Openings and Closings in Years Pages

[BradM]

Pete is doing a service with his Closure and Openings cleanup work. I
do think, however,
that the openings and closings are overpowering the rest of the
entries in the Significant Events Table of the Years Page and might be
more informative if broken out by the two categories, Closings and
Openings.

It might even be useful to put each table, Openings/Closings, on its
own page and INCLUDE it so it could be INCLUDED or linked to
elsewhere, such as in the Gone, but Not Forgotten page.

Maybe we need the Positive side page of New Openings, Welcome] !!

Other minor fixes:
* change to tablehead for std bgcolor
* alpha the list without dates
* remove closed. and opened. from entries
See my recommendation and example on http://rocwiki.org/2007/talk

Brad

[BradM]

Back in March 2009 I had recommended changes to the Year Template
which you will see on the year template talk page

http://rocwiki.org/templates/year/talk

I did not get any feedback and used it on some older pages, for
example http://rocwiki.org/1906.

I neglected to followup and put something here, so nothing further
happened.

I will add that recommendation in combination with the above.

Also, I would be happy to help out and modify the more recent
(2006-2009) pages to implement my suggestion.

Brad

[BradM]

I also built an example of using the closings in an include on a
Chronological subpage for Gone, ...

http://rocwiki.org/Gone%2C_But_Not_Forgotten/Chronological

Doing this example I realize that using std 3 character abbreviations
for months would compact these tables, especially multi-column
displays and for smaller browser windows.

Brad

On Jul 28, 9:47 am, BradM <mandellb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back in March 2009 I had recommended changes to the Year Template
> which you will see on the year template talk page
>
> http://rocwiki.org/templates/year/talk
>
> I did not get any feedback and used it on some older pages, for

> examplehttp://rocwiki.org/1906.

[Pete B]

I disagree with splitting each year into openings/closings.  There's simply no need for an extra page when it's clearly laid out. Let's leave the year pages as they are.

[Pete B]

and to continue since i sent it too quicky....I don't see me entries as "overpowering".  We've been adding openings/closings to the years since we started doing them.

 

Again I really would rather keep the Years pages as they are.

[BradM]

Pete, just look at the example, the non-openings closings data is
quite short compared to the others.

Many, including myself, would NOT consider the opening/closing of
local, small restaurants in other neighborhoods to be "SIGNIFICANT
EVENTS" for Rochester, That is not to take away from the impact on the
owners and lamenting patrons. The list itself and its size and
distribution over time is an interesting, and perhaps significant fact
about the Rochester Area, as opposed to individual items.

For many viewers, the recommended page allows them to more quickly
scan down through the non-business opening/closing lists. For those
specifically interested in the Openings and Closings, the information
is more concisely categorized. Further, the suggested implementation
allows the addition of the Chronological Closings page - for which I
generated an example.

In summary, the recommended solution does nothing to detract from the
year pages and lends additional categorization for groups of viewers.
It provides a chron listing for the closings (and openings).

If the problem is an impact on your ongoing efforts to GBNF updates, I
am happy to defer until you finish and then do all the work myself -
it takes little time and is quite simple.

Brad

On Jul 28, 3:42 pm, Pete B <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and to continue since i sent it too quicky....I don't see me entries as
> "overpowering".  We've been adding openings/closings to the years since we
> started doing them.
>
> Again I really would rather keep the Years pages as they are.
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Pete B <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I disagree with splitting each year into openings/closings.  There's simply
> > no need for an extra page when it's clearly laid out. Let's leave the year
> > pages as they are.
>

[Pete B]

Actually some people consider restaurant/business openings/closings to be VERY significant in the history of Rochester.  That's what started part of my GBNF work was a comment at a restaurant the other night

 

I say we err on the side of "Is it something that really NEEDS to be done?" and leave it alone and revisit it after the next RocWiki meeting (in September). I will bring it up then

[BradM]

Pete, it seems that you have appointed yourself as the arbiter of what
NEEDS to be done. All others must come before the RocWiki Meeting
where YOU will bring it up.

In the meantime YOU decide to have a "Pet Project" and to rearrange
the Years tables to put the "Unknowns" first without changing the
Template, which specifies the order, or posting the idea for
"community discussion". Further, your change is not consistent, since
that wouild imply that the unknown day entries should also precede the
known day entries. Some do and some don't

I disagree with this decision, but leave it alone - I did take some
time to alphabetize the remaining entries which had no sensible order
to them.

I have several suggestions for the Year entries on the table, useful
to the viewer and to the appearance of the listings.

