys, you can automate the tests.

It is already.  As Thorsten indicated, there is a system in place - what
we're doing (in part) is validating the invalidity of those links and
tracking down replacements where they exist.  That's not particularly
automatable.

I also have run automated tests using ht://check (I originally suggested
this when the discussion came up before and was told this sort of thing
was being done on an automated basis) on various sites (though not the
pov-ray site, since it's not needed).

It's not stressful, believe me - I volunteered to help out; if it was
causing me stress, I wouldn't volunteer for it.  Tracking down valid links
for the things that are currently broken has proved to be an interesting
experience - I've learned a lot about things that are out there that I was
unaware of before.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" <c_b### [at] btconnectcomnospam> wrote in message 
news:4464526c$1@news.povray.org...
>A small group of enthusiastic volunteers has started to go through the 
>links
> from the POV-Ray links pages to track down broken links and validate the
> descriptions. Once we've got the links data up to date it'll be loaded
> onto the web site, which is currently a couple of years out of date.
>
> We're also looking at re-organising the categories to make the links pages 
> easier to use and maintain. I've posted a couple of diagrams on 
> 'povray.binaries' in the thread entitled 'POV-Ray link Categories' see 
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C4464518c%40news.povray.org%3E/.
>
> Please take a look and see if you think this is likely to meet your own 
> needs and those of newcomers to POV-Ray.
> The aim is to finalise a design by the end of May.
> Please use this thread to contribute to the discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Chris B.
>

Hey Guys,

We seem to be getting hung up on the first paragraph (intended to just 
introduce what's happening). The main intention of this posting was to 
promote discussion on the re-organisation of the Categorisations and the 
Hierarchical organisation of the links pages on the povray.org site. See 
paragraphs 2 and 3 above. Whether we update the links manually, 
automatically, monthly or yearly, we'll need to structure the links in a way 
that meets the needs of the people wanting to use them. I'm proposing 
changes to a number of aspects of the structure and would appreciate 
feedback about whether people think these changes are a good or bad idea.

  o   The current structure for example has a category for 'Include Files', 
one for 'Macros' and one for 'Objects'. Although this may at first seem 
logical, many Object definitions and Macro definitions are contained in 
Include files and many Macros generate Objects. I've therefore suggested 
that these 3 sections be merged.

  o   In the hierarchy that I'm proposing, I've tried to reduce the number 
of levels so that most links are displayed in less clicks of the mouse.

  o   I've proposed some radical trimming down of content in some areas, 
with some categories being removed and with some others where the current 
links would mostly be removed and replaced with a small number of links that 
would hardly ever need to be changed. We would then be able to increase the 
number of links to POV-Ray specific content without things getting out of 
hand.

Any thoughts on this?
(Anyone having problems displaying the diagrams?)

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" wrote:
> The main intention of this posting was to promote discussion on the 
> re-organisation of the Categorisations and the Hierarchical organisation 
> of the links pages on the povray.org site. See paragraphs 2 and 3 above.
>
> Any thoughts on this?

Not on the structure directly, but I have a question regarding inclusion of 
site links versus page links in the future.

In the current links collection, sometimes a whole site with many pages 
devoted to POV-Ray and other relevant resources have just a single link 
pointing to the home page of the site, and a description that summarizes the 
content of the entire site. One gross example is this one: "Site contains 
various macro utilities and object files for download. Visit site to see 
what is available." Other sites have several links pointing to various 
relevant pages on the site, with detailed descriptions on which resources 
can be found on each specific page.

From the user's point of view, I guess the more detailed approach with links 
to each page is the more helpful, so a lot of browsing on pages just to find 
out what's actually on them can be avoided. However, naturally, it will mean 
more links and more maintenance. This however could be helped if people from 
the community could submit links themselves which would then just have to be 
reviewed by a moderator before inclusion. Indeed authors of pages could 
submit links themselves and doing the most of the work on ensuring that the 
resources on their sites are optimally represented in the links collection 
in the right categories and with the right descriptions.

However, looking at the current inconsistency, will there be any "policy" on 
how detailed to go? How many links to different pages on the same site is 
acceptable? (Some of the sites of the great POV-Ray community contributors 
have dozens of pages, all relevant.)

I just thought it might be a good idea to consider such things early, just 
like the re-organization of the categories.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> If you had read the oprigianl thread, as I pointed out before, you would 
> know that I said this is already beging done. In fact, we even have a 
> Google-like caching ever since the new page went online many yeasr ago. 
> That cache just isn't accessible to users for the time being.

Another idea occurs to me:

