Enter our discussion:

import

I realized while developing Article Comments that it may not make
sense for all article types to have comments. I'm wondering if this
should be an option in the article types?

Also, on top of that, i believe we also wanted comments to be turned
on and off at the publication level (and also the ability to set
whether the comments were moderated). So both of these permissions:
the article type would have to support it, and publication would have
to have comments turned on, in order for people to see article
comments.

What do you think?

- Paul

import

I think both options are great, and I especially like adding the comments
toggle to the article types.

The other thing you may want to consider would be adding an option to
enable/disable comments at individual article level; it's happened to me
several times on my blog that I've had to shut off commenting, but doing
so site-wide seems kind of harsh, especially if commenters are hitting an
older article. There are times when you want to only allow comments on a
particular article for a limited time; under the current model they'd be
open indefinitely.

This would become especially important if and when our anti-spam defenses
fail - and they will fail. Just for comparison, my blog gets from 30-100
comment spams per day. Even using the outstanding Spam Karma 2 plugin for
WordPress, I'm starting to get spam comments that have gotten through
somehow.

So either adding per-article or per-issue commenting, or enabling
time-related comment opening/closing (i.e. shut off comments after
days) might be worth considering.

doug

"Paul Baranowski"
04/28/2006 01:01 PM
Please respond to campsite-dev

To: campsite-dev@campware.org
cc:
Subject: [campsite-dev] Article Comments: enabling/disabling

I realized while developing Article Comments that it may not make
sense for all article types to have comments. I'm wondering if this
should be an option in the article types?

Also, on top of that, i believe we also wanted comments to be turned
on and off at the publication level (and also the ability to set
whether the comments were moderated). So both of these permissions:
the article type would have to support it, and publication would have
to have comments turned on, in order for people to see article
comments.

What do you think?

- Paul

import

not article types at all.

my suggestion:

switch for publication
switch for issue
switch for section
switch for article
the lower one always overrides the higher one.

so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the issue 12.
or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.

article types makes no sense (to me at least)

At 13:01 28.04.2006, Paul Baranowski wrote:
>I realized while developing Article Comments that it may not make
>sense for all article types to have comments. I'm wondering if this
>should be an option in the article types?
>
>Also, on top of that, i believe we also wanted comments to be turned
>on and off at the publication level (and also the ability to set
>whether the comments were moderated). So both of these permissions:
>the article type would have to support it, and publication would have
>to have comments turned on, in order for people to see article
>comments.
>
>What do you think?
>
>- Paul

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

Micz's suggestion is good. But I do see a scenario where article types
could handle this switch.

Say comments are on for publication, section and you want to introduce
another article type "newsflash" that would have only one field or
something, that you would display in a box or something. So would you
really want the journalist to go on unchecking the comments feature each
time she adds an article? My guess is no.

I would like to hear the opinion of the MOW people on this.

Sava

Micz Flor
Sent by: micz.flor@web.de
04/28/2006 01:56 PM
Please respond to campsite-dev

To: campsite-dev@campware.org, campsite-dev@campware.org
cc:
Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments: enabling/disabling

not article types at all.

my suggestion:

switch for publication
switch for issue
switch for section
switch for article
the lower one always overrides the higher one.

so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the issue 12.
or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.

article types makes no sense (to me at least)

At 13:01 28.04.2006, Paul Baranowski wrote:
>I realized while developing Article Comments that it may not make
>sense for all article types to have comments. I'm wondering if this
>should be an option in the article types?
>
>Also, on top of that, i believe we also wanted comments to be turned
>on and off at the publication level (and also the ability to set
>whether the comments were moderated). So both of these permissions:
>the article type would have to support it, and publication would have
>to have comments turned on, in order for people to see article
>comments.
>
>What do you think?
>
>- Paul

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

my opinion is that

- by default, comments should be allowed for all articles - it depands on templates whether this possibility is implemented or not;
- in templates, comments won't be implemented for certain types of articles, for articles in back issues, or will be implemented for all articles, or whichever condition there might be (similiar to the logic - it might be implemented for some or for all or for no articles at all)
- editor should have the possibility to switch off comments for some articles, the same way he has the flag for allowing unothorized user to read the article
- in system preferences, there should be the option to decide if comments are moderated or not.

Ljuba
----- Original Message -----
From: sava.tatic@mdlf.org
To: campsite-dev@campware.org
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments: enabling/disabling

Micz's suggestion is good. But I do see a scenario where article types could handle this switch.

Say comments are on for publication, section and you want to introduce another article type "newsflash" that would have only one field or something, that you would display in a box or something. So would you really want the journalist to go on unchecking the comments feature each time she adds an article? My guess is no.

I would like to hear the opinion of the MOW people on this.

Sava

Micz Flor
Sent by: micz.flor@web.de
04/28/2006 01:56 PM
Please respond to campsite-dev

To: campsite-dev@campware.org, campsite-dev@campware.org
cc:
Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments: enabling/disabling

not article types at all.

my suggestion:

switch for publication
switch for issue
switch for section
switch for article
the lower one always overrides the higher one.

so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the issue 12.
or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.

article types makes no sense (to me at least)

At 13:01 28.04.2006, Paul Baranowski wrote:
>I realized while developing Article Comments that it may not make
>sense for all article types to have comments. I'm wondering if this
>should be an option in the article types?
>
>Also, on top of that, i believe we also wanted comments to be turned
>on and off at the publication level (and also the ability to set
>whether the comments were moderated). So both of these permissions:
>the article type would have to support it, and publication would have
>to have comments turned on, in order for people to see article
>comments.
>
>What do you think?
>
>- Paul

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

IMHO creating comments to all articles will lead to lots of empty Phorum
threads and will result in number of useless search results.
But the idea with template settings is quite good.
What about to go with following schema:

1) All articles are capable to have a discussion
2) If there is a new discussion post submitted, campsite simply enters
it to discussion. If there is no discussion, it will create one.
- Therefore articles with empty discussion do not have record in Phorum
3) The admin interface can have only a link to moderate the article
discussion with a choice to submit new post
4) If template does not use article comments, the discussion will never
be created.