Quite frankly, I am tired of butting heads with you and shall withdraw
to other wiki activities.

Good Luck

Brad

On Jul 28, 5:23 pm, Pete B <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually some people consider restaurant/business openings/closings to be
> VERY significant in the history of Rochester.  That's what started part of
> my GBNF work was a comment at a restaurant the other night
>
> I say we err on the side of "Is it something that really NEEDS to be done?"
> and leave it alone and revisit it after the next RocWiki meeting (in
> September). I will bring it up then
>

[Pete B]

Brad---

Let me quote from you:

"Many, including myself, would NOT consider the opening/closing of
local, small restaurants in other neighborhoods to be "SIGNIFICANT
EVENTS" for Rochester,"

You've admitted you have your pet projects as well.

All I'll say is Touche....you do EXACTLY the same thing

Have an AWESOME day!

Pete

[BradM]

I have no clue how my comment relates to any "Pet Project" - but I
certainly stand the statement.

Further, completely quote it:

" ... That is not to take away from the impact on the

owners and lamenting patrons. The list itself and its size and
distribution over time is an interesting, and perhaps significant fact
about the Rochester Area, as opposed to individual items.

For many viewers, the recommended page allows them to more quickly
scan down through the non-business opening/closing lists. For those
specifically interested in the Openings and Closings, the information
is more concisely categorized. Further, the suggested implementation
allows the addition of the Chronological Closings page - for which I
generated an example."

"*Touche*" ??????

I specify a suggested change and provide specific rationale for the
changes and how it will IMPROVE RocWiki and that is your response???

I don't understand this.

Brad

On Jul 29, 12:55 pm, Pete B <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brad---
>
> Let me quote from you:
>
> "Many, including myself, would NOT consider the opening/closing of
> local, small restaurants in other neighborhoods to be "SIGNIFICANT
> EVENTS" for Rochester,"
>
> You've admitted you have your pet projects as well.
>

> All I'll say is *Touche*....you do EXACTLY the same thing

>
> Have an AWESOME day!
>
> Pete
>

[Pete B]

Brad--I want to get more opinions...best way to do that right now on such a major change would be at a meeting.  I see nothing wrong with running it by the meeting attendants.  If YOU want to run it by--come to the meeting. You're as welcome as everyone else

[Rottenchester]

I don't know if I even understand the controversy here enough to have
an opinion.

Why don't we try this: Pete puts up a year page/pages the way he
thinks it should be. Brad does the same (for a different year).
(Maybe these pages exist and I missed it.)

Then we solicit comments for a few days. I promise to comment. That
makes three of us, about the average attendance of a RocWiki meeting.
:)

This would seem to address Brad's desire to start working on something
(since a decision would be made in a couple of days) and also Pete's
desire for more input from the community.

What do you guys think?

[Ryan Tucker]

I'll comment too. That will give us more people than we usually get at
a meeting, plus the exciting possibility of a debilitating deadlock!
-rt

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> For options, view full headers. See also http://groups.google.com/group/rochesterwiki
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>

--
Ryan Tucker <rtu...@gmail.com>

[Jay Sweet]

Hmmm, compare formats and comment? Nah, I was thinking more like
steel cage death match. If you guys aren't cool with that though, I
guess I'll promise to comment too..

> Ryan Tucker <rtu...@gmail.com>
>

[BradM]

Yes, I did exactly that for 2007 - per Pete's previous complaints
about me changing things without "consulting the community" I made the
suggestion via example in the Talk page:

See:

http://rocwiki.org/2007/Talk

Using my newly created example 2007 "Closings" and "Openings" page
(for muliti-use Includes)

http://rocwiki.org/2007/Closings
http://rocwiki.org/2007/Openings

As an example of the utility of such a design I also created

http://rocwiki.org/Gone,_But_Not_Forgotten/Chronological

to show how my suggested approach benefited the Gone ...
implementation - AND IN FACT specifically benefited the very audience
that Pete stated his Pet Project was directed towards!!!

You can also see my March suggestion for the Year Template, to which
no one has yet responeded, at

http://rocwiki.org/Year_Template/Talk

Having done this work professionally since 1970, I would suggest that
when someone documents a proposed interface or standard and documents
its implementation and the rationale for the implementation, the
parties should respond with specific criticisms and counter rationale
or accept the proposal.

"I don't like it", "its tacky", "its unprofessional", "Not Needed",
and variations on "we don't do it that way", etc. are barriers to
progress and communications.

However, if the "community" needs to operate in this fashion I will
take it under advisement and determine my continued support of the
RocWIki project.

