Site talk:Feedback

Archives

To see archived discussions, follow the links below:

• Feb 4, 2007
• Jun 27, 2007

Looking for feedback

Hey All, please take a look at the desired enhancements and discuss on this page if these are the right things on the list and they are in the right priorities. (Of course, you are always welcome to make the change directly to that page. And going forward for adding bugs and enhancements, making changes directly to the page is preferred.)

section headings

Joevans3 recently brought up an issue that we've left on the back burner for a while: the section headings on the commentary pages. I'm in the mood for a change to those pages. This topic has been on my mind because I do think some people are intimidated by our commentary pages. I've received this feedback from several people. I would like the site to be more accessible to a wider audience. My goal isn't so much to get more people editing (though that would be wonderful) but to get more people using the site (reading). With that in mind what suggestions do people have?

In no particular order here are some that have been discussed recently or in the past or things I'm thinking of now.

• Change "exegesis" to "explanation."
• Change "lexical notes" to "words: meanings and origins" or maybe "words: usage, meaning and origins" or maybe just "word meanings"
• Add a new section. Like exegesis but a sort of executive summary of the relevant points. Robert, Joe, do either of you remember what name we discussed for this when we discussed it last?
• Broader use of sub-pages. Have some word limit guidelines on sections. Similar to last bullet but essentially takes the non-executive summary stuff and moves it to sub-pages.
• Encourage (how?) people to add more links to related lds.org material for verses
• other ideas?

Please provide feedback on these ideas and additional suggestions.

--Matthew Faulconer 09:00, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

I think Joe Spencer's out of town for a few days, and I don't remember what headings we were talking about before. Perhaps "Brief explanation" instead of exegesis and "In-depth analysis" as a new section? I'm more in favor of a new, fifth section with subpages used very rarely. I'm not very enthusiastic about changing "Lexical notes" because the other ideas seem rather clumsy (no offense Matthew!). "Word notes" perhaps? --RobertC 14:39, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

none taken. And I agree they are clumsy. Word notes would work. The real problem is that is that if the words "lexical notes" is not something familiar to one than no phrase which means lexical notes is familiar. Still of course, the advantage to "word notes" is that it is a bit easier to guess what it means if you've never heard of it before. --Matthew Faulconer 15:56, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

How about "Notes on Language" to replace Lexical Notes? --Rob Fergus 16:22, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

I like your idea to encourage people to add more links. Is there any way to simplify the technical aspect of adding links to outside sources? Also, what if you use the italicized instructions already in place to add additional clarification? Ie Click the edit link above and to the right to add explanations or something more educational like that. I am assuming that there is some way to change this part of every page with a top-down approach and you would not have to actually edit each page individually?- joevans3

yes, I can change this text from a top-down approach without too much difficulty. --Matthew Faulconer 16:53, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Hey all, before we move into trying to make decisions on what we'll do, does anyone have any other ideas they want to suggest? --Matthew Faulconer 16:56, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Did we figure out a good way to put the help icon on each page? Nothing else comes to mind. For what it's worth, I don't think we should change "Lexical notes," esp. if we remove "Exegesis" and put two simpler sections (i.e. "Brief explanation" and "In-depth analysis," or whatever...). --RobertC 21:20, 1 August 2007 (CEST)

No. I haven't figured out a way to do that. Or to be more precise, if we can set the help icons in the way we like for some single page, I can replicate to all pages. The issue that I remember was that we couldn't get the help icons to show up in the right place (or did we find a solution to that and I forgot?). Where they were what would happen is that when someone did a section edit it would copy a bunch of ugly code into the page summary. It made the recent changes page quite confusing. If there is a way around that then we could replicate the solution to all pages. --Matthew Faulconer 06:41, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

One more thing to think about is page section order. One option would be starting with the Questions and then having the Brief Explanation and related links. Then put lexical notes and in-depth analysis. --Matthew Faulconer 06:43, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