Ondra

On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 13:14 +0200, Ljuba Rankovic wrote:
> my opinion is that
>
> - by default, comments should be allowed for all articles - it depands
> on templates whether this possibility is implemented or not;
> - in templates, comments won't be implemented for certain types of
> articles, for articles in back issues, or will be implemented for all
> articles, or whichever condition there might be (similiar to the > if allowed> logic - it might be implemented for some or for all or for
> no articles at all)
> - editor should have the possibility to switch off comments for some
> articles, the same way he has the flag for allowing unothorized user
> to read the article
> - in system preferences, there should be the option to decide if
> comments are moderated or not.
>
> Ljuba
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: sava.tatic@mdlf.org
> To: campsite-dev@campware.org
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 5:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments:
> enabling/disabling
>
>
>
> Micz's suggestion is good. But I do see a scenario where
> article types could handle this switch.
>
> Say comments are on for publication, section and you want to
> introduce another article type "newsflash" that would have
> only one field or something, that you would display in a box
> or something. So would you really want the journalist to go on
> unchecking the comments feature each time she adds an article?
> My guess is no.
>
> I would like to hear the opinion of the MOW people on this.
>
> Sava
>
>
>
> Micz Flor
>
> Sent by:
> micz.flor@web.de
>
> 04/28/2006 01:56 PM
> Please respond to
> campsite-dev
>
>
>
>
> To:
> campsite-dev@campware.org, campsite-dev@campware.org
> cc:
> Subject:
> Re:
> [campsite-dev]
> Article Comments:
> enabling/disabling
>
>
>
> not article types at all.
>
> my suggestion:
>
> switch for publication
> switch for issue
> switch for section
> switch for article
> the lower one always overrides the higher one.
>
> so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then
> decide
> at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for
> the issue 12.
> or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive
> and
> allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one
> article.
>
> article types makes no sense (to me at least)
>
> At 13:01 28.04.2006, Paul Baranowski wrote:
> >I realized while developing Article Comments that it may not
> make
> >sense for all article types to have comments. I'm wondering
> if this
> >should be an option in the article types?
> >
> >Also, on top of that, i believe we also wanted comments to be
> turned
> >on and off at the publication level (and also the ability to
> set
> >whether the comments were moderated). So both of these
> permissions:
> >the article type would have to support it, and publication
> would have
> >to have comments turned on, in order for people to see
> article
> >comments.
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >- Paul
>
>
> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>
> content and media development http://mi.cz
> --------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

import

Here is a opinion of the "MOW people"

- All articles shoul have possibility to swich comments on or off
- Comments should be connected to the article type
- Article edit interface should have "safety switch" with option to
enable or disable comments. If article type have comments enabled, this
option should corespodent to it (it should be initialy checked and vice
versa)
- On article edit screen there should be switch to turn adding of the
comments on or off. Which means that users will be able to read
comments, but not to add. (Dougs suggestion for automatic disabling for
X days should be considered as an feature)
- Must be a option to decide if the comments are moderated or not

Zoran

Ondra Koutek wrote:
> IMHO creating comments to all articles will lead to lots of empty Phorum
> threads and will result in number of useless search results.
> But the idea with template settings is quite good.
> What about to go with following schema:
>
> 1) All articles are capable to have a discussion
> 2) If there is a new discussion post submitted, campsite simply enters
> it to discussion. If there is no discussion, it will create one.
> - Therefore articles with empty discussion do not have record in Phorum
> 3) The admin interface can have only a link to moderate the article
> discussion with a choice to submit new post
> 4) If template does not use article comments, the discussion will never
> be created.
>
> Ondra
>
> On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 13:14 +0200, Ljuba Rankovic wrote:
>
>> my opinion is that
>>
>> - by default, comments should be allowed for all articles - it depands
>> on templates whether this possibility is implemented or not;
>> - in templates, comments won't be implemented for certain types of
>> articles, for articles in back issues, or will be implemented for all
>> articles, or whichever condition there might be (similiar to the >> if allowed> logic - it might be implemented for some or for all or for
>> no articles at all)
>> - editor should have the possibility to switch off comments for some
>> articles, the same way he has the flag for allowing unothorized user
>> to read the article
>> - in system preferences, there should be the option to decide if
>> comments are moderated or not.
>>
>> Ljuba
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: sava.tatic@mdlf.org
>> To: campsite-dev@campware.org
>> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 5:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments:
>> enabling/disabling
>>
>>
>>
>> Micz's suggestion is good. But I do see a scenario where
>> article types could handle this switch.
>>
>> Say comments are on for publication, section and you want to
>> introduce another article type "newsflash" that would have
>> only one field or something, that you would display in a box
>> or something. So would you really want the journalist to go on
>> unchecking the comments feature each time she adds an article?
>> My guess is no.
>>
>> I would like to hear the opinion of the MOW people on this.
>>
>> Sava
>>
>>
>>
>> Micz Flor
>>
>> Sent by:
>> micz.flor@web.de
>>
>> 04/28/2006 01:56 PM
>> Please respond to
>> campsite-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To:
>> campsite-dev@campware.org, campsite-dev@campware.org
>> cc:
>> Subject:
>> Re:
>> [campsite-dev]
>> Article Comments:
>> enabling/disabling
>>
>>
>>
>> not article types at all.
>>
>> my suggestion:
>>
>> switch for publication
>> switch for issue
>> switch for section
>> switch for article
>> the lower one always overrides the higher one.
>>
>> so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then
>> decide
>> at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for
>> the issue 12.
>> or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive
>> and
>> allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one
>> article.
>>
>> article types makes no sense (to me at least)
>>
>> At 13:01 28.04.2006, Paul Baranowski wrote:
>> >I realized while developing Article Comments that it may not
>> make
>> >sense for all article types to have comments. I'm wondering
>> if this
>> >should be an option in the article types?
>> >
>> >Also, on top of that, i believe we also wanted comments to be
>> turned
>> >on and off at the publication level (and also the ability to
>> set
>> >whether the comments were moderated). So both of these
>> permissions:
>> >the article type would have to support it, and publication
>> would have
>> >to have comments turned on, in order for people to see
>> article
>> >comments.
>> >
>> >What do you think?
>> >
>> >- Paul
>>
>>
>> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>
>> content and media development http://mi.cz
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

import

>- Comments should be connected to the article type

i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the article type.

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

Micz,
Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in design of
site structure and functionality than to connect it to the publication,
issue, section, and article. With a good planning in this way you can
save a lot of time to the editors and scale down manual work to the
minimum.

Zoran

Micz Flor wrote:
>
>> - Comments should be connected to the article type
>
> i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
> once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
> on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the article type.
>
>
> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>
> content and media development http://mi.cz
> --------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

import

yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad feeling...

At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>Micz,
>Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
>type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
>design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to the
>publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
>this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
>manual work to the minimum.
>
>Zoran
>
>
>Micz Flor wrote:
>>
>>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
>>
>>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
>>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
>>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the article type.
>>
>>
>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>
>>content and media development http://mi.cz
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

I know that feeling, we run 30 sites and another 20 are in proccess Smile

Micz Flor wrote:
> yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
> change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad feeling...
>
> At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>> Micz,
>> Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
>> type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in design
>> of site structure and functionality than to connect it to the
>> publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
>> this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
>> manual work to the minimum.
>>
>> Zoran
>>
>>
>> Micz Flor wrote:
>>>
>>>> - Comments should be connected to the article type
>>>
>>> i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
>>> once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
>>> on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the article
>>> type.
>>>
>>>
>>> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>>
>>> content and media development http://mi.cz
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>
> content and media development http://mi.cz
> --------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

import

At 14:02 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>I know that feeling, we run 30 sites and another 20 are in proccess Smile

but you still stick to your idea? Smile

>Micz Flor wrote:
>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years
>>you change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on
>>honey Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad feeling...
>>
>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>>>Micz,
>>>Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to
>>>article type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more
>>>freedom in design of site structure and functionality than to
>>>connect it to the publication, issue, section, and article. With a
>>>good planning in this way you can save a lot of time to the
>>>editors and scale down manual work to the minimum.
>>>
>>>Zoran
>>>
>>>
>>>Micz Flor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
>>>>
>>>>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article
>>>>type once the article is generated. it will create confusion.
>>>>comments on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not
>>>>the article type.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>>>
>>>>content and media development http://mi.cz
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>
>>
>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>
>>content and media development http://mi.cz
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