Brad

On Jul 30, 4:16 pm, Rottenchester <rottenches...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know if I even understand the controversy here enough to have
> an opinion.
>
> Why don't we try this:  Pete puts up a year page/pages the way he
> thinks it should be.  Brad does the same (for a different year).
> (Maybe these pages exist and I missed it.)
>
> Then we solicit comments for a few days.  I promise to comment.  That
> makes three of us, about the average attendance of a RocWiki meeting.
> :)
>
> This would seem to address Brad's desire to start working on something
> (since a decision would be made in a couple of days) and also Pete's
> desire for more input from the community.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Pete B<blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brad--I want to get more opinions...best way to do that right now on such a
> > major change would be at a meeting.  I see nothing wrong with running it by
> > the meeting attendants.  If YOU want to run it by--come to the meeting.
> > You're as welcome as everyone else
>

[Pete B]

Brad--

 

Your ideas are not BAD ideas.

 

But documenting why you do something--and then simply just doing it is not the way the Wiki has traditionally operated.  This is my entire point.

 

I love your contributions---but when you just go ahead and do it without fully soliciting others' opinions, it becomes less of a Community Wiki and more of your wiki and it's simply not fair to others. If others started doing the same it wouldn't be fair to you either.

 

I would LOVE to see more people comment on things in this list.

Pete

[Rottenchester]

Thanks, Brad, that was a very clear explanation of what you're trying
to accomplish. Again, I apologize for my ignorance on this whole
topic.

So, Pete, what was your suggestion for how we should be formatting the
significant events, gone but not forgotten, and openings pages? Did
you have an example you wanted to point to?

[Pete B]

Thanks for the chance to elaborate, Rott :)

 

I don't believe in making people have to search FARTHER to get what they want.  As in 2008--I say keep everything on one page---maybe make separate categories on the SAME PAGE--but keep it all together for easier reference. I think it's simpler, more user-friendly and just plain easier for the average user who simply is looking to get information on events in a certain year.

 

http://rocwiki.org/2008

[BradM]

You apparently did not look at the example - it was EXACTLY as stated
"on the SAME PAGE"

The example page is crystal clear, EASIER to use, MORE user Friendly,
and serves the specific needs of those interested in OPENINGs and
CLOSINGs and those decidedly NOT INTERESTED.

Further:
* unlike your recent work on those pages, the material is
alphabetized for ease of reference.
* material can be included in other appropriate pages, which your
solution does not support - again refer to my provided examples
* by separating out the openings and closings,the user is not forced
into reading/scanning through a disjointed list of 49 entries
containing the unneeded repetion of the word "closed" 32 times and the
word "open" 8 times but can more easily select among the three tables
and more quickly find items of interest. I can see for example,
someone interested in Openings clicking back and forth between the
table and the restaurants without having to search back through the
consolidated list. Someone interested in Closings could do similar
browsing.
* The tables themselves speak immediately to the viewer, showing in
this case, the preponderance of Closings to both Openings and all
other RocWiki documented Significat Events.

I also mentioned that I showed both full month names and abbreviations
- I strongly suggest the abbreviations, as they are almost universally
understood and save space and appearance in the tables.

I also volunteered to do all associate work of bringing the solution
to fruition.

Please someone give me a rational argument against the proposal !!!

Brad

On Jul 30, 7:53 pm, Pete B <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the chance to elaborate, Rott :)
>
> I don't believe in making people have to search FARTHER to get what they
> want.  As in 2008--I say keep everything on one page---maybe make separate
> categories on the SAME PAGE--but keep it all together for easier reference.
> I think it's simpler, more user-friendly and just plain easier for the
> average user who simply is looking to get information on events in a certain
> year.
>
> http://rocwiki.org/2008
>

> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Rottenchester <rottenches...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Brad, that was a very clear explanation of what you're trying
> > to accomplish.  Again, I apologize for my ignorance on this whole
> > topic.
>
> > So, Pete, what was your suggestion for how we should be formatting the
> > significant events, gone but not forgotten, and openings pages?  Did
> > you have an example you wanted to point to?
>
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Pete B<blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Brad--
>
> > > Your ideas are not BAD ideas.
>
> > > But documenting why you do something--and then simply just doing it is
> > not
> > > the way the Wiki has traditionally operated.  This is my entire point.
>
> > > I love your contributions---but when you just go ahead and do it without
> > > fully soliciting others' opinions, it becomes less of a Community Wiki
> > and
> > > more of your wiki and it's simply not fair to others. If others started
> > > doing the same it wouldn't be fair to you either.
>
> > > I would LOVE to see more people comment on things in this list.
>
> > > Pete
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Pete B]

Stop looking at this all as a personal insult please....it's never ever been meant as that and I have stated as such.