Can you have a bot e-mail the address of the page maintainers when the 
links go bad?  This won't help with all of the bad links, but it may 
help with some.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Chris B wrote:
> "Chris B" <c_b### [at] btconnectcomnospam> wrote in message 
> news:4464526c$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>A small group of enthusiastic volunteers has started to go through the 
>>links
>>from the POV-Ray links pages to track down broken links and validate the
>>descriptions. Once we've got the links data up to date it'll be loaded
>>onto the web site, which is currently a couple of years out of date.
>>
>>We're also looking at re-organising the categories to make the links pages 
>>easier to use and maintain. I've posted a couple of diagrams on 
>>'povray.binaries' in the thread entitled 'POV-Ray link Categories' see 
>>http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C4464518c%40news.povray.org%3E/.
>>
>>Please take a look and see if you think this is likely to meet your own 
>>needs and those of newcomers to POV-Ray.
>>The aim is to finalise a design by the end of May.
>>Please use this thread to contribute to the discussion.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Chris B.
>>
> 
> 
> Hey Guys,
> 
> We seem to be getting hung up on the first paragraph (intended to just 
> introduce what's happening). The main intention of this posting was to 
> promote discussion on the re-organisation of the Categorisations and the 
> Hierarchical organisation of the links pages on the povray.org site. See 
> paragraphs 2 and 3 above. Whether we update the links manually, 
> automatically, monthly or yearly, we'll need to structure the links in a way 
> that meets the needs of the people wanting to use them. I'm proposing 
> changes to a number of aspects of the structure and would appreciate 
> feedback about whether people think these changes are a good or bad idea.
> 
>   o   The current structure for example has a category for 'Include Files', 
> one for 'Macros' and one for 'Objects'. Although this may at first seem 
> logical, many Object definitions and Macro definitions are contained in 
> Include files and many Macros generate Objects. I've therefore suggested 
> that these 3 sections be merged.
> 
>   o   In the hierarchy that I'm proposing, I've tried to reduce the number 
> of levels so that most links are displayed in less clicks of the mouse.
> 
>   o   I've proposed some radical trimming down of content in some areas, 
> with some categories being removed and with some others where the current 
> links would mostly be removed and replaced with a small number of links that 
> would hardly ever need to be changed. We would then be able to increase the 
> number of links to POV-Ray specific content without things getting out of 
> hand.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?
> (Anyone having problems displaying the diagrams?)
> 
> Regards,
> Chris B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Hi Chris, I am studing on your heirarchy.  Taking some time to digest it 
but on surface it looks great.  From my experience chasing down my 
links, I had one brief thought.  I wondered if there might be some use 
to a class of documents termed "of historical interest."  A brief, 
semi-formed thought though.  Will have my allocation back to you by end 
of day.  Just waiting to see if some sites might come back up.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" <c_b### [at] btconnectcomnospam> wrote:
> .. I'm proposing
> changes to a number of aspects of the structure and would appreciate
> feedback about whether people think these changes are a good or bad idea.
>
>   o   The current structure for example has a category for 'Include Files',
> one for 'Macros' and one for 'Objects'. Although this may at first seem
> logical, many Object definitions and Macro definitions are contained in
> Include files and many Macros generate Objects. I've therefore suggested
> that these 3 sections be merged.

An excellent idea!

Another thought:  There are times when a particular discussion/question in
"general" or "advanced" begs for an image to be presented *there*, to
clarify the concepts being discussed.   Currently (as I understand it) such
an image should instead be posted in  "binaries:images" ...which seems
somewhat "out of place" to me (and necessitates cross-referencing in both
categories--not to mention the possibility of follow-up discussions being
split between both locations.)  "binaries:images" is, to my mind, a place
for WIPS and finished work.  An image associated with a question should
logically be consolidated into one post. I suppose what I'm getting at is a
more open policy toward posting an image --when necessary -- in the
"general" or "advanced" sections. This IS done every now and then, but I've
always assumed the practice to be frowned upon. Clarifying or relaxing that
policy would be helpful.

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

> An excellent idea!
>
> Another thought:  There are times when a particular discussion/question in
> "general" or "advanced" begs for an image to be presented *there*, to
> clarify the concepts being discussed.   Currently (as I understand it) such
> an image should instead be posted in  "binaries:images" ...which seems
> somewhat "out of place" to me (and necessitates cross-referencing in both
> categories--not to mention the possibility of follow-up discussions being
> split between both locations.)  "binaries:images" is, to my mind, a place
> for WIPS and finished work.  An image associated with a question should
> logically be consolidated into one post. I suppose what I'm getting at is a
> more open policy toward posting an image --when necessary -- in the
> "general" or "advanced" sections. This IS done every now and then, but I've
> always assumed the practice to be frowned upon. Clarifying or relaxing that
> policy would be helpful.
>

I believe the reason for this was to accomodate people with dial-up.  This
way they don't need to worry about long hitting long DL times when chacking
a text-only group.  I know a lot more people have high-speed these days, but
I'm sure there are still some out there using dial-up, so I'm not sure if
this is a good idea for that reason.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

Trevor G Quayle wrote:

>>An excellent idea!
>>
>>Another thought:  There are times when a particular discussion/question in
>>"general" or "advanced" begs for an image to be presented *there*, to
>>clarify the concepts being discussed.   Currently (as I understand it) such
>>an image should instead be posted in  "binaries:images" ...which seems
>>somewhat "out of place" to me (and necessitates cross-referencing in both
>>categories--not to mention the possibility of follow-up discussions being
>>split between both locations.)  "binaries:images" is, to my mind, a place
>>for WIPS and finished work.  An image associated with a question should
>>logically be consolidated into one post. I suppose what I'm getting at is a
>>more open policy toward posting an image --when necessary -- in the
>>"general" or "advanced" sections. This IS done every now and then, but I've
>>always assumed the practice to be frowned upon. Clarifying or relaxing that
>>policy would be helpful.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I believe the reason for this was to accomodate people with dial-up.  This
>way they don't need to worry about long hitting long DL times when chacking
>a text-only group.  I know a lot more people have high-speed these days, but
>I'm sure there are still some out there using dial-up, so I'm not sure if
>this is a good idea for that reason.
>
>-tgq
>
>  
>
Dialup here, little chance of improvement in the near future...

But I wonder if it might be practical to allow _small_ images in 
text-only groups (perhaps a 100 kb limit), with the file size clearly 
stated in the subject line, like "My bizarre pic [40 kb]."  Where a 
larger image is needed to fully depict the issue at hand, then p.b.i. 
could be used.

Those who abused the privilege would, of course, be required to 
participate in the Fish Slapping Dance.

Opinions?

--Sherry Shaw

-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message