| |
I don't think it would be sloppy at all. I think the benifit of
being able to reference a set would vastly outweigh the cases where
people are talking about their 1998 corvette. Besides, it would
be a subtle reminder to stay topical. It might be a good idea
to exclude the off-topic groups from the filter.
KL
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Hari Wiguna writes:
> > I was copy pasting URL to Lugnet set database onto my email client when I
> > realized how HANDY it would be if all LEGO set numbers are automatically
> > shown as hotlinks to the lugnet set database!
> >
> > So, you'll be reading a Lugnet posting, and the author mentioned 8880.
> > This will AUTOMATICALLY appear as a hotlink, click it and a new window will
> > open with this info
> > http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=8880
> > You continue reading the message while seeing the set info.
>
> I was contemplating doing something similar a couple weeks ago when MikeS
> was talking about how much he used the search box... Rather than just
> giving a link into the DB, it really ought to (if it could) give a thumbnail
> and the set's data right alongside the post -- in a sidebar.
>
> > This would be an awesome feature in Lugnet's web newsreader.
> > And I bet it's not really all that difficult to do.
>
> Alas, this is actually an *extremely* difficult problem to solve. Displaying
> the info (once you know the set number) is easy -- that's just a SMOP -- but
> figuring out whether a given integer is a set number or not -- and whether
> it's the correct set number from two or more identical set numbers -- is
> no easy task.
>
> > Just search the text (subject and posted message content) for three or four
> > digit numbers, and add the proper URL to do a set search.
>
> Susceptible to false positives. Examples:
>
> "I bowled a 295 yesterday!"
> Not referring to the #295 Homemaker Office set.
>
> "I used to listen to that group back in 1978."
> Not referring to set 31978 Build-A-Santa.
>
> "Woohoo -- I found a 6848 at a garage sale yesterday for $2.00!"
> Referring to #6848 Strategic Pursuer (1988) or #6848 Interplanetary
> Shuttle (1985)?
>
> "Eyes Wide Shut reminds me that I gotta see Kubrick's 2001 again."
> Not referring to set #2001 Three In One (LEGO PRIMO).
>
> "867 5309 Jenny I got your number"
> Not referring to set #5309 Wagon Plate (9v Train Accessory).
>
> "Ice Planet 2002 rocks!"
> Not referring to set #2002 Jumbo Building Bag (LEGO PRIMO).
>
> "Lucas's only good flick was THX 1138."
> Not referring to set #1138 (replacement rubber wheel treads for trains).
>
> "My paternal grandmother was born in 1906."
> Not referring to set #1906 Majisto's Tower Castle.
>
> etc. etc. :-(
>
> > Since this is only performed as a post processing just prior to displaying
> > on the web newsreader, the message will still be readable by everyone
> > without the extra gunk.
> >
> > If Todd wants to get ambitious, he can even verify that those # are real set
> > # before doing the hotlinking.
>
> Unfortunately, that only eliminates about 1/2 of the false positives... :-(
>
> > Anyone out there on the mozilla group? How about Outlook Express team?
> > Same idea can be applied to a stand alone newsreader.
> >
> > Granted that there will be false links, but I think people would be willing
> > to NOT click on those.
>
> IMHO, if done inline in the text, false positives would look incredibly
> sloppy and careless. However, maybe, just maybe, it might work to put
> something off to the side saying (in so many words) "Here are links to
> the DB for numbers that -might- be LEGO set numbers. No guarantees, but
> it might save you some keystrokes. Don't complain if the links don't take
> you where you expected to go!"
>
> > Also got to be smart enough NOT to create the hotlink if number is ALREADY
> > part of a URL.
>
> That's a good point!
>
> --Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
