User talk:HH LEADER/Guild Categories

Please place your comments below. -- HH LEADER talk 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we prefer having readable names for categories, not a connection of keywords nobody understands without reading about it. And your categorization has one big failure. For example when there is a guild with ENG -1 UTC +3 HA it is very difficult to actually find this guild. I (UTC+2) would need to check all combinations fo guild category codes that include that timezone to find such a guild - and that is really complicated and bad.

I don't see a problem with our current system, as it allows users to find interesting guild really quickly based on their main search criteria. poke | talk 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually you would not need to check all the combinations because it is a range. It depends on your "time zone tolerability". It is the same as inviting someone in the guild. If all players in your guild must be UTC +2 and speak only English, you are looking only for categories that start as ENG +2 UTC +2 and if you are tolerant to those who may be in UTC+3 you just have to check the next row because they are listed in alphabetical order and if you tolerant to UTC+1,- one row above. It is exactly the same process as finding a book on a shelf in the library when you have a code. You are not looking for entire number, just on first 3 -4 letters. I do not suppose that it will be big number of variations in Players Tolerance Window. I would think that window normally would not be more then 3 hours wide with the average play time 4 hours. In general the proposed system does not replace existing one but intends to complement it.--HH LEADER talk 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"It depends on your "time zone tolerability"" - that is simply not true. The category shows the timezones the guild accepts, so if I am in UTC+2, I have to check for example -5 UTC +2 as well as +2 UTC +6 (and very many in between). And having hundreds of timezone combinations without looking at additional things like playstyle and language is complicated. poke | talk 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to create much unnecessary work and confusion for little or no benefit. Lord Belar 17:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see what the additional work needs to be done and by whom. Can you please elaborate?--HH LEADER talk 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing about 4 thousand pages and having to look through the given information and building a complicated category name is what I call additional work. poke | talk 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A wiki's most important feature is its simplicity to edit and search. As Poke and Belar say, this is unnecessarily complicated and difficult. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned below it is the same approach as used in library to find a book. The convention is based on ISO standards that are widely known. If there is a problem with how proposal is phrased, so it is hard to comprehend, I am probably looking for help on re-phrasing it. I actually have question to you: "Is there anything in the proposal that contradicts current polices or guidlines?". Thanks.--HH LEADER talk 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Convention is good and fine as long as the people that actually have to work with it (= the GW players looking for a guild) completely understand it. As a lot people already have problems in knowing what their own timezone (relative to UTC) is, using such a complicated and completely un-common way of categorization is just bad. poke | talk 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with previous statements. This change would make looking for a certain characteristic of a guild too complicated for an average user. Also, the user article where this discussion originates states as a problem something that is not really: If an article (be it a guild, main page article, or userpage) is categorized under several different categories is because all they apply at the same time while also applying independantly, and logic dictates which ones overlap and which ones work separated. While the proposed change could make this differenciation clearer for a knowledgeable user, your average IP would probably just ignore it altogether thinking it's a bunch of gibberish, and thus the real benefit of the change would be null. Also, wiki search engine limitations make a "range search" almost impossible.

In resume, categories work as they are now. We don't need categories that are combinations of other categories (besides those that are "all inclusive") because we would end with number of territories x number of languages x types of guild x ... x any other tag = A bajillion different categories.

Puntual problems (like timezone) can be worked over just by ignoring it altogether. If a guild plays on a range of timezones, they can explicit the range, or just don't put a range at all. If a guild accepts any languages, they can use "multilingual", or just don't select a main language. If a guild plays in every territory, and takes people from anywhere, they can select "international" or just don't pick a territory. At worst, if they just use a few timezones/languages/territories/countries, they can specify them without real problems.--Fighterdoken 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was in a process of answering to each comment as my edit has been overridden. It's Ok. Perhaps I can answer to the above in a few statements below:

• people will not be looking backward in time because if somone starts at 6PM, 6 PM it is and with 4 hours play we only looking at 3 category max for 1 language. We cannot deny that there is a need to find Guilds in one's plaing window

• there will be no gazillion categories and we can do the math if take categories that exist now and multiply to make a prediction

• wiki indeed can not solve this task properly and I was offering 1 way it could. I already mentioned to Wyn that this task is easily resolved with relational database and I am sure that if there was an application where you can pick what you are looking for by all the dimensions discussed in a proposal, people will not be looking for this info in wiki.