I am just waiting for better one Smile

)

Micz Flor wrote:
> At 14:02 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>> I know that feeling, we run 30 sites and another 20 are in proccess Smile

>
> but you still stick to your idea? Smile

>
>
>> Micz Flor wrote:
>>> yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years
>>> you change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on
>>> honey Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad
>>> feeling...
>>>
>>> At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>>>> Micz,
>>>> Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to
>>>> article type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom
>>>> in design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to
>>>> the publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning
>>>> in this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale
>>>> down manual work to the minimum.
>>>>
>>>> Zoran
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Micz Flor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Comments should be connected to the article type
>>>>>
>>>>> i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
>>>>> once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
>>>>> on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the
>>>>> article type.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>>>>
>>>>> content and media development http://mi.cz
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>>>> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>>
>>> content and media development http://mi.cz
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>
> content and media development http://mi.cz
> --------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

import

I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and fields,
and merge article types together.

Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem with
comments being related to article types?

- Paul

On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
> yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
> change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad feeling...
>
> At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> >Micz,
> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
> >design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to the
> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
> >manual work to the minimum.
> >
> >Zoran
> >
> >
> >Micz Flor wrote:
> >>
> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
> >>
> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the article type.
> >>
> >>
> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> >>
> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>
> content and media development http://mi.cz
> --------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>

import

wow,
thanks paul

Paul Baranowski wrote:
> I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
> article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
> boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
> translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and fields,
> and merge article types together.
>
> Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem with
> comments being related to article types?
>
> - Paul
>
>
> On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
>> yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
>> change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad
>> feeling...
>>
>> At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>> >Micz,
>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
>> >design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to the
>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
>> >manual work to the minimum.
>> >
>> >Zoran
>> >
>> >
>> >Micz Flor wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
>> >>
>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the article
>> type.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>> >>
>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>
>> content and media development http://mi.cz
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>

import

i agree with zoran: great!

however, that makes it even more bizarre to link this functionality
to article types, because they become so flexible and move from a to
b and so on. it just feels wrong either way to me. with the new view
on the flexible types it feels as if i would depend the decision of
comments or not on the image number 12 attached to the article - or
something so vague Smile

what is the question of comment (yes|no)? it is a property of the
article itself - like *show on front page*. the same should be the
case for the article type (and with the flexible types it will be).

i am fine if the article types thing is also an option, but i see
trouble... so i stick to what i said earlier:

my suggestion:

switch for publication
switch for issue
switch for section
switch for article
the lower one always overrides the higher one.

so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the issue 12.
or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.

article types makes no sense (to me at least)

At 16:31 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>wow,
>thanks paul
>
>Paul Baranowski wrote:
>>I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
>>article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
>>boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
>>translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and fields,
>>and merge article types together.
>>
>>Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem with
>>comments being related to article types?
>>
>>- Paul
>>
>>
>>On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
>>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
>>>change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
>>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad feeling...
>>>
>>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>>> >Micz,
>>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
>>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
>>> >design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to the
>>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
>>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
>>> >manual work to the minimum.
>>> >
>>> >Zoran
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Micz Flor wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
>>> >>
>>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
>>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
>>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the article type.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>> >>
>>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
>>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>>
>>>content and media development http://mi.cz
>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

Micz,

The way it would rougly look is: you enable comments for the article type
(as you define the article type), and then a "comments on" checkbox shows
up on the article edit screen. So you can always check it off (the same
way would be for moderation on and off). What's so complicated about that?

Sava

Micz Flor
Sent by: micz.flor@web.de
05/03/2006 06:55 PM
Please respond to campsite-dev

To: campsite-dev@campware.org
cc:
Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments: enabling/disabling

i agree with zoran: great!

however, that makes it even more bizarre to link this functionality
to article types, because they become so flexible and move from a to
b and so on. it just feels wrong either way to me. with the new view
on the flexible types it feels as if i would depend the decision of
comments or not on the image number 12 attached to the article - or
something so vague Smile

what is the question of comment (yes|no)? it is a property of the
article itself - like *show on front page*. the same should be the
case for the article type (and with the flexible types it will be).

i am fine if the article types thing is also an option, but i see
trouble... so i stick to what i said earlier:

my suggestion:

switch for publication
switch for issue
switch for section
switch for article
the lower one always overrides the higher one.

so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the issue 12.
or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.

article types makes no sense (to me at least)

At 16:31 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>wow,
>thanks paul
>
>Paul Baranowski wrote:
>>I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
>>article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
>>boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
>>translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and fields,
>>and merge article types together.
>>
>>Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem with
>>comments being related to article types?
>>
>>- Paul
>>
>>
>>On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
>>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
>>>change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
>>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad
feeling...
>>>
>>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>>> >Micz,
>>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
>>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
>>> >design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to the
>>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
>>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
>>> >manual work to the minimum.
>>> >
>>> >Zoran
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Micz Flor wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
>>> >>
>>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
>>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
>>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the article
type.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>> >>
>>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
>>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>>
>>>content and media development http://mi.cz
>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

If I understand it right, the situation is:
Article comments is a flag assigned to articles the same way as On
section or on frontpage.
And all this discussion is about the ways to preset this flag to on/off

If I am right, put this flag preset to as few places as possible, to
make thing simple.

I cannot get rid of the feeling, that if you put it to
Publication/Issue/Section/Article/ArticleType/.... I will always have it
on and search for the reason "Which f***g setting sets the flag on".

In my opinion this flag is even useless, because all the staff can be
fully driven by templates:

Show discussion

I believe the discussion should be created on fly with the first post.

I also believe it is useless to decide which discussion is moderated and
which not. I would create all discussions moderated and the ones, that
are not moderated are simply ignored by moderator.

In my opinion the best is to put only one checkbox to each article (Lock
discussion) and one button (moderate discussion) which leads to popup
window.

All other constructions are way too complicated and in my eyes
completely useless. During usage they will become unused and dropped.