I think I'm partial to the order we have now, so I'd be inclined to do Questions, then Lexical notes, then Brief explanation, then In-depth analysis (or whatever), then Related links. --RobertC 15:15, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

Another thing I thought of that might be cool. I could add a section (or maybe fit it in as part of the externallinks that would for each verse of the bible link to common external sites (other translations, commentary, etc). If anyone likes this idea it would help to work through it on a single page. Then once we figure out the details for the pattern I could try to replicate it to other pages. --Matthew Faulconer 07:04, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

The NeXt site is the other site I use. But this sounds like it might be more work implementing than it's worth.... --RobertC 15:15, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

What I like about the NeXt one is the way it handles the strongs #'s. Also there aren't too many advertisements. --Matthew Faulconer 08:32, 3 August 2007 (CEST)

Actually, I never look at the Greek or Hebrew at NeXt, instead I use the Blue Letter Bible for that (which I failed to mention). What I like about Blue is that it shows the Greek and Hebrew letters (since the transliterations at NeXt are confusing to me; Blue also shoes the LXX for the OT, though I don't know enough Greek to benefit very often...), and that when you click Strong word, you get every occurrence of that word in the Bible.... --RobertC 23:17, 4 August 2007 (CEST)

Implementation

OK. the first step in implementing this across all pages is to get one page just the way we want it and agree that it looks right. I made 2 changed to Alma 13:1-5. 1. I changed exegesis to in-depth analysis. 2. I added a new section called Brief explanation. I did notice that, contrary to what I wrote above, we had worked out on that page a way to provide help links. i don't really like them nearly as well as I like the way we did it before (see 2 Kgs 2:21-25). I think the placement is much more intuitive in the second kings example. however the problem with the 2nd kings way is that it was messing up our bookmarks and recent changes stuff by throwing the ugly ocde to the help icon right in the middle of it. So on Alma 13:1-5 we got around that by putting the link above and to the right. I guess that is better than no link at all which I see as the other option. Any other ideas here or experimenting on one of the pages as an example is welcome. --Matthew Faulconer 11:02, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

Hmmm, tough call. I think the 2 Kgs version looks a lot better, even to the extent of justifying the additional confusion this might cause to new members. To minimize the confusion and "messiness" of the look, could do we some sort of inclusion syntax or something? (And sorry to be so MIA lately--I'm probably going to be very busy these next couple of months, but after that I should be able to get back to contributing more regularly.) --RobertC 02:56, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

Sorry, what do you mean by an inclusion syntax? The one thing that I can think of that might be possible is if I figure out where the code is which automatically adds the section heading into the summary box and if I just take that code out then this would I think solve the problem.--Matthew Faulconer 05:52, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

We're discussing the ugly and distracting "image:Questions_help.gif||Help with the Questions section" code that generates the question mark link on the 2 Kgs page, right? I was simply thinking we might use inclusion syntax to simplify this, but on second thought that might not work (I'm guessing it only works for entire pages like you did with pages that show all the commentary pages for an entire chapter on one page--by the way, I'd love to see a little link to the discussion pages somehow included on those pages so as to quickly and easily see if there is any discussion for an entire chapter, if that makes any sense...). I don't understand what you mean by "code . . . [that] automatically adds the section heading into the summary box," but it sounds like you might have a good solution up your sleeve. --RobertC 07:15, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

I like the graphic, but in the II Kings model, it looks like punctuation: ie "Questions?" "Comments?" For that reason, I think the Alma format is more clear.--joevans3 20:33, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

I'm thinking of dropping the help links. The idea is good but I haven't figured out yet an implementation that resolves all concerns. Maybe a better solution is to improve the text right under the edit box. Right now it starts "Please use the "Show preview" button to check your work before saving." I know none of us read that, but I'm thinking that someone who is editing Feast for the first time would use it. Thoughts? --Matthew Faulconer 12:47, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

