[pmwiki-users] Proposal: Recipe Structure Change

Ben Wilson dausha at gmail.com
Tue May 23 13:32:04 CDT 2006

On 5/23/06, Patrick R. Michaud <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:
> >    [+'''* * *'''+] Ben Wilson May 23, 09:01. Res ipsum loquiter, sed
> > quid in inferno decit.
> >    5 of 6 people found this review helpful.
> >    ''This review refers to version 1.0''
> But --please-- if we do this, let's come up with a better markup
> than [+'''* * *'''+].  Even just "Rating:***" or "(Rating ***)"
> would be better.

In my longer presentation, I actually suggest (:Rating-4:) for four
stars. I'll put together a recipe this afternoon.

> > I am saying that all recipes should adopt
> > this approach to promote uniformity and predictability.
> I agree that it's good to have a uniform basis to work from.
> I disagree with a statement that seems to imply that "all" recipes
> should have to use that format.

Mea culpa. I did not mean that all. I thought I'd said a
majority--those that are large/complicated enough should. But, at
least for those apply a standard way.

> It doesn't bother me to have separate '-Review' pages for recipes,
> although many will be confused by the differences between '-Comments'
> and '-Review'.

Review would remain on the Main page. I would suggest (for
large/complex recipes):

Recipe (Main)
Recipe-Discuss (Comments)

The "sales" part of the recipe would remain on the main page. It may
not be the best term, but sales means to me that part of the recipe
description that explains the problem the recipe is to solve, and in
non-techincal terms how it is solved. In addition, it would have the
reviews from the community so a potential recipe user would get a
better understanding of the _actual_ utility of the recipe.

> > The Google Map API main page is three printed pages. The discussion
> > section is six printed pages, fewer if I redacted the past version
> > comments, then it would be fewer, but as this is a new recipe that
> > would be unfair. I believe having all nine pages on one page would be
> > too distracting.
> I don't disagree; for this recipe having it spread out across multiple
> pages makes sense.  But that doesn't mean all recipes should do it.

We agree. It seems we are not in major disagreement, but that I needed
to do a better job explaining my proposal.

I'm not at home right now, but when I do I will put together a
"rating" recipe and a "review" recipe. That will be later this
afternoon CDT.

Ben Wilson
" Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur"

More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list