Ondra

On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 18:55 +0200, Micz Flor wrote:
> i agree with zoran: great!
>
> however, that makes it even more bizarre to link this functionality
> to article types, because they become so flexible and move from a to
> b and so on. it just feels wrong either way to me. with the new view
> on the flexible types it feels as if i would depend the decision of
> comments or not on the image number 12 attached to the article - or
> something so vague Smile

>
> what is the question of comment (yes|no)? it is a property of the
> article itself - like *show on front page*. the same should be the
> case for the article type (and with the flexible types it will be).
>
> i am fine if the article types thing is also an option, but i see
> trouble... so i stick to what i said earlier:
>
> my suggestion:
>
> switch for publication
> switch for issue
> switch for section
> switch for article
> the lower one always overrides the higher one.
>
> so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
> at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the issue 12.
> or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
> allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.
>
> article types makes no sense (to me at least)
>
> At 16:31 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> >wow,
> >thanks paul
> >
> >Paul Baranowski wrote:
> >>I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
> >>article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
> >>boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
> >>translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and fields,
> >>and merge article types together.
> >>
> >>Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem with
> >>comments being related to article types?
> >>
> >>- Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
> >>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
> >>>change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
> >>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad feeling...
> >>>
> >>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> >>> >Micz,
> >>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
> >>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
> >>> >design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to the
> >>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
> >>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
> >>> >manual work to the minimum.
> >>> >
> >>> >Zoran
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Micz Flor wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
> >>> >>
> >>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
> >>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
> >>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the article type.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> >>> >>
> >>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
> >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> >>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> >>>
> >>>content and media development http://mi.cz
> >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> >>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>
> content and media development http://mi.cz
> --------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> --------------------------------------------------------
>

import

Ondra is making a good point there. We could leave the decision as to
whether the comments are displayed to the template language level only (so
no way to control the display through the UI). On the other hand, I can
still imagine some scenarios where the power to allow or not allow
comments should be given to the journalist in the article edit screen (and
what goes on on that screen is mostly controlled through the article types
these days).

As for Micz's views, I only see a point in having the comment-related
parameters set by section and publication in the case of moderation or
nonmoderation (e.g. you want to have moderated comments for section
"Fashion" but non-moderated for "Politics", and you use three article
types "Big Article", "Snippet", and "Interview" in all of them).

I hate to see this get overcomplicated, but would also like us to avoid
some unnecessary rigidity.

Micz, what do you say?

Sava

Ondra Koutek
05/03/2006 07:25 PM
Please respond to campsite-dev

To: campsite-dev@campware.org
cc:
Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments: enabling/disabling

If I understand it right, the situation is:
Article comments is a flag assigned to articles the same way as On
section or on frontpage.
And all this discussion is about the ways to preset this flag to on/off

If I am right, put this flag preset to as few places as possible, to
make thing simple.

I cannot get rid of the feeling, that if you put it to
Publication/Issue/Section/Article/ArticleType/.... I will always have it
on and search for the reason "Which f***g setting sets the flag on".

In my opinion this flag is even useless, because all the staff can be
fully driven by templates:

Show discussion

I believe the discussion should be created on fly with the first post.

I also believe it is useless to decide which discussion is moderated and
which not. I would create all discussions moderated and the ones, that
are not moderated are simply ignored by moderator.

In my opinion the best is to put only one checkbox to each article (Lock
discussion) and one button (moderate discussion) which leads to popup
window.

All other constructions are way too complicated and in my eyes
completely useless. During usage they will become unused and dropped.

Ondra

On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 18:55 +0200, Micz Flor wrote:
> i agree with zoran: great!
>
> however, that makes it even more bizarre to link this functionality
> to article types, because they become so flexible and move from a to
> b and so on. it just feels wrong either way to me. with the new view
> on the flexible types it feels as if i would depend the decision of
> comments or not on the image number 12 attached to the article - or
> something so vague Smile

>
> what is the question of comment (yes|no)? it is a property of the
> article itself - like *show on front page*. the same should be the
> case for the article type (and with the flexible types it will be).
>
> i am fine if the article types thing is also an option, but i see
> trouble... so i stick to what i said earlier:
>
> my suggestion:
>
> switch for publication
> switch for issue
> switch for section
> switch for article
> the lower one always overrides the higher one.
>
> so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
> at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the issue
12.
> or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
> allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.
>
> article types makes no sense (to me at least)
>
> At 16:31 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> >wow,
> >thanks paul
> >
> >Paul Baranowski wrote:
> >>I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
> >>article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
> >>boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
> >>translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and fields,
> >>and merge article types together.
> >>
> >>Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem with
> >>comments being related to article types?
> >>
> >>- Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
> >>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
> >>>change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
> >>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad
feeling...
> >>>
> >>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> >>> >Micz,
> >>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to
article
> >>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
> >>> >design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to
the
> >>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
> >>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
> >>> >manual work to the minimum.
> >>> >
> >>> >Zoran
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Micz Flor wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
> >>> >>
> >>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
> >>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
> >>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the
article type.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> >>> >>
> >>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
> >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> >>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> >>>
> >>>content and media development http://mi.cz
> >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> >>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>
> content and media development http://mi.cz
> --------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> --------------------------------------------------------
>

import

What about to have 3 buttons scenario:
1) Moderate article discussion
2) Lock article discussion (discussion is displayed but it is not
possible to add new comments)
3) Disable discussion (All template language commands check this value
and if it is set, simply return nothing)

This scenario would allow teplate designer to preset the rules what
articles have comments and what do not.
Editor on the other hand can say, that even though the article is about
to have comments, he do not wish to have one and overides template
language. Common example of such article is "about us" article.

This should be simple enough to use and stron enough to fit most of
scenarios.

I was also thinking about article moderation.
In my opinion the article commens should be moderated only. The reason
is, that anytime the security can be broken and unwanted content is
submitted. The only tweak is to decide, whather all comments are
displayed after moderator confirms them, or the moderation should be
only at a level of chance to delete posted content.
I would support only these two modes and we can discuss the place of
selecting the mode.
For my needs the proper mode is on publication level, because I never
met publication, where each section had different way of adding comments
and I believe this would only confuse readers.
But as I wrote, this is the point the discussion should go.

Ondra

On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 19:56 +0200, sava.tatic@mdlf.org wrote:
>
> Ondra is making a good point there. We could leave the decision as to
> whether the comments are displayed to the template language level only
> (so no way to control the display through the UI). On the other hand,
> I can still imagine some scenarios where the power to allow or not
> allow comments should be given to the journalist in the article edit
> screen (and what goes on on that screen is mostly controlled through
> the article types these days).
>
> As for Micz's views, I only see a point in having the comment-related
> parameters set by section and publication in the case of moderation or
> nonmoderation (e.g. you want to have moderated comments for section
> "Fashion" but non-moderated for "Politics", and you use three article
> types "Big Article", "Snippet", and "Interview" in all of them).
>
> I hate to see this get overcomplicated, but would also like us to
> avoid some unnecessary rigidity.
>
> Micz, what do you say?
>
> Sava
>
>
>
> Ondra Koutek
>
>
> 05/03/2006 07:25 PM
> Please respond to
> campsite-dev
>
>
>
>
> To:
> campsite-dev@campware.org
> cc:
> Subject:
> Re: [campsite-dev]
> Article Comments:
> enabling/disabling
>
>
>
> If I understand it right, the situation is:
> Article comments is a flag assigned to articles the same way as On
> section or on frontpage.
> And all this discussion is about the ways to preset this flag to
> on/off
>
> If I am right, put this flag preset to as few places as possible, to
> make thing simple.
>
> I cannot get rid of the feeling, that if you put it to
> Publication/Issue/Section/Article/ArticleType/.... I will always have
> it
> on and search for the reason "Which f***g setting sets the flag on".
>
> In my opinion this flag is even useless, because all the staff can be
> fully driven by templates:
>
> Show discussion
>
>
> I believe the discussion should be created on fly with the first post.
>
> I also believe it is useless to decide which discussion is moderated
> and
> which not. I would create all discussions moderated and the ones, that
> are not moderated are simply ignored by moderator.
>
> In my opinion the best is to put only one checkbox to each article
> (Lock
> discussion) and one button (moderate discussion) which leads to popup
> window.
>
> All other constructions are way too complicated and in my eyes
> completely useless. During usage they will become unused and dropped.
>
> Ondra
>
> On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 18:55 +0200, Micz Flor wrote:
> > i agree with zoran: great!
> >
> > however, that makes it even more bizarre to link this functionality
> > to article types, because they become so flexible and move from a
> to
> > b and so on. it just feels wrong either way to me. with the new
> view
> > on the flexible types it feels as if i would depend the decision of
> > comments or not on the image number 12 attached to the article - or
> > something so vague Smile