Wyn warned me that my proposal will be shreaded, I should have listened. Is the concensus reached on this subject (I still did not read all the Polices)?

Thanks for your input.--HH LEADER talk 21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"wiki indeed can not solve this task properly" - Then why are you even discussing about it? poke | talk 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't cut the phrase please. It followed "I was offering one way it could". Your not helping the discussion by making comments such as this or "it is simply not true" when denying the obvoius. By "properly" I meant "like making a database quesry", which is explained later on. What is the positive and constructive input have you provided? How do you propose to help new users to find a guild based on the needs listed in my proposal?--HH LEADER talk 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Aspera ad Astra: moved on and submitted suggestion to ArenaNet for building a Guild/Alliance registry with search function within GW2 that can be found here :ArenaNet:Guild_Wars_2_suggestions/Guilds_and_Alliance_Registry--HH LEADER talk 03:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that suggestion for in-game GW2 is more appropriate than this proposal for this wiki. I just want to explain certain things that I think you may be misunderstanding:

• We do not write this wiki software. We do not have access to the server that hosts this wiki. It is simply not possible for us to store guild information in a database. Yes, I know it's easy, and you might try to acquire guild namespace data dumps and then write a parser to persist them into a database and then host it with a simple front-end on another server.
• You are over-estimating the level of knowledge most internet users possess. Ask any random user online and many of them will tell you they have no idea what timezone they're in, much less what "UTC" is.
• Categories are not search criteria. They are classifications/groupings/classes/types. They need to be readable and intuitive to use (including adding, editing, and removing) by anyone.
• Wiki pages cannot be controlled ala a database. You cannot restrict access to the data, and you will not be able to force people to use this system if they simply don't want to or don't know how (yes, most people don't bother reading instructions, especially if they can barely understand English).
• And yes, this will create a huge amount of unnecessary categories (be aware that each category is also a new page). version * language * timezone_range * play_type * optional = 3 * (> 300) * (24C2 = 276 I think...) * (> 20) * (> 50) = more than 248,400,000 possible categories. Bear in mind that my numbers are actually minimal, since I believe the total number of possible combinations is way bigger than that minimal number I came up with.

