From: Piotr B. <ba...@o2...> - 2009-12-24 04:44:56
|
Aleksey Cheusov writes: >> I have now gone through all the project descriptions that a search for >> "DICT" returns (36, wow!) and concluded that a great majority of them >> stresses DICT as a protocol rather than database format. So maybe that's >> a start. > > I personally think that DICT category is rather useless. > 36 applications _mentioning_ DICT is too small amount for sourceforge > containing an information about hundreds of thousands software projects. I acknowledge the fact that some of them only mention DICT, curl was in fact an example of that. BUT: many of them (and now the search yielded 59 projects, go figure...) target DICT directly. Even if it's 30 (or 20) out of the 59, it's still a lot: * you say "hundreds of thousands software projects" -- but how informative is a category with (say) several hundred projects in it? Minimally, it needs refinement, more granularity. * There are general categories and leaf categories, sometimes with only several projects in them. I suggest that DICT could be a leaf category, grouping say, 20-30 *tightly focused* projects. * Categorization is not only used in searches, it's also used in selecting "related projects" on the project main page. After I reset Freedict to "XML" (for lack of a more specific category) we get the weirdest "related projects", I'm not very happy about that. Will reset it to "TEI" at the first chance I get. (And I assure you that at least 10 other projects will follow right away -- not many, but at least we will be a tight "TEI" group, rather than drops in the ocean of "XML"). * Think of the other projects, too -- why not give their admins a chance to get into the same tight leaf category as you are. Even if you don't need it, it certainly won't hurt you :-) * This is also a PR issue: "look, I'm a project that spawned quite a following!" and for the others: "look, I'm not just an exotic project focusing on some 'DICT' -- I'm part of Papa DICT's family..." ;-) > In my opinion "Office/Business::Dictionary software" or even > "Education::Library::Dictionary" categories are much better. Firstly, the project could be categorized as both "*::DICT" and "*::Dictionary", if they existed. One doesn't hurt the other. So why not let it be, e.g.: Database Internet Education::Library::Dictionary (I'd back you up on this) Formats and Protocols::Protocols::DICT The first three categories would describe DICT as a project, and the fourth would be a mother category for projects focusing on DICT. What do you (Aleksey and Others) think? Best, Piotr |