> >
> > what is the question of comment (yes|no)? it is a property of the
> > article itself - like *show on front page*. the same should be the
> > case for the article type (and with the flexible types it will be).
> >
> > i am fine if the article types thing is also an option, but i see
> > trouble... so i stick to what i said earlier:
> >
> > my suggestion:
> >
> > switch for publication
> > switch for issue
> > switch for section
> > switch for article
> > the lower one always overrides the higher one.
> >
> > so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then
> decide
> > at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the
> issue 12.
> > or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
> > allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one
> article.
> >
> > article types makes no sense (to me at least)
> >
> > At 16:31 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> > >wow,
> > >thanks paul
> > >
> > >Paul Baranowski wrote:
> > >>I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
> > >>article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
> > >>boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
> > >>translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and
> fields,
> > >>and merge article types together.
> > >>
> > >>Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem
> with
> > >>comments being related to article types?
> > >>
> > >>- Paul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
> > >>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years
> you
> > >>>change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on
> honey
> > >>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad
> feeling...
> > >>>
> > >>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> > >>> >Micz,
> > >>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to
> article
> > >>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
> > >>> >design of site structure and functionality than to connect it
> to the
> > >>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning
> in
> > >>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale
> down
> > >>> >manual work to the minimum.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >Zoran
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >Micz Flor wrote:
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article
> type
> > >>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion.
> comments
> > >>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the
> article type.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
> > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > >>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> > >>>
> > >>>content and media development http://mi.cz
> > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > >>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> >
> > content and media development http://mi.cz
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>

import

the article-type option will only lead to confusing article-types
such as 'news' and 'news_comments' which will be identical, one with
and one without comments. and then if you want comments for one of
them you have to change the article type - which i find illogical. it
just does not compute Smile

one thing i strongly recommend: keep moderated and non-moderated as
options. i say this out of experience. nobody wants to check postings
every ten minutes if a forum needs to be moderated - to make it look live...

i agree with ondra on most points and also think the template
language based decision is a good idea. but then it would be a bit
like the switch of: unsubscribed users can see this. because somehow
in the templates you might want to make the decision - or have to
decide - if the article or section has a discussion or not.

so, well, back to what i said earlier Smile

the second thing is: what about a magazine that has thousands of
short news. undiscussed. article type news (or whatever). and a
couple of longer articles / essays where they encourage a discussion.
and will use the list article function on the startpage:

Enter our discussion:

similar to the "topic is" function in the list article command

again, this would be a decision on the article level, not the article
type level.

At 19:56 03.05.2006, sava.tatic@mdlf.org wrote:

>Ondra is making a good point there. We could leave the decision as
>to whether the comments are displayed to the template language level
>only (so no way to control the display through the UI). On the other
>hand, I can still imagine some scenarios where the power to allow or
>not allow comments should be given to the journalist in the article
>edit screen (and what goes on on that screen is mostly controlled
>through the article types these days).
>
>As for Micz's views, I only see a point in having the
>comment-related parameters set by section and publication in the
>case of moderation or nonmoderation (e.g. you want to have moderated
>comments for section "Fashion" but non-moderated for "Politics", and
>you use three article types "Big Article", "Snippet", and
>"Interview" in all of them).
>
>I hate to see this get overcomplicated, but would also like us to
>avoid some unnecessary rigidity.
>
>Micz, what do you say?
>
>Sava
>
>
>Ondra Koutek
>
>05/03/2006 07:25 PM
>Please respond to campsite-dev
>
> To: campsite-dev@campware.org
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments:
> enabling/disabling
>
>
>If I understand it right, the situation is:
>Article comments is a flag assigned to articles the same way as On
>section or on frontpage.
>And all this discussion is about the ways to preset this flag to on/off
>
>If I am right, put this flag preset to as few places as possible, to
>make thing simple.
>
>I cannot get rid of the feeling, that if you put it to
>Publication/Issue/Section/Article/ArticleType/.... I will always have it
>on and search for the reason "Which f***g setting sets the flag on".
>
>In my opinion this flag is even useless, because all the staff can be
>fully driven by templates:
>
>Show discussion
>
>
>I believe the discussion should be created on fly with the first post.
>
>I also believe it is useless to decide which discussion is moderated and
>which not. I would create all discussions moderated and the ones, that
>are not moderated are simply ignored by moderator.
>
>In my opinion the best is to put only one checkbox to each article (Lock
>discussion) and one button (moderate discussion) which leads to popup
>window.
>
>All other constructions are way too complicated and in my eyes
>completely useless. During usage they will become unused and dropped.
>
>Ondra
>
>On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 18:55 +0200, Micz Flor wrote:
> > i agree with zoran: great!
> >
> > however, that makes it even more bizarre to link this functionality
> > to article types, because they become so flexible and move from a to
> > b and so on. it just feels wrong either way to me. with the new view
> > on the flexible types it feels as if i would depend the decision of
> > comments or not on the image number 12 attached to the article - or
> > something so vague Smile

> >
> > what is the question of comment (yes|no)? it is a property of the
> > article itself - like *show on front page*. the same should be the
> > case for the article type (and with the flexible types it will be).
> >
> > i am fine if the article types thing is also an option, but i see
> > trouble... so i stick to what i said earlier:
> >
> > my suggestion:
> >
> > switch for publication
> > switch for issue
> > switch for section
> > switch for article
> > the lower one always overrides the higher one.
> >
> > so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
> > at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the issue 12.
> > or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
> > allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.
> >
> > article types makes no sense (to me at least)
> >
> > At 16:31 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> > >wow,
> > >thanks paul
> > >
> > >Paul Baranowski wrote:
> > >>I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
> > >>article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
> > >>boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
> > >>translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and fields,
> > >>and merge article types together.
> > >>
> > >>Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem with
> > >>comments being related to article types?
> > >>
> > >>- Paul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
> > >>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
> > >>>change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
> > >>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad
> feeling...
> > >>>
> > >>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> > >>> >Micz,
> > >>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
> > >>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
> > >>> >design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to the
> > >>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
> > >>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
> > >>> >manual work to the minimum.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >Zoran
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >Micz Flor wrote:
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
> > >>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
> > >>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the
> article type.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
> > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > >>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> > >>>
> > >>>content and media development http://mi.cz
> > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > >>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> >
> > content and media development http://mi.cz
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

again, bc the HTML didn't show up in my case...