With that aside, I'd just like to state that I actually agree with you that the categories are not that useful in helping people locate guilds. But using categories to help people search is not the right way. I believe a more appropriate way to help users navigate the huge amount of guild page is to come up with something similar to Guild Wars Wiki:Categorical index. -- ab.er.rant 13:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your productive input. I appreciate the time you have taken to write detailed response. This is exactly what I was looking for in a first place. As per my message I have moved onto database based proposal. There is no intention to persist anything from Wiki, because GW2 will have new Guilds and a database structure should be designed from 'scratch' to support the needs that players feel are real and could improve the game. The ISO data mentioned in this proposal could serve as key fields and players should not worry about calculating time in UTC, which will be internal database representation for they will see their local time. The database query will match Player Time Window to Guild Time Window and give the best matches (but that is a database/UI design consideration if ArenaNet will decide to proceed). I believe that you will be able to help significantly if participate in the discussion about the Guild Registry proposal. Thank you again. --HH LEADER talk 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"This is exactly what I was looking for in a first place" - eh, sorry, what? If you read the first sentence of aberrant’s comment again, you see that his answer is based on things you might have misunderstood. Your proposal clearly states that you wanted to use the wiki system for that (see for example the category tag); all of us commented on that fact because we simply thought you would know what you are actually talking about. But just because you were not able to understand how a wiki works or that changing thousand of guild pages to an appropriate category is actually work, that doesn't make the comments from the others less valuable. The things we said actually gave an appropriate comment on that what you proposed in the first place. So please don't devalue the time we have taken to write the responses just because you were not able to express what your proposal is really based on. Thanks. poke | talk 15:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to like taking someone's sentense and put it out of context. The context was in a starting sentense to Ab.er.runt: "Thank you for your productive input", because Ab.er.runt was actually proposing something positive and also noted that he is an agreement with the proposal's problem statement, just not with the way the problem is offered to be resolved; he also took the time to look at my new proposal and made positive comment about that. You seem to concentrating on making negative comments that only based on twisting the meaning of what was actually said. There is a word in a dictionry for that, I guess. Please take the time to read more attentively and understand the meaning before condemn implied intentions. And where did you get that I was saying that all input was invaluable? Not productive does not mean invaluable. A positive or productive input has intention to create or produce and negative to destroy or deny. What is your intention? Your input in particularly(don't speak for everyone please) was not productive because you did not even make an attempt to offer anything and were using "big failure" in your opening statement for discussion which is a judgement, not a proposal. That alone makes anything you said forth not productive. And you continue this way. Don't forget that you are talking to live person with the feelings. I hope that you will not dwell on the idea that you may provoke me to answer you in way you just did. Please do yourself a favor and be less negative and concentrate on positive. Work on your presentation style, so people will not take it as a personal attack. It'll do you good. And if you want another example of productive input it's just below from JonTheMon who actually sharing his thoughts and discussing the possibilities of including Time Zone in a search because he may see the value in one. --HH LEADER talk 17:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidently you missed the point of aberant's post in your pursuit of self-validation. He simply made an itemized list of reasons why your proposal will not work, while the rest of us foolishly assumed that by presenting the end conclusion, you would be intelligent enough to grasp the reasoning behind it. And, yes, poke's statement is a "judgment, not a proposal," as you put it, because you are the one making the proposal here, not us. You asked for us to comment on your proposal, and we did just that. Do not dismiss our statements just because they do not reinforce your preexisting beliefs as to the value and practicality of your proposal. Lord Belar 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Lord Belar you and other weren't fooled. Not by me. I did not dismissed the comments, I did dropped the ball and I did conclude the discussion as you noted. I thought it was the end of it. It was I who was a fool. And when Ab.ber.rant commented and said something positive, I have said: "Thank you". I did not think it was too terrible thing to do. Mind you, that while he summarised what have been said already, which I had already accepted, hence moved to something new, he did say 2 things that have not been said before: "Yes, that suggestion for in-game GW2 is more appropriate than this proposal for this wiki" and "With that aside, I'd just like to state that I actually agree with you that the categories are not that useful in helping people locate guilds". That was actually 1st and direct recognition that a problem actually exists. I did not miss his summary and had no intent to continue with this as you can see from my response to him where I discuss new database proposal only and asking for his input on this.

Here is where Poke steps in, takes one sentense out of context and blames me for not being thankfull enough to others. However, Poke's position has always been: "I don't see a problem with our current system". And for that I said thank you to Ab.ber.rant. So, these are two polar points of view Ab.ber.runt's: "problem exists" and Poke's: "problem does not exist". The other very important difference I would like to highlight was the tone with which it was said, which can make all the difference. And that was a big part of my This is exactly what I was looking for in a first place and big thank you to Ab.ber.runt. THe proble recognition is the first step to the solutionand currently I think the database one would be the best if ArenaNet agrees. And I would be interested to hear your opinion too, regardless of how it makes me feel to be always reminded that I do not know something that others may do.

Never would I expect that if I said thank you to one person in more than one word it could so deeply offend the others and provoke on outburst.

Do you honestly believe that if someone spends time for writing a proposal they just crave to hear about it in terms of big failure upfront instead of considering what is good or what not in some form of 'neutrality'? I thought that neutrality should be a one of most prized sysop's qualities.

In all the input only Poke's was phrased the way "to make a person feel better". Why would you take on your account what was said to Poke in response to his commment? What is with "WE"?

If I do not understand how something works, just explain me, so I do know, or point out to the documentation. Why should you say: "you would be intelligent enough to grasp the reasoning behind it"? Make me as intellegent as you are by talikng to me intellegently and calmly. Do you think it makes me feel better if I called unintellegent? Does it make you feel better after you said it? Should I say "thank you" or "sorry" to make you feel better?

That is the problem with the written communications: we do not see the person eyes, do not comprehend their feelings, misinterpreting the meaning and left shipwrecked under the debris of our own fast prjudjements--HH LEADER talk 19:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the limitations of the wiki software, is it possible to cross-search categories? Like, search for guilds that are categorized UTC+1 and ENG? If that was possible, then instead of categorizing guilds as -1 UTC +1, you would just do categorize UTC-1, UTC, UTC+1 and ENG. --JonTheMon 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No Jon, multiple level searches are not possible with wiki software. Thus the "problem".-- Wyn 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)