tags in general software library forum

[nsg]

Submissions for various entries in "General software library" forum are tagged very inconsistently. As in
(32s)
32s
HP-32s:
[HP 32s]

This makes submissions not be grouped by models, but rather spread all over the place.

I suggest bring them all to a single canonical form. Something like
(32s)

HP is implied, all non-HP entries would have a literal prefix, like (WP 34s).

I volunteer to do it. For that I need a temporary admin permission to edit posts (or just post titles, if this is an option). Or, if forum software allows mass renames, I can make a table text file with "old title,separator,new title" and send it to a real admin.

[Gerald H]

Good idea.

My preference is

HP 32S:

as a few would not require renaming.

Expecting consistency from members seems rather far-fetched.

[pier4r]

I agree plus putting a naming guide as stickied post

[nsg]

(04-22-2017 05:47 AM)Gerald H Wrote:  My preference is

HP 32S:

Expecting consistency from members seems rather far-fetched.

My idea was that canonical tag has lowest lexicographic order among all "reasonable" formats, so it appears higher in the list. This way those posts which deviate from the naming convention will be immediately penalized by being lower on the list then the rest of the submissions for that model.

So, if all the tags are (32S) and non-complying poster names their post HP 32S, that post will be stuck at the end of the forum, hopefully prompting a rename.

Of course, somebody might try to game the system by sticking multiple spaces or multiple parenthesis in front of the title, but this is just silly and immediately makes clear that the poster is gaming the system.

Right now there is no consistency and no pattern to follow even by those who want a consistency. I hope that combination of a clear established pattern and lack of benefit from deviating from it, would guide most of future submissions toward consistency.

[Gerald H]

I had considered using (32S) to put my programmes nearer the top but discounted the idea, preferring to keep the programmes alphabetically together rather than gaming the system.

How about ((32S)) - Would that be automatically relegated?

I also prefer the prefix HP as the section is headed "General..." & so programmes for any platform could legally appear there.

[Dave Frederickson]

(04-22-2017 06:34 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  I also prefer the prefix HP as the section is headed "General..." & so programmes for any platform could legally appear there.

The description for the General Software Library specifies HP calculators.

[nsg]

(04-22-2017 06:34 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  I also prefer the prefix HP

I prefer it too, but not using it moves submission higher up the ranks, so people WILL use it to gain visibility over consistency/clarity. That is why i suggest a design that gives them no such incentive. This solution comes at a cost of slight offence to the artistic feelings of me and you, but i think it is acceptable. Not ideal, but life is full of compromises.

Quote:How about ((32S)) - Would that be automatically relegated?

I am not sure the forum software allows for such capability. But at this point if somebody tags its post this way or !32S or ( 32s) oh, well it will be on top, but it will be clear we are dealing with a rank addict, let it be.

I think, ideally, the tag should be
a) separate from title
b) be selected from a predefined list
c) allow filter/sort by it with one click

For bonus points, there could be more than one tag per post.
Another bonus point, if the author does not assign tag (usually this means that author is unaware of a presence of tag feature), then anybody can assign it.
Those are all pipe dreams -- I do not see any provisions for tags in forum software.

[Gerald H]

(04-22-2017 07:25 PM)Dave Frederickson Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 06:34 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  I also prefer the prefix HP as the section is headed "General..." & so programmes for any platform could legally appear there.

The description for the General Software Library specifies HP calculators.

Correct - sorry, I don't usually read the small print.

& consider the (admittedly remote) possibility that HP names a calculator omitting HP at the front!

[Joe Horn]

(04-22-2017 07:42 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  ... & consider the (admittedly remote) possibility that HP names a calculator omitting HP at the front!

Here's another problem: The classic models were HP-35, HP-65, HP-67, HP-41C and so on, but the more recent models have no hyphen in their official names (e.g. HP 48SX, HP 50g, etc). Including or omitting the hyphen incorrectly (which WILL happen) will mess up the title sorting.

That problem could be solved simply by omitting the HP prefix entirely. I suggest omitting the parentheses too. "Model: Title" is both clear and sufficient.

[Gerald H]

OK, I've edited some of the titles of postings I initiated & removed "HP " at the beginning.

I find the result not aesthetically pleasing & somehow...naked?

[StephenG1CMZ]

(04-23-2017 02:16 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  OK, I've edited some of the titles of postings I initiated & removed "HP " at the beginning.

I find the result not aesthetically pleasing & somehow...naked?

In which case, I hope there is an "Undo"

I prefer the inclusion of "HP", primarily because if someone searches Google rather than this forum, its more likely to distinguish HP 32s from 32 seconds.

Also, it opens up the possibility of using HP 32s for HP calculators, and 32s or ?? 32s for emulators and clones...although it might be better to keep them together.