the article-type option will only lead to confusing article-types
such as 'news' and 'news_comments' which will be identical, one with
and one without comments. and then if you want comments for one of
them you have to change the article type - which i find illogical. it
just does not compute Smile

one thing i strongly recommend: keep moderated and non-moderated as
options. i say this out of experience. nobody wants to check postings
every ten minutes if a forum needs to be moderated - to make it look live...

i agree with ondra on most points and also think the template
language based decision is a good idea. but then it would be a bit
like the switch of: unsubscribed users can see this. because somehow
in the templates you might want to make the decision - or have to
decide - if the article or section has a discussion or not.

so, well, back to what i said earlier Smile

the second thing is: what about a magazine that has thousands of
short news. undiscussed. article type news (or whatever). and a
couple of longer articles / essays where they encourage a discussion.
and will use the list article function on the startpage:

Enter our discussion:
!** local>
!** issue current>
!** section off>
!** list article comment is on order bynumber desc>
a href="article.tpl"/a>br />
!** endlist>
!** endlocal>
/html>

similar to the "topic is" function in the list article command

again, this would be a decision on the article level, not the article
type level.

At 19:56 03.05.2006, sava.tatic@mdlf.org wrote:

>Ondra is making a good point there. We could leave the decision as
>to whether the comments are displayed to the template language level
>only (so no way to control the display through the UI). On the other
>hand, I can still imagine some scenarios where the power to allow or
>not allow comments should be given to the journalist in the article
>edit screen (and what goes on on that screen is mostly controlled
>through the article types these days).
>
>As for Micz's views, I only see a point in having the
>comment-related parameters set by section and publication in the
>case of moderation or nonmoderation (e.g. you want to have moderated
>comments for section "Fashion" but non-moderated for "Politics", and
>you use three article types "Big Article", "Snippet", and
>"Interview" in all of them).
>
>I hate to see this get overcomplicated, but would also like us to
>avoid some unnecessary rigidity.
>
>Micz, what do you say?
>
>Sava
>
>
>Ondra Koutek
>
>05/03/2006 07:25 PM
>Please respond to campsite-dev
>
> To: campsite-dev@campware.org
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments:
> enabling/disabling
>
>
>If I understand it right, the situation is:
>Article comments is a flag assigned to articles the same way as On
>section or on frontpage.
>And all this discussion is about the ways to preset this flag to on/off
>
>If I am right, put this flag preset to as few places as possible, to
>make thing simple.
>
>I cannot get rid of the feeling, that if you put it to
>Publication/Issue/Section/Article/ArticleType/.... I will always have it
>on and search for the reason "Which f***g setting sets the flag on".
>
>In my opinion this flag is even useless, because all the staff can be
>fully driven by templates:
>
>Show discussion
>
>
>I believe the discussion should be created on fly with the first post.
>
>I also believe it is useless to decide which discussion is moderated and
>which not. I would create all discussions moderated and the ones, that
>are not moderated are simply ignored by moderator.
>
>In my opinion the best is to put only one checkbox to each article (Lock
>discussion) and one button (moderate discussion) which leads to popup
>window.
>
>All other constructions are way too complicated and in my eyes
>completely useless. During usage they will become unused and dropped.
>
>Ondra
>
>On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 18:55 +0200, Micz Flor wrote:
> > i agree with zoran: great!
> >
> > however, that makes it even more bizarre to link this functionality
> > to article types, because they become so flexible and move from a to
> > b and so on. it just feels wrong either way to me. with the new view
> > on the flexible types it feels as if i would depend the decision of
> > comments or not on the image number 12 attached to the article - or
> > something so vague Smile

> >
> > what is the question of comment (yes|no)? it is a property of the
> > article itself - like *show on front page*. the same should be the
> > case for the article type (and with the flexible types it will be).
> >
> > i am fine if the article types thing is also an option, but i see
> > trouble... so i stick to what i said earlier:
> >
> > my suggestion:
> >
> > switch for publication
> > switch for issue
> > switch for section
> > switch for article
> > the lower one always overrides the higher one.
> >
> > so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
> > at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the issue 12.
> > or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
> > allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.
> >
> > article types makes no sense (to me at least)
> >
> > At 16:31 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> > >wow,
> > >thanks paul
> > >
> > >Paul Baranowski wrote:
> > >>I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
> > >>article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
> > >>boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
> > >>translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and fields,
> > >>and merge article types together.
> > >>
> > >>Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem with
> > >>comments being related to article types?
> > >>
> > >>- Paul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
> > >>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
> > >>>change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
> > >>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad
> feeling...
> > >>>
> > >>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> > >>> >Micz,
> > >>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
> > >>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
> > >>> >design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to the
> > >>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
> > >>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
> > >>> >manual work to the minimum.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >Zoran
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >Micz Flor wrote:
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
> > >>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
> > >>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the
> article type.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
> > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > >>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> > >>>
> > >>>content and media development http://mi.cz
> > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > >>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> >
> > content and media development http://mi.cz
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >
>

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

In my opinion this is not very good example.
I believe comments should be property of article:
!** list article>
!** Print article comments thread>
!** print article comments submit>
....
Or something similar.
and in case I do not want to display comments for articles in section, I
can always use:
!** list article>
!** if section number 10>
!** Print article comments thread>
!** print article comments submit>
!** endif>

Moderation - As I wrote before:
1) Set publication discussion type (moderated or no)
2) Moderated version have all features in editors dialog: Accept, delete
post, reject post
3) Non moderated have only chance to delete unwanted post to thread,
disable and lock discussion.

Also moderator should have a chance to review rejected posts and accept
them later. Deletion is permanent.

Ondra

On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 16:49 +0200, Micz Flor wrote:
>
> Enter our discussion:
> !** local>
> !** issue current>
> !** section off>
> !** list article comment is on order bynumber desc>
> a href="article.tpl"/a>br />
> !** endlist>
> !** endlocal>
> /html>
>

import

Thanks everyone for this great feedback. Based on the discussion,
this is what we are currently thinking:

Configuring Comments
* Article Type: enable/disable switch which controls whether
comment interface appears in the article edit screen as well whether
comments display on the frontend

* Publication configure screen:
o enable/disable switch which controls whether comment
interface appears in the article edit screen as well whether comments
display on the frontend
o enable/disable whether the checkbox in the article edit
screen is checked by default or not
o subscribers: choose whether comments moderated or unmoderated
o public: choose whether comments are moderated or unmoderated

* Article edit screen:
o a dropdown box allowing comments enabled, disabled, or read-only.

