on that subject . . .

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Subject: on that subject . . .
Posted by mirch on June 30, 2002 at 2:26 PM:

In Reply to: Re: Idea for a new Term for the encyclopedia posted by Hank on June 30, 2002 at 6:42 AM:

who uses the term "Martha"? i cannot remember anyone ever using that term in the forums. do these terms get in the glossary because one person mentions or suggests it. i think we should raise the bar a bit there. the same goes for the recently suggested "dick clark." i have only seen that mentioned in one thread. now, if the term catches one an users start using them in posts, other than just to say "i suggest" or "i nominate", then and only then should the term be considered for the glossary. even then we should perhaps have some sort of open review process (nothing formal, just a thread in the forum) to see if there is general agreement for a term to be included. any thoughts?

-mitch

:
: Ok, here's my thoughts on suggestions like these. We could probably sit here and think up a hundred more terms for the Encyclopedia. But the objective is not to make it as large as possible, nor fill it with every possible term we can dream up, but rather make it a place were people can go to lookup the terms that we use here every day. It already is getting pretty large, and the larger it is, the more likely it is people *won't* find it helpful. So, please, let's limit new entries to the encyclopedia to well-used and accepted georging terms, and not fill it with terms that makes sense but are not really used or add terms just for the purpose of adding them just because we can.

: -Hank

Follow Ups:

Or if newbies often see a term used, then constantly asks what’s a ‘___’? – thanks, mirch… nitch..., I mean Mitch *giggle* (nt) Hans M Guy - HMG in MAss 4:39 PM 6/30/2002

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: who uses the term "Martha"? i cannot remember anyone ever using that term in the forums. do these terms get in the glossary because one person mentions or suggests it. i think we should raise the bar a bit there. the same goes for the recently suggested "dick clark." i have only seen that mentioned in one thread. now, if the term catches one an users start using them in posts, other than just to say "i suggest" or "i nominate", then and only then should the term be considered for the glossary. even then we should perhaps have some sort of open review process (nothing formal, just a thread in the forum) to see if there is general agreement for a term to be included. any thoughts? : <a href="http://www.wheresgeorge.com/user_profile_popup.php3?ukey=WGmEnq8zdSAGw" target="_blank">-mitch</a> : : : : : Ok, here's my thoughts on suggestions like these. We could probably sit here and think up a hundred more terms for the Encyclopedia. But the objective is not to make it as large as possible, nor fill it with every possible term we can dream up, but rather make it a place were people can go to lookup the terms that we use here every day. It already is getting pretty large, and the larger it is, the more likely it is people *won't* find it helpful. So, please, let's limit new entries to the encyclopedia to well-used and accepted georging terms, and not fill it with terms that makes sense but are not really used or add terms just for the purpose of adding them just because we can. : : -Hank

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Forum FAQ ] [ The Where's George Public Message Forum! ]