I think you're right, links to the help pages on the edit page should be enough and avoids the risk and mess of the help icons. Notice I tried to make the "what are appropriate X?" links stand out more on the main help page. --RobertC 15:27, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

Brief Explanation and in-depth analysis

Still thinking about this topic. Check out the way I handled the commentary on 1 Kgs 19:1-5. I think I like that better than creating a new section called brief explanation. Maybe change the name to "analysis?" The idea here is that any section that goes over a certain number of words would be cut off and moved to a subpage--similar to the way our blog works. I continue to try to think of ways of making the site more accessible to the person who first visits it. I think the length of some of our pages can be intimidating. thoughts?

Hmmm, interesting idea. I think this implicitly sort of deemphasizes the commentary relative to the questions, lexical notes, and links. And it requires one more click to get to the more meaty commentary. Also, while I'm playing devil's advocate, the cutoff point here seems a bit more arbitrary and haphazard than it does on blogs. That is, a blog entry has a natural beginning that isn't really the same for the wiki pages. This is related to the problem of having pre-defined cutoffs for each page--that is, every five verses, rather than trying to make cutoffs that are more natural to the text. I'm thinking here of the way that commentary books tend to divide up chapters or groups of chapters of the Bible into various chapters and sections of a book. In that case, the first few paragraphs of a chapter or section have a more introductory flavor to them than what we get with the wiki.

On the other hand, I do agree that it's more inviting and aesthetically pleasing to have the commentary pages more streamlined, fitting on a page or two. The window with the scriptural text itself isn't very helpful when the commentary you are reading is 4 or 5 screens below. Of course, I'd still want to be able to get all the commentary for an entire chapter on one page, but I'm guessing this would still be possible. --RobertC 15:25, 11 September 2007 (CEST)

Here are a few specific answers to some of your questions. I still need to think more about this. I have been dragging my feet on implementing something partly because I continue to feel like we haven't nailed what is the right thing here.

• I think this implicitly sort of deemphasizes the commentary relative to the questions, lexical notes, and links.

Are you thinking that we would only do this to the exegesis section? I was thinking it would be applicable to all. Check out 1 Ne 1:6. ON that page there is much more question text than exegesis text. So on that page I guess the question section would be de-emphasized some. Am I misunderstanding your point?

• it requires one more click to get to the more meaty commentary.

Yes.

• the cutoff point here seems a bit more arbitrary and haphazard than it does on blogs.

Yes, my thinking here is that there would be an automatic cutoff point--however, someone could edit the cutoff point easily to make it be at the place they find most natural. You should be able to see this in the example by moving around the "includeonly" tag.

• That is, a blog entry has a natural beginning that isn't really the same for the wiki pages

Is this a difference due to the different natures of blogs and wikis? I don't see why. I agree that to date our content isn't setup with the idea that only the top part shows on one page and people click through for more detail. But, that's because that isn't how things worked. My thinking is that if this is the way things worked people would tailor their writing to fit it. See also the featured article on wikipedia home page. My thinking is that this sort of thing works equally well for wikis and blogs.

• This is related to the problem of having pre-defined cutoffs for each page--that is, every five verses, rather than trying to make cutoffs that are more natural to the text.

It is a pain, and no one has ever done it, but someone can change the boundaries of the article. Just make sure to rename the page according to current page naming conventions and check "what links here" and and fix all the related links.

• Of course, I'd still want to be able to get all the commentary for an entire chapter on one page, but I'm guessing this would still be possible.

Yes it is possible. But, I'm having trouble figuring out what would work best. Do you think you'd want the exact same functionality as now replicated? Or have one aggregated page for questions, one for lexical notes, one for exegesis, etc. --Matthew Faulconer 09:55, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

"Exposition" instead of "analysis"?