 

I understood you wanted to make them separate--I was wrong--fair enough.

 

As for your *'s---the alphabetization was on my action plan but I do work a full-time job and have a sick dog. 

[Pete B]

FYI I just alphabetized the unknowns in 2007

[Rottenchester]

Here's my comment/vote/whatever:

I prefer Brad's new approach. It breaks up the data presented into
recognizable chunks, and it uses includes in a useful way (letting us
have one page with all the year's events, yet still allowing
individual pages for easier editing). It's really a pain to
alphabetize long lists in tables, so a strategy that allows shorter
lists to be combined on one page will probably let others contribute
more efficiently, especially once the pages are set up.

Since it's a better way, and Brad's volunteered to do the work, I say
"change is good" in this case.

[Pete B]

FYI I just alphabetized the unknowns for 2007.

[BradM]

FYI = 2007 already done on the example page except for any of your
additions..

There is no intention on my part for it to be personal, it is
professional, nothing more. I make proposals and expect them to be
evaluated and accepted, modified, or rejected on a professional base
with logical reasons.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, that has not been your response to
several of my suggestions - it has become personal - "tacky",
"unprofessional", "NOT NEEDED", "my Pet Project" "Here you go again"
etc You have seldom responded directly to the underlying suggestion,
simply stated your OPINION wtih one of the previous "bon mots" and
little supporting argument.

I have every respect for your position as an ADMIN, your role as a
RocWiki promoter, and all your extensive contributions to RocWiki. My
message on the spammer is clearly supportive.

Please remember that I sought you out, met with you to get a big batch
of RocWiki Cards (I am now out) and have been a huge promoter of
RocWiki throughout the area. Over the past 13 months I have moved
from a few edits to over 8000 total contributions - have created the
most RocWiki pages and have made the most uploads, most are my photos
and created graphics. A very significant percentage of my
contributions are extended edits with extended underlying research and
work on related pages. I can tell from hits on my Flickr Pages that
many visitors to RocWiki are interested in pages for which I was the
major or only contributor. I am diligent in reviewing recent changes
and make fixes and corrections without making comment, judgment, or
todo lists for the previous editor. Time permitting, I take time to
try to improve EVERY page (or related page) I visit for review or
edit.

My clients treat me with great respect (and pay me well) for my
professionalism and broad range of technology, human interface design,
and business knowledge. I give it to RocWiki freely because I believe
deeply in the concept. I also have a huge vested interest in its
continued success, so yes I do have personal concerns as a
stakeholder.

Brad

On Jul 30, 10:00 pm, Pete B <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI I just alphabetized the unknowns in 2007
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Pete B <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Stop looking at this all as a personal insult please....it's never ever
> > been meant as that and I have stated as such.
>
> > I understood you wanted to make them separate--I was wrong--fair enough.
>
> > As for your *'s---the alphabetization was on my action plan but I do work a
> > full-time job and have a sick dog.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Pete B]

Your 2007 stuff looks good-I'm a go for it.

RocWiki is not a business and to look at it through that prism may bring some overly-high expectations. We are a group of people with a hobby (sometimes obsession) and sometimes with a full-time job and family I am unable to design and present a lengthy presentation of my disagreement on how something looks. In this way I wanted other people's opinions--and now we are getting them.

I disagree that the statement that the yellow was "tacky" was personal----it wasn't meant that way at all.  It came off to me as unnecessarily "loud" and I thought a tamer quieter archiving statement was more appropriate. The one we are using now is exactly that.

As for saying "Here you go again"--absolutely -it was meant to say again you were making major changes without submitting them for group consideration.  It was just stating the fact and was not meant in any way to be a personal attack on you. I was frustrated that a sole decision on a change was made again. I believe my statement was clear in requesting you go back to the group for discussion so I tried to clarify my frustration.

The other day when a novice user posted on "Info Needed" you just hid it without letting her know what she did wrong (Powless). My point is let's educate people when they make an error like that...not just blow it off. Maybe we can prevent it from occuring again. That is why I requested you do it as you deleted the comment. Again it was not a personal attack and it is apparent you took it that way.

I will try to be more considerate and expressive in my concerns in the future.

I will state again--please continue to bring any major plans to the Googlegroup for discussion before implementation.

Have to go to work and then away for the weekend...

See y'all

[BradM]

On Jul 31, 2:32 pm, Pete B <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> RocWiki is not a business and to look at it through that prism may bring
> some overly-high expectations. We are a group of people with a hobby

> (sometimes obsession) ...

Successful nonprofit organizations, including completely volunteer
ones, have learned how important a more "business-like" and
entrepreneurial spirit is to achieving goals and meeting expectations.
RocWiki has built a tool that impacts significant stakeholders in the
political, social, and business communities, not to mention the
editors who have put themselves into the mix. It has become far more
than a hobby object. When one controls a tool that gets into the top 5
hits in search engines, it is way beyond a hobby. RocWiki now
represents Rochester in many ways.

> I disagree that the statement that the yellow was "tacky" was personal----it
> wasn't meant that way at all.  It came off to me as unnecessarily "loud" and
> I thought a tamer quieter archiving statement was more appropriate. The one
> we are using now is exactly that.

Tacky is, by definition, a pejorative term: (TheDictionary.com)
"a. Lacking style or good taste; tawdry: tacky clothes.
b. Distasteful or offensive; tasteless: a tacky remark."

Try once to describe a piece of your loved-ones clothing as Tacky and
you will get substantial reinforcement that this IS a PERSONAL word.

All of the most successful wikis, such as Davis Wiki, that came out of
WikiSpot use the yellow tables with a graphic for important includes,
including Stub, NPOV, Photo Wanted, etc,... It appears at the top of
RocWiki's Recent Changes page.We live in a yellow highlighter world.

> The other day when a novice user posted on "Info Needed" you just hid it
> without letting her know what she did wrong (Powless). My point is let's
> educate people when they make an error like that...not just blow it off.
> Maybe we can prevent it from occuring again. That is why I requested you do
> it as you deleted the comment. Again it was not a personal attack and it is
> apparent you took it that way.
>

You ASSUMED (and we know how that breaks down). Personally, I strongly
disagree with creating user pages for them - as you are inclined to do
(and believe I mentioned quite early on,). I have had little success
leaving messages in these PeteB created pages. I have talked with
RocWiki viewers who place less credence on Users with dash underlined
(no page) User names. I agree with this assessment.

In any event, I chose to communicate with PowlessA via email and spent
time working on the pages she was trying to modify.

More importantly the underlying point gets to my philosphy to jump in
and get the job done, even when the fix takes longer than a message. A
review of my edits found several dozen recent pages you edited where I
jumped right in and fixed errors or omissions without me trying to
"educate" you.. That is my vision of how a wiki community effort
works.

> I will try to be more considerate and expressive in my concerns in the
> future.
>

THANKS

[Pete B]

To clarify one point:

>You ASSUMED (and we know how that breaks down). Personally, I strongly
>disagree with creating user pages for them - as you are inclined to do
>(and believe I mentioned quite early on,). I have had little success
>leaving messages in these PeteB created pages. I have talked with
>RocWiki viewers who place less credence on Users with dash underlined
>(no page) User names. I agree with this assessment.

Brad--this has been a traditional process that anyone with 2 comments/edits gets a user page.

[Ryan Tucker]

I do like the split into events/closings/openings ala 2007/Talk ... it's
a logical division of event types, and also allows a visual comparison
of openings vs. closings. There were a lot more closings than openings
in 2007, and I didn't realize the ratio was quite that huge.

As far as decision-making goes, my philosophy is to just do it. If it's
a major change, like refactoring the front page or changing a whole
bunch of pages dramatically, talking it over is a good idea (to save
unnecessary work should the change be a bad one). However, for minor
stuff, there's probably no need to go through a lot of paperwork and
discussion just to get some sort of happy rubber stamp. Our community
is small enough (and people like me are apathetic enough) that I think
any change that freshens things up and makes information easier to find
and understand is positive and will, ultimately, be embraced.

For the purposes of the above paragraph, I consider this particular
proposal to be "minor stuff", but that is just me :-)

We do have meetings, but alas, attendance is low enough that they're
probably not the best forum for deciding where the wiki is going. This
thread seems to have attracted more people than an average meeting, at
least... -rt

--
Ryan Tucker <rtu...@gmail.com>

[BradM]

Thanks Ryan, appreciate your input. I do understand everyone has a
different threshold they think is appropriate, hence I prototyped a
new, hopefully helpful, process and dropped comments in a lot of
active (and prolific) user pages asking them to look at it. On that
page I suggested folks could bookmark or RSS subscibe to the page -
may help with apathy (:>)

> Ryan Tucker <rtuc...@gmail.com>
>
>  signature.asc
> < 1KViewDownload