This page is a wiki. Please login or create an account to begin editing.


6 posts / 0 new
Last post
davisdelo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Oct 31
On Topic

I’ve noticed a number of software entries are starting to be overwhelmed with off topic comments and content. Rants fill the pages about specific people’s personal machine setups, assumptions and conjecture that are almost unreadable. They’re popping up everywhere and making it difficult to actually get information about the software. Is there a way to flag comments in the software entries as off topic? Or perhaps theres a place where we can direct users to so they can write out their diatribes without cluttering ups software entries with off topic content?

Comments

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

You should talk. Look what you did at the end of this (great) thread:
http://macintoshgarden.org/forum/sata-ii-2nd-generation-speed-increase-p...

davisdelo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Oct 31

I think software entries are more well suited for specifics about the software titles themselves. Although that thread you link to is an example of the endless assumptions and conjecture I describe in the original post, at least it’s in a forum. I’d argue that having those types of posts creep into the software entries doesn’t really help in providing meaningful information about the software.

The issue has even started to show up in screen shots. For example, showing the schematics for a multimedia libraries’ system calls in an entry for an office suite. It just comes across as nonsense and noise at the very least, I could definitely see it confusing a new user as well. I would suggest that if someone wanted to get into such a speculative level of detail about system components then perhaps it would be better to create a forum post and then put a link to that forum post on the software page or in the software comments.

I think this is an organizational problem more than anything.

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

I generally agree with you. I wish each user's "guestbook" could be like a discussion thread in which that user has mod control over it, able to always edit and delete msgs. Then personal stories to be shared could be kept updated, in that space. And I've thought about creating a more comprehensive forum topic about the hardware uniquenesses I find myself on top of. So that way I don't feel compelled to scatter hither and yon what end up being like puzzle pieces.

Endless conjecture and assumptions, to you. Decades old fact, reproducible on a popular Macintosh model hardware owned since it was new, to me and some others. That first link up here ended up working out in my favor, a valueable new tool. It turns out the sata-ii-speed-pci-card-in-a-g4 can work to boot and run software endlessly using its incomplete driverware. The only feedback i got in topic was "no way" regardless of driver, so i argued over that which i knew better. But the topic was locked, so I can't describe (there) the success I've had. Most recently I unlocked the AGP-16x described in the link. It's done in part by renaming my hardware id, and it's a whole game changer. I have to re-test everything, months of work to redo, put me in a mood. For example, I retested the SATA-II PCI-X card with my now G5 Mirror Door, to see if the G5 declaration could positively affect the bad driverware, it did not, but I found I can still use it the way I already had.

The CoreVideo schematic you complain of, was a unique situation. There aren't any links to it, the wikipedia page has bad info not updated in over 2 years, and it's cutting edge info. I just don't know how to embed any pictures in my text here, I wanted to put it on the CV forum topic and asked for help doing that but got no reply, that was a year ago. Now I need to re-test every CV version to learn how the newly configured hardware behaves, and I'm thinking there are multiple versions CV 1.4.2 Apple made big changes again and again with each QuickTime release but they kept leaving the CV framework version number set the same at v1.4.2 - but it doesn't interest you.

Ultimately no one is forcing you to read anything. Pages here load very fast, compared to some other sites which I refuse to use as their pages render so slowly. You are complaining about text which our devices are well suited for scanning thru, skipping parts. I encounter spaghetti in commentland too but I don't complain. I judge my own comments like from 1 to 10 how much do I wish someone had told me this sooner? Do I crave that I could send my msg back in time to myself? Hell yes then I just say it. You don't have to always like it.

davisdelo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Oct 31

True, no one forces anyone to read anything. And I agree, bandwidth is not an issue for most (definitely not for me), it really is organizational. The older and bigger the community gets the more organization matters. Otherwise we'll just have information scattered across the site.

YYsMG's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 19

I mostly disagree. Each entry has a description, and all the other fields alongside it for key details, and they sit at the top of the page. In... approx 95% of the entries, a user would need to do some scrolling to even see the top comment.

The one thing it does do is throw up a lot of unhelpful entries in search results, but even then it's never really caused me any problems