Comment Permissions
* User may moderate comments - means the user can
approve/delete/hide/edit comments
* User may manage comments - this means that the controls in the
"Article Edit" screen are visible

Let us know what you think,
Paul

On 5/4/06, Micz Flor wrote:
> the article-type option will only lead to confusing article-types
> such as 'news' and 'news_comments' which will be identical, one with
> and one without comments. and then if you want comments for one of
> them you have to change the article type - which i find illogical. it
> just does not compute Smile

>
> one thing i strongly recommend: keep moderated and non-moderated as
> options. i say this out of experience. nobody wants to check postings
> every ten minutes if a forum needs to be moderated - to make it look live...
>
> i agree with ondra on most points and also think the template
> language based decision is a good idea. but then it would be a bit
> like the switch of: unsubscribed users can see this. because somehow
> in the templates you might want to make the decision - or have to
> decide - if the article or section has a discussion or not.
>
> so, well, back to what i said earlier Smile

>
> the second thing is: what about a magazine that has thousands of
> short news. undiscussed. article type news (or whatever). and a
> couple of longer articles / essays where they encourage a discussion.
> and will use the list article function on the startpage:
>
>
>

Enter our discussion:

>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
> similar to the "topic is" function in the list article command
>
> again, this would be a decision on the article level, not the article
> type level.
>
> At 19:56 03.05.2006, sava.tatic@mdlf.org wrote:
>
> >Ondra is making a good point there. We could leave the decision as
> >to whether the comments are displayed to the template language level
> >only (so no way to control the display through the UI). On the other
> >hand, I can still imagine some scenarios where the power to allow or
> >not allow comments should be given to the journalist in the article
> >edit screen (and what goes on on that screen is mostly controlled
> >through the article types these days).
> >
> >As for Micz's views, I only see a point in having the
> >comment-related parameters set by section and publication in the
> >case of moderation or nonmoderation (e.g. you want to have moderated
> >comments for section "Fashion" but non-moderated for "Politics", and
> >you use three article types "Big Article", "Snippet", and
> >"Interview" in all of them).
> >
> >I hate to see this get overcomplicated, but would also like us to
> >avoid some unnecessary rigidity.
> >
> >Micz, what do you say?
> >
> >Sava
> >
> >
> >Ondra Koutek
> >
> >05/03/2006 07:25 PM
> >Please respond to campsite-dev
> >
> > To: campsite-dev@campware.org
> > cc:
> > Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments:
> > enabling/disabling
> >
> >
> >If I understand it right, the situation is:
> >Article comments is a flag assigned to articles the same way as On
> >section or on frontpage.
> >And all this discussion is about the ways to preset this flag to on/off
> >
> >If I am right, put this flag preset to as few places as possible, to
> >make thing simple.
> >
> >I cannot get rid of the feeling, that if you put it to
> >Publication/Issue/Section/Article/ArticleType/.... I will always have it
> >on and search for the reason "Which f***g setting sets the flag on".
> >
> >In my opinion this flag is even useless, because all the staff can be
> >fully driven by templates:
> >
> >Show discussion
> >
> >
> >I believe the discussion should be created on fly with the first post.
> >
> >I also believe it is useless to decide which discussion is moderated and
> >which not. I would create all discussions moderated and the ones, that
> >are not moderated are simply ignored by moderator.
> >
> >In my opinion the best is to put only one checkbox to each article (Lock
> >discussion) and one button (moderate discussion) which leads to popup
> >window.
> >
> >All other constructions are way too complicated and in my eyes
> >completely useless. During usage they will become unused and dropped.
> >
> >Ondra
> >
> >On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 18:55 +0200, Micz Flor wrote:
> > > i agree with zoran: great!
> > >
> > > however, that makes it even more bizarre to link this functionality
> > > to article types, because they become so flexible and move from a to
> > > b and so on. it just feels wrong either way to me. with the new view
> > > on the flexible types it feels as if i would depend the decision of
> > > comments or not on the image number 12 attached to the article - or
> > > something so vague Smile

> > >
> > > what is the question of comment (yes|no)? it is a property of the
> > > article itself - like *show on front page*. the same should be the
> > > case for the article type (and with the flexible types it will be).
> > >
> > > i am fine if the article types thing is also an option, but i see
> > > trouble... so i stick to what i said earlier:
> > >
> > > my suggestion:
> > >
> > > switch for publication
> > > switch for issue
> > > switch for section
> > > switch for article
> > > the lower one always overrides the higher one.
> > >
> > > so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
> > > at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for the issue 12.
> > > or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
> > > allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.
> > >
> > > article types makes no sense (to me at least)
> > >
> > > At 16:31 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> > > >wow,
> > > >thanks paul
> > > >
> > > >Paul Baranowski wrote:
> > > >>I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
> > > >>article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
> > > >>boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
> > > >>translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and fields,
> > > >>and merge article types together.
> > > >>
> > > >>Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem with
> > > >>comments being related to article types?
> > > >>
> > > >>- Paul
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
> > > >>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
> > > >>>change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
> > > >>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad
> > feeling...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
> > > >>> >Micz,
> > > >>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments to article
> > > >>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
> > > >>> >design of site structure and functionality than to connect it to the
> > > >>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
> > > >>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
> > > >>> >manual work to the minimum.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >Zoran
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >Micz Flor wrote:
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
> > > >>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
> > > >>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the
> > article type.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
> > > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > > >>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> > > >>>
> > > >>>content and media development http://mi.cz
> > > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > > >>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
> > >
> > > content and media development http://mi.cz
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> > > http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>
> content and media development http://mi.cz
> --------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
> http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>

import

following ondra's suggestions i was wondering if it would make sense
to see template examples on what you have in mind.

and b) also a switch on section level?

At 18:27 04.05.2006, you wrote:
>Thanks everyone for this great feedback. Based on the discussion,
>this is what we are currently thinking:
>
>Configuring Comments
> * Article Type: enable/disable switch which controls whether
>comment interface appears in the article edit screen as well whether
>comments display on the frontend
>
> * Publication configure screen:
> o enable/disable switch which controls whether comment
>interface appears in the article edit screen as well whether comments
>display on the frontend
> o enable/disable whether the checkbox in the article edit
>screen is checked by default or not
> o subscribers: choose whether comments moderated or unmoderated
> o public: choose whether comments are moderated or unmoderated
>
> * Article edit screen:
> o a dropdown box allowing comments enabled, disabled, or read-only.
>
>Comment Permissions
> * User may moderate comments - means the user can
>approve/delete/hide/edit comments
> * User may manage comments - this means that the controls in the
>"Article Edit" screen are visible
>
>Let us know what you think,
>Paul
>
>
>
>On 5/4/06, Micz Flor wrote:
>>the article-type option will only lead to confusing article-types
>>such as 'news' and 'news_comments' which will be identical, one with
>>and one without comments. and then if you want comments for one of
>>them you have to change the article type - which i find illogical. it
>>just does not compute Smile

