John Rumm coughed up some electrons that declared:
OK - I'm game. Might be worth attempting to put some structure in from the get go, eg "Recommended: Hand tools", "Recommended: Power tools", "Recommended: Fixings", "Recommended: Paints, wallpapers and finishes" and of course "Recommended: Misc" as a catch all.
Or the other alternative is one mega page, with another wiki linking to subject headings.
Sounds like a good idea. But... there really is no one recommendation that suits us all. If someone is going to use the thing once a year, a red devil will see them to their grave. If someone does DIY day in day out, its time for dewalt etc. So I'm wondering how you could make the recommendations genuinely useful.
Perhaps rather than recommending you could just include a variety of user reviews on each, then readers see the pros and cons for each tool.
Also, I'd split it into eg drill review, planer review articles etc, otherwise one article is going to grow massive, and for any reader about to buy be mostly irrelevant. The key things to look for can be discussed so that it remains useful in future. A thought anyway.
John Rumm coughed up some electrons that declared:
I was think more specific products, eg Screw-Tite screws are the mutts nutts for application, this brand of crimpers do actually work etc.
But, I see no reason why materials couldn't be included in the scheme for more specialist stuff, eg the fine faced ply or insulation board or particular adhesives for demanding applications. No harm in having a seller website link if the product is hard to obtain and not bothering if it's widely available (Google Products usually sorts that class out and is always upto date).
I agree with NT that we'd probably need one article per type - and that it needs to be a list of products and review-comments by actual owners rather than an absolute list of definitive excellent products. Negative reviews are just as valid, as a "steer clear" warning IMHO.
Not sure if this has any libel-legal implications for the Wiki server and content operators? Doesn't seem to cause other sites any issues, if a suitable disclaimer is added, but as a courtesy, I think this point needs to be raised.
Now, as to namespace issues:
The Article Index doesn't allow for sub folders AFAICS, so we need to be careful not to pepper that with vast numbers of pages which make locating other pages difficult.
The only answer I have is to have a standard article name format, eg "UserReviews_Planers", "UserReviews_Screws" etc. That keeps them together, and mercifully near the bottom of the list.
To make adding new articles easy, I'd go for a pro-forma article that can trivially be cut-n-pasted, eg (but without the example content for the actual pro-forma)
= User Review - Planers =
'''Disclaimer: comments belong to various users of products and do not necessarily refplect the opionions of the owners and operators of the uk.d-i-y Wiki, no liability implied blah blah>'''
== China-Widget ==
=== ProPlaner Mad Bastard Woodeater 120mm ===
I have one and it's rough but for smoothing off bits of wood and building timber it's fast and efficient. Blades blunt quickly but are cheap and quick to replace
I use one occasionally and it's fine
== German-SuperTool ==
=== PL86 100mm ===
Expensive, but very good control, light and accurate
and so on...
Quick and easy to add new sections, not complicated, gives the reader simple basic feedback to assist in their choice. No 1/10 ratings as these are too subjective (inconsistent) to be useful IMO.
Add a forward link to the article from the end of the relevant section, eg Planers and probably have a sub contents page (though folk do sometimes forget to add new pages to these so it may be a chore to maintain)
The other option is to dispense with the manufacturer section headings as I bet most may only get one model mentioned much of the time...
The current index page is simply a list of every article on the wiki, nothing more. So there's no reason to try to hide anything from it or reposition it. Perhaps one day we'll have a more traditional index as well.
Article headings: How about Screw review, Planer review, SDS review etc. As a reader if I'm looking for screw type info, I'm going to head for 'screw' in the index rather than 'user'
Those are very minor points, altogether a great job
John Rumm coughed up some electrons that declared:
Done. Now, two things occurred to me:
a) Good idea to mention the specs. Specs are factual, not objective, so I reckon it should come out of the review paragraph and go under the tool model heading. I know it's unlikely that two people actually own the same tool and actually make a comment, but, well, I'm Mr Normalisation (too much database wibbling) - sorry, force of habit. If people contribute and don't follow the pattern, it doesn't really matter, but I'm keen to be able to have a good model page to point them at.
b) I noticed you used several paragraphs - so I tried a tweak to the format where your name (any objections? - it's hardly enforceable) and date of comment is in a mini heading. Again, only useful for multiple comments, but just for example purposes...
I think date is useful as it gives a quick indication if the model is likely to be current or not. Dated reviews are valuable too for anyone buying secondhand.
http://wik
formatting link
've done the formatting changes on my bits and left yours mostly alone, to show the comparison.
Votes? (Doesn't have to be my way)
And me.
We need a drive: "Wiki's are easy and people are supposed to contribute directly" :) I think some people are scared either of the "technology" or that there's an inner elite and you have to be blessed before you can touch this stuff. The fact I edit stuff disproves the latter! I've never been elite ;-o
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com coughed up some electrons that declared:
http://wik
formatting link
>>> I've done the formatting changes on my bits and left yours mostly alone,
What I was getting at is that if there's a desire to have a short specification list for easy feature comparison (I agree with this in hindsight), it might be better IMHO to encourage that to be placed prior to the bit where the contributor actually passes judgement. Otherwise it risks replication and it's harder to pick out.
As I said, it's only trying ideas for a model page - I wouldn't expect everyone to be bothered, nor someone to slog their brains out editing everything - after all a quick paragraph with *any* info is worth more than none.
I'm also aware that editing other people's comments starts to infer some liability for what's being said, and I guess we need to try any steer clear of that.
But if a certain simple presentation is presented as a guide, people who care do at least have something to work to :)
In that light do you still feel the style is over structured?
Can't Be ****? Possibly - but like most things, it's a faff the first time (the account registration, getting the hang of the basic format) but after that it becomes easy.
Yup I agree. It might even be worth putting the list in as a table such that people can just cut 'n' paste it and get a full set of headings. That way they just fill in whatever info they have.
tables make editing much harder, and personally I just cant see the point of them in this case. Harder to work with equals less contributions, 2 reasons I rarely use them.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.