Matthew, I'm not sure if you still have plans on making any changes, but if you're still thinking about adding a 5th section, another word I sort of like is "exposition." I know it's probably not much clearer than exegesis, but the more I read in Biblical studies, the more I think the terms "exegesis" and even "analysis" have certain connotations that preclude any sort of theological interpretation. This seems to be a rather controversial topic in Biblical studies, since many scholars seem to think that any theological presuppositions should be checked at the door before reading a passage. However, I think this approach desacralizes scripture, and undermines efforts to find important layers of meaning. That is, it seems to me that, as believers, we have to approach scripture with an idea on interpretation, not just exegesis. I'm still don't have a good idea as to what to call these two sections, but I'd like to propose "Brief Explanation" and "Further Exposition." --RobertC 15:20, 21 October 2007 (CEST)

Chapter pages

RobertC, You wrote above:

by the way, I'd love to see a little link to the discussion pages somehow included on those pages so as to quickly and easily see if there is any discussion for an entire chapter, if that makes any sense...

I experimented with this. Check out: The Acts 10 All and The Acts 17 All. --Matthew Faulconer 12:47, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

Cool. I'd be pleased as punch with any of those versions. I think the best solution would be to include a link on the chapter pages to either see all of the commentary on one page (with only to links to discussion pages interspersed) AND a link to see all the discussion for a chapter on one page. Of course these pages aren't that pretty, so I'm not sure it's worth spending much time on them, but I do think they're very handy for those of us that are more interested in content and functionality than form. --RobertC 15:30, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

Ooops. I forgot to point out The Acts 5 All. There we have all of the commentary on the commentary page and all of the talk on that talk page. I think I like that best. What do you think? --Matthew Faulconer 21:51, 19 August 2007 (CEST)

Matthew, did you mean Talk:The Acts 5 All page? I already saw that, which is what I was referring to above in terms of seeing "all the discussion for a chapter on one page." I like the The Acts 10 All format focusing on commentary but showing whether talk-links have content or not, coupled with the Talk:The Acts 5 All format for showing all the chapter talk pages on one page. --RobertC 20:06, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

So the best of all worlds then it sounds like would be The Acts 10 All for commentary pages and Talk:The Acts 5 All for related talk pages except (for consistency sake) really the talk page should also show a link to the related commentary page just like we see, in the reverse, on The Acts 10 All. Thanks, --Matthew Faulconer 09:24, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

Yep, that's what I think it's best. Anyone else out there care to weigh in (I hate feeling responsible for decisions like this!)? --RobertC 20:23, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

Site down

Sorry the site was down yesterday evening and today. I'll check in with the person who hosts the hardware to find out what happened.. --Matthew Faulconer 19:05, 26 August 2007 (CEST)

Are 5-verse chunks mandatory?

If we broke up the text into pericopes, rather than arbitrary 5-verse chunks, would anything break (such as the per-chapter all-commentaries page)?

For example, we might want to put 2 Ne 3:5-17 (Lehi's paraphrase/quote/explanation of Joseph in Egypt) on a single page, instead of the four commentary pages it currently falls across. I would love to write up a detailed comparison of this text with JST Genesis 50:25-35, but it would work better as a single exegesis than as four. I remember adding some analysis in Alma that depended on verses found in more than one chunk, and I think I could have made it more clear, as well as written it up less laboriously, if I could have gotten both verses on the same page.

I've started a list of potential technical issues below. Please add any others, and abbreviate any that aren't a problem after all. Nathan E. Rasmussen 19:57, 16 February 2012 (CET)

Technical issues:

• Existing links to the 5-verse pages. If a pericope completely subsumes a chunk, we might be able to just replace the chunk page with a redirect (assuming that doesn't screw up the all-commentaries page). If two pericopes divide a chunk, I guess someone will have to review the incoming links by hand to see which pericope they should point to. Normal problem all wikis face.

• All-comment pages. Are the verse ranges that they transclude editable? Automatically collected? Hard-coded? That is, how hard is it to divide the text into pericopes and not screw them up, and can a peon do the necessary work or does it have to be an admin/developer/angel-whose-hand-you've-shaken?