>>
>>one thing i strongly recommend: keep moderated and non-moderated as
>>options. i say this out of experience. nobody wants to check postings
>>every ten minutes if a forum needs to be moderated - to make it look live...
>>
>>i agree with ondra on most points and also think the template
>>language based decision is a good idea. but then it would be a bit
>>like the switch of: unsubscribed users can see this. because somehow
>>in the templates you might want to make the decision - or have to
>>decide - if the article or section has a discussion or not.
>>
>>so, well, back to what i said earlier Smile

>>
>>the second thing is: what about a magazine that has thousands of
>>short news. undiscussed. article type news (or whatever). and a
>>couple of longer articles / essays where they encourage a discussion.
>>and will use the list article function on the startpage:
>>
>>
>>

Enter our discussion:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>similar to the "topic is" function in the list article command
>>
>>again, this would be a decision on the article level, not the article
>>type level.
>>
>>At 19:56 03.05.2006, sava.tatic@mdlf.org wrote:
>>
>> >Ondra is making a good point there. We could leave the decision as
>> >to whether the comments are displayed to the template language level
>> >only (so no way to control the display through the UI). On the other
>> >hand, I can still imagine some scenarios where the power to allow or
>> >not allow comments should be given to the journalist in the article
>> >edit screen (and what goes on on that screen is mostly controlled
>> >through the article types these days).
>> >
>> >As for Micz's views, I only see a point in having the
>> >comment-related parameters set by section and publication in the
>> >case of moderation or nonmoderation (e.g. you want to have moderated
>> >comments for section "Fashion" but non-moderated for "Politics", and
>> >you use three article types "Big Article", "Snippet", and
>> >"Interview" in all of them).
>> >
>> >I hate to see this get overcomplicated, but would also like us to
>> >avoid some unnecessary rigidity.
>> >
>> >Micz, what do you say?
>> >
>> >Sava
>> >
>> >
>> >Ondra Koutek
>> >
>> >05/03/2006 07:25 PM
>> >Please respond to campsite-dev
>> >
>> > To: campsite-dev@campware.org
>> > cc:
>> > Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments:
>> > enabling/disabling
>> >
>> >
>> >If I understand it right, the situation is:
>> >Article comments is a flag assigned to articles the same way as On
>> >section or on frontpage.
>> >And all this discussion is about the ways to preset this flag to on/off
>> >
>> >If I am right, put this flag preset to as few places as possible, to
>> >make thing simple.
>> >
>> >I cannot get rid of the feeling, that if you put it to
>> >Publication/Issue/Section/Article/ArticleType/.... I will always have it
>> >on and search for the reason "Which f***g setting sets the flag on".
>> >
>> >In my opinion this flag is even useless, because all the staff can be
>> >fully driven by templates:
>> >
>> >Show discussion
>> >
>> >
>> >I believe the discussion should be created on fly with the first post.
>> >
>> >I also believe it is useless to decide which discussion is moderated and
>> >which not. I would create all discussions moderated and the ones, that
>> >are not moderated are simply ignored by moderator.
>> >
>> >In my opinion the best is to put only one checkbox to each article (Lock
>> >discussion) and one button (moderate discussion) which leads to popup
>> >window.
>> >
>> >All other constructions are way too complicated and in my eyes
>> >completely useless. During usage they will become unused and dropped.
>> >
>> >Ondra
>> >
>> >On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 18:55 +0200, Micz Flor wrote:
>> > > i agree with zoran: great!
>> > >
>> > > however, that makes it even more bizarre to link this functionality
>> > > to article types, because they become so flexible and move from a to
>> > > b and so on. it just feels wrong either way to me. with the new view
>> > > on the flexible types it feels as if i would depend the decision of
>> > > comments or not on the image number 12 attached to the article - or
>> > > something so vague Smile

>> > >
>> > > what is the question of comment (yes|no)? it is a property of the
>> > > article itself - like *show on front page*. the same should be the
>> > > case for the article type (and with the flexible types it will be).
>> > >
>> > > i am fine if the article types thing is also an option, but i see
>> > > trouble... so i stick to what i said earlier:
>> > >
>> > > my suggestion:
>> > >
>> > > switch for publication
>> > > switch for issue
>> > > switch for section
>> > > switch for article
>> > > the lower one always overrides the higher one.
>> > >
>> > > so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then decide
>> > > at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for
>> the issue 12.
>> > > or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
>> > > allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one article.
>> > >
>> > > article types makes no sense (to me at least)
>> > >
>> > > At 16:31 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>> > > >wow,
>> > > >thanks paul
>> > > >
>> > > >Paul Baranowski wrote:
>> > > >>I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility of
>> > > >>article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a big
>> > > >>boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
>> > > >>translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and fields,
>> > > >>and merge article types together.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem with
>> > > >>comments being related to article types?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>- Paul
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
>> > > >>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two years you
>> > > >>>change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on honey
>> > > >>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad
>> > feeling...
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>> > > >>> >Micz,
>> > > >>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments
>> to article
>> > > >>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
>> > > >>> >design of site structure and functionality than to
>> connect it to the
>> > > >>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning in
>> > > >>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale down
>> > > >>> >manual work to the minimum.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >Zoran
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >Micz Flor wrote:
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article type
>> > > >>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion. comments
>> > > >>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the
>> > article type.
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
>> > > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>> > > >>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>> > > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>content and media development http://mi.cz
>> > > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>> > > >>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>> > > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>> > >
>> > > content and media development http://mi.cz
>> > > --------------------------------------------------------
>> > > http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>> > > http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>> > > --------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>
>>content and media development http://mi.cz
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

> Configuring Comments
> * Article Type: enable/disable switch which controls whether
> comment interface appears in the article edit screen as well whether
> comments display on the frontend
Not that important

> * Publication configure screen:
> o enable/disable switch which controls whether comment
> interface appears in the article edit screen as well whether comments
> display on the frontend
For mee one click more than neaded

> o enable/disable whether the checkbox in the article edit
> screen is checked by default or not
Yes

> o subscribers: choose whether comments moderated or unmoderated
yes

> o public: choose whether comments are moderated or unmoderated
Yes

> * Article edit screen:
> o a dropdown box allowing comments enabled, disabled, or read-only.
I have no idea what is read-only, but in general yes status with 3 levels: Comments on, off and locked

You should add moderators interface to this place, or if you plan to use
phorums interface, please make some shortcut from there to ptoper place,
so that editor can easily get to management.

> Comment Permissions
> * User may moderate comments - means the user can
> approve/delete/hide/edit comments
Yes

> * User may manage comments - this means that the controls in the
> "Article Edit" screen are visible
Yes, but the question is, if this feature should not be agregated with other rights. The bigger campsite is, the more rights to set and the bigger nightmare to admin. Please do not follow cream in this Smile

import

Quick Comments to Ondra's nays or suggestions (yeas omitted)

> Configuring Comments
> * Article Type: enable/disable switch which controls whether
> comment interface appears in the article edit screