am somewhat disappointed, no one (bar two honourable exceptions) interested much
in improving the OC ?! tja.. there's some time still, so help will be welcome
(and needed, as "decisively classifying" things isn't one of my strengths)
yesbird <sya### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 14/03/2023 12:40, jr wrote:
> I would include some additional categories, for better detalization:
> > Landscapes
> > Urban Landscapes
> Nature Landscapes
> > Organic Forms
> > Space
> > ...
I'll take the 'natural landscapes', and like the 'flora/fauna' under organic
forms. the "Technics" is a bit "all over" :-), but would like to see your
revised take on those/any categories.
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I would add a 'Miscellaneous' category. I can foresee some contributions that
> might not fall under any specific heading-- although I can't think of an example
personally, and by inclination, I'd agree. just .. convenient. but that also
is its downside, it would wind up an overused catch-all, I feel.
> > Games
> > Ball Games
> > Board Games
> > Puzzles
> > Video Games
> This might be an example of a too-detailed list. I would think that just 'Games'
> would do.
not sure, feel puzzles ought not to be seen as "games", however, you probably
know that on submission you could select, say, just 'Games' and be done.
> mountains, forests, planetary surfaces, etc etc-- which might make a detailed
> sub-listing endlessly long and too 'granular'.
multiple categories can and should be selected, so "medium granularity" :-) at
least will be ok. using YB's initial suggestion of flora + fauna as example, I
think that's probably "deep" enough in levels. on the other hand, the
'Household/Office Objects' (which ought not have been "lumped together" in the
first place) does need stuff like 'Furniture' and quite a few others to make it
useful at all; as mentioned, up to four "levels", but getting the second + third
tier right will be the art.
Post a reply to this message