Perhaps some sort of auto-correct could catch variations and standardise them?

[Dieter]

(05-21-2017 02:18 PM)StephenG1CMZ Wrote:  I prefer the inclusion of "HP", primarily because if someone searches Google rather than this forum, its more likely to distinguish HP 32s from 32 seconds.

It also looks better. ;-) And there is one more point:

I just realized that the General Software Forum is only intended for HP calculators. Does this mean that WP34s programs are not allowed? Well, at least in this case it's a 20B or 30B HP calculator, just running third-party software. ;-) In any case programs for the 34s should get a "WP34s" mark, not just "34s". Which again means that other HPs should get a "HP32s" or "HP-41" tag.

Dieter

[Gerald H]

(05-23-2017 12:30 PM)Dieter Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 02:18 PM)StephenG1CMZ Wrote:  I prefer the inclusion of "HP", primarily because if someone searches Google rather than this forum, its more likely to distinguish HP 32s from 32 seconds.

It also looks better. ;-) And there is one more point:

I just realized that the General Software Forum is only intended for HP calculators. Does this mean that WP34s programs are not allowed? Well, at least in this case it's a 20B or 30B HP calculator, just running third-party software. ;-) In any case programs for the 34s should get a "WP34s" mark, not just "34s". Which again means that other HPs should get a "HP32s" or "HP-41" tag.

Dieter

No, "WP xxx" programmes should clearly be in "Not quite HP Calculators"; Their inclusion in General Software" has irritated for some time.

Consequently I favour the dropping of "HPx" prefix on grounds of economy & simplicity. If that's not enough reason then a greater justification is that Joe Horn prefers it.

I have now changed the header for entries initiated by me to begin with model number & encourage others to do the same.

[Gene]

The General Software library still has inconsistent labeling.

15c vs HP-15C vs (15C) etc.

[Joe Horn]

(05-23-2017 03:18 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  ... I favour the dropping of "HPx" prefix on grounds of economy & simplicity. If that's not enough reason then a greater justification is that Joe Horn prefers it.

Ha! Thinking out loud: If including the "HP" is the final decision, then perhaps we should agree to omit the subsequent space or dash, so that sorting will be correct. Otherwise we'll have "HP 48" and "HP-48" and "HP48" all being used and all sorting differently.

Also, I hope sorting here is case-insensitive, so that we don't need to worry about 33s and 33S sorting differently.

[Gerald H]

(05-23-2017 11:34 PM)Joe Horn Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 03:18 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  ... I favour the dropping of "HPx" prefix on grounds of economy & simplicity. If that's not enough reason then a greater justification is that Joe Horn prefers it.

Ha! Thinking out loud: If including the "HP" is the final decision, then perhaps we should agree to omit the subsequent space or dash, so that sorting will be correct. Otherwise we'll have "HP 48" and "HP-48" and "HP48" all being used and all sorting differently.

Also, I hope sorting here is case-insensitive, so that we don't need to worry about 33s and 33S sorting differently.

Optimistic, but I think the final decision will be to leave matters as they are.

[Dave Hicks]

It hasn't been clear to me that there is a consensus yet. Several people want XX: Title, some want HP in there for google purposes and/or aesthetics. One edited his posts to XX but wasn't happy with how they looked. Some discussion about gaming the system and what happens if HP releases a calculator without HP in the title. And only about 6 people expressing a specific opinion so far I think.

[Gerald H]

I recant my preference for "HPx" & declare aesthetic preference for "NN(as many Ns as required)LL(as many Ls as required): ", N being a digit, L a letter.

[pier4r]

(05-25-2017 02:48 PM)Dave Hicks Wrote:  It hasn't been clear to me that there is a consensus yet. Several people want XX: Title, some want HP in there for google purposes and/or aesthetics. One edited his posts to XX but wasn't happy with how they looked. Some discussion about gaming the system and what happens if HP releases a calculator without HP in the title. And only about 6 people expressing a specific opinion so far I think.

While democracy is great (well... Aside from electing dictators, clowns and so on) , sometimes a first guideline should be imposed, so why not defining one from above?

[nsg]

(05-25-2017 02:48 PM)Dave Hicks Wrote:  It hasn't been clear to me that there is a consensus yet.

I spelled out my arguments in favor of (50g) -style above, i believe it is an evolutionary stable strategy. HP-50g: style seems the least acceptable to me because I believe it will cause drift (hp-50g, hp 50g, Hp 50g will all end up in different parts of the list and some of them will be lexicographically before the "canonical" form, so new posters will pick incorrect pattern). However, ANYTHING consistent is better than the mess that is now. Whoever does the renaming should pick whatever he likes and just do it. THere is a good chance that massively prevalent pattern, whatever it is, will be self-propagating.