 | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —James Brown
|
| | | (...) This may seem an odd question, but is this topic meaning to discuss how the database will be organized at a data level, or at an interface level? If the former, this is probably irrelevant to the vast mojority here, so I'm assuming the later. (...) (26 years ago, 7-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | I'm not with that. Why?...Read below, only one example. The sets that we know and "cotegorize" as technic sets, were not all "Technic" from the beginning. Although they were apperantly looking like the ones today, those boxes released before 1982 (...) (26 years ago, 7-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) It's a great question!! (...) Both -- mostly at a data level, with much of the implementation hidden at the interface level, but with the interface level giving a view at the data level if someone wants that fine of a view. (...) Yup, that's a (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) I think I understand the concepts a bit better from reading other posts on this thread but just to make things clear (in my head) you're looking for something that would use a relationship key (or set designation, or fuzzy catagory) as it's (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Yup -- pretty much like that, in terms of relevance matching and neighboring categories (up, down, sideways in the graph). (...) Do you have a wish-list in mind of all the possible things you'd love to see be configurable? (...) I guess that's (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, it depends a great deal on what the engine is searching - I'll come up with a list when my brain is less broken. (: (...) competitive (...) Absolutely. (although, the niggling little voice in the back of my head says "why not get (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) You mean indexing on content like the set name, human-entered comments, and all that, yes? With the option to disable matches on certain fields? (...) Maybe two-tiered along with one-tiered on the same screen? The two-tiered stuff at the top, (...) (26 years ago, 9-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) says (...) down, (...) Something like that, yes. I seem to be attacking this from an interface point of view, so I'll keep with that, for now. Scroll down for an example of some of my thoughts (...) enter (...) Yes! I knew I'd seen something (...) (26 years ago, 10-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) I feel much better now... Lets see. I would say that ideally, each of the following criteria could be treated as part of an equation (<>= (value), !(value), etc) - in other words, have them treatable as logical expressions. Set number set name (...) (26 years ago, 10-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Here's an example of what I mean by wanting things to "just work" -- and wanting the categories to be relatively transparent by default. If you type in "bike" into this element-search thingie, (URL) fails to find any pieces labeled as "bike." (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Right. some dogs are female, and some aren't, but no dogs are women (and no women are dogs, either, right? :-) ) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
