It was suggested that Scott, the owner of the site, might be able to provide our group with an additional 'next page' link at the tops of our discussions, as well as at the bottom. I did asked, he provided! So, next time we get a lengthy discussion, you won't have to scroll down to the bottom to get to the most recent posts! Thanks, Scott!
Hurrah! Thanks to both Barbara and & Scott!
grazie mille!
My poor tired aching fingers thank you from the bottom of my knuckles...
Thanks for asking, Barb. Thanks for providing, Scott.
Great! I was gonna suggest that! Thanks!
You'll notice that he also 'tweaked' the format of the discussions, so that each one has it's own little box, and stands out... I like it!
Very good. Next we need is a Table of Contents feature to automate Barb's manual ToC discussion threads. I think such a feature would need a keyword Barb could give any discussion (e.g. "official tune", "inofficial tune"), and would then group the ToCs by keyword. Just a system architect's inadvertent rambling
Inadvertent but worthwhile rambling, Bertram.
Rambling... that's better than yammering....yada yada yada!
I have another suggestion - there are several different threads for the "Table of Contents Other Tunes" and "Discussions", because you have only used the first post in the the thread for content. Is it possible to just make each a single thread, and put all of relevant the posts in it?
OS, I'm not understanding your question!
Okay, so you have this thread called "Table of Contents ~ Other Tunes ~ Part 1", and then parts 2 - 4. Could you post what is in the first post of the thread "Table of Contents ~ Other Tunes ~ Part 2" in the second post of the first thread, and so on for all the "Other Tunes" threads? And then do the same for the Discussions threads? That way, the entire "Other Tunes" table of contents would all be in the same thread, and so it would be easier to search, and there wouldn't be so many "Table of Contents" threads milling around. So we would end up with just one "Table of Contents - Other Tunes" thread, and just one "Table of Contents - Discussions" thread.
OS, I'm just not sure. The reason there are different parts to the table of contents, is that each discussion has a size limit. Once I reach that, then I start another 'part' discussion. If I'm understanding your suggestion (and I am sometimes pretty dense, haha), you think I could have a discussion entitled 'table of contents', and then post the actual table of contents (various parts) as discussions within the main table of contents? There would still have to be 'parts' due to the size limitations of the individual discussions. As far as searching, you can start at the main page of the social group, and use the search function, type in whatever (for example, type in Stranger, and you'll get both the wayfaring stranger and the wayfarin' stranger.
What I'm saying is, you already have a thread entitled: "Table of Contents - Other Tunes - Part 1". The second post in that just says "bump". I'm suggesting you replace the word "bump" in that post with what is in the first post of the the thread entitled "Table of Contents - Other Tunes - Part 2". Then do the same for parts 3 and 4, replacing the following two posts in the "Table of Contents - Other Tunes - Part 1" thread (which also currently say "bump"). Then you would no longer need the extra threads. I understand there's a limit to the size of an individual post, but there's no limit to the number of posts in a thread. They would all be in separate posts as now, but all in the same thread, which is surely more convenient than keeping up a growing number of separate threads. When you reach the size limit of a post, you would just start another post in the same thread.
I'll see if I can figure it out. According to Scott, there is no way for me to make the table of contents discussions 'sticky', so the reason I bump it every few days, is to make it come back up to the top. Editing the original post (which is how I get the links into it), does not bring it up to the top, only a new reply to the discussion will do that. I try to go back in and edit/delete my bump posts, so all that shows up is a bunch of deleted discussions, and one bump... if I delete all the bump posts, it goes back to wherever it was down the line of posts!) I've been doing good to be able to keep the table of contents somewhat updated, and to remember every few days to bump them... so I've slacked on getting back in there to delete my bump posts! I'm sure there are more computer/website savvy people out there than I am that could figure out some really simple way to do this whole table of contents issue... I am just working by the seat of my pants, if you get my drift! My way sure might not be the right way! I will work on it, trying not to screw things totally up and lose all the work I've done so far! Barb
It's very kind of you Barbara, I didn't mean to cause any problems it's not that big a deal, I just thought it might be an easy improvement, but if it's not don't worry.
Hey, I'm always open to suggestions! Like I said, I'm NOT that savvy on websites, message boards, etc! If I can figure it out, you are right, it should make it easier on all of us!
OS, worked like a charm! Thanks for the suggestion! I'll still have to 'bump' them to get them near the top of the page, but as I add new 'parts' I can delete those posts!
That's great - it certainly works for me and is a nice improvement Thanks!
I'm here to serve!
Well, here's another suggestion to try out on Scott. Instead of having different threads and having to update the Other Tunes & Official Tunes...what about a drop down menu that allows us to select either of the various categories? Might totally eliminate your need to have to "bump" any particular particular thread, ever. (Again, if I've muddled up the concept here, please feel free to clarify any confusion.)
I can ask, I don't know how much flexibility is available to him on this platform. I'm not conceiving how that would work. As I understand it, we are just a bunch of messages. As it stands, whenever anyone posts anything new, I have to decide what category it goes in, and then I manually link it in the discussion of my own, 'contents' by editing my existing post, and adding the link to the new discussion. Are you thinking that instead of just 'post a new discussion' that he could put something in place that when we want to post a new discussion, we have to choose right then, if it's in the "official tune", "other tune" or "discussion" category, and then when we post it, something within the platform automatically adds it to .... to what? To a discussion already in place called 'table of contents'... or do you think he might have the ability to subdivide the group into these categories on a higher level, and instead of the posts all being mixed together as they are now, have sections devoted to these 3 categories? Like I said, I can ask, but if he has the ability to make something 'sticky' on the main message boards, but when I asked about doing that in the social groups, he said he checked, and that isn't available, makes me think that the program (or whatever the proper geek word is) that mandolin cafe is on, may not give Scott that flexibility in whatever he's using to have social groups. I will post these questions to him! bArb
This reminds me of sending Dorothy to ask the Wizard for help. Ask him if he can give me some talent Dorothy, I mean Barbara.
I need more speed.... talent is totally overrated....
Sometimes I'll do ANYTHING other than housework!
Judy Garland never looked that good.... Isn't that Bill Kilpatrick in the suit?
I posed the question to Scott: Scott, you probably are aware that the Song A Week Social group is growing in leaps and bounds, and because of that, we are having growing pains! Mostly pains in tweaking the format, and in my trying to stay on top of things... right now, its in the table of contents issue. As of now, we are up to 224 members, with 4750 messages within 250 discussions! When the suggestion for needing table of contents came up early on, I figured out a way to do it, and just now, a member came up with a good idea to streamline the look, and the user-friendliness, and less work for me, the administrator! Another member has come up with an additional suggestion, but I don't know how much flexibility you have within the framework of the program that the social groups are in (not knowing good computer geek words, I may not be making much sense!) We have divided the types of discussions into "official tune of the week", "other tunes" and "discussions". People participating right now, just click, 'post a discussion' and post. I have created 'table of contents' discussions (one for each category) and I have to stay on top of manually adding a link to new discussions as they come in, into the proper table of contents discussion. Is there anyway that when our members want to post a new discussion, they would have to chose from one of those categories, and having our message board divided into those groups. Maybe something along the line of the regular message boards, which have categories within categories? AND is there anything in place that could then automatically put links to those posts in some kind of table of contents or directory? I took on this in the beginning, and am having fun doing it, BUT, I'm truly pretty ignorant in how things work behind the scenes! I'm most a WYSIWYG person! His answer: Barbara, the Social Groups don't have a sub-category function, so dividing those as you describe isn't an option. I'm surprised you've taken the effort to build a manual table of contents. The purpose of a forum is to list discussions in the order in which they're being updated--so that someone doesn't have to do that manually. The social groups have a feature where you can view by creation date, or by last post. Imagine someone trying to do a table of contents for one the forums on the message board with several thousand threads, and your group is heading that direction. Will you want to do this a year from now when there are five times as many users and threads? I'm not trying to discourage you, but I'd question whether this can be maintained in this fashion long term. As someone that's brought himself to the brink of burnout on the web too many times, I hope you can keep it up if that's what you choose. That said, I see the value of a list of available tunes being discussed. But there's also a search function for each group. I used that to easily locate several tunes I didn't know you'd discussed and didn't have a problem. Looking around your group I also see a separate entry for a link to each poll. That's a lot of clutter, and about 20+ some additional threads. You don't really have that many threads... yet. Maybe one single thread for links to each new poll, and have the discussions occur on the message board with the poll. Just a thought. Too many trees--hard to see the forest. There is nothing in place to auto-create a table of contents. In a way, the forum already does that, but I know, that wasn't the question. This is probably disappointing to hear this, but the nature of how forums are constructed make this beyond what is capable. These are gigantic programs, and we're subject to upgrades by the commercial developer that come at us on a regular basis, so changing the rules of the program puts everything at risk when new code and templates are added. My recommendation would be to take a hard look at what's manageable and stick with it, and let the strengths of the program in place do most of the work. My reply: Scott, thanks for your speedy reply, I thought that was likely the answer. The whole Table of Contents issue... that's what they wanted. If I had to start NOW and do it, it would be overwhelming, but, since I update them as they come in, it's not too bad. It was even manageable when I was gone for most of a month, and had to update when I returned! Who knows how it will be managed years from now.... but who knew it would grow the way it has! Compared to all the other groups... well, I'd be willing to bet that this one group probably has more posts than all the other social groups combined! Thanks, Barb
Thanks for asking Scott, Barb, the answer is about what I expected, too. Now we have fixed courage, heart and brains (I've got a diploma...), I wonder where is that Wicked Witch, then?
I appreciate your asking, too, Barb. Not having built or designed a forum in my work, it's a worthwhile bit of insight and info Scott has provided. Not only that but the indication of the fact that you're doing way too much work that's better left to the computer. IMHO, if you keep up this listing of tunes (manual table of contents) like you've been doing, you better have your husband turn in his combine(s), tractor(s), disc(s), planter(s), etc., buy a few Belgian horses and pull behind plows and strap yourself up to drive those big, bad boys and girls up and down the rows so you can hep him out, girl! That way you won't have any time a'tall to practice mandolin or play with photo-editing software. Let the computer and its processes do the work. But all this is just MHO.
In all actuality, the table of contents thing isn't that big of a hassle. If I was starting out now trying to do it, maybe, but since I just have to add something when a whole new discussion starts up, it's not that bad! I have the board open on two tabs, and copy and paste the urls.... Now, if I was having to add each reply, that would be a different story! Thanks to OS's suggestion, I think it's going to be easier on me, AND easier for ya'll to browse through, as well! And, I like the look with the little boxes around the individual posts, thanks to Scott! Joe, we do live on the farm that Steve's grandfather homesteaded back in the 1800's! Although he lived to be almost 100, and farmed late into life, he never drove a tractor or a car! He is said to have had some of the finest draft horses in Story County. Farmed with them his whole life, and once cars came into being, he would buy nice cars, but someone else would have to drive him around in them!
Lot of the Nobiling clan out a bit west of y'all. Carroll, Iowa direction. Been there since the 1870s not quite as long as Steve's grandfather but farmers, too, back then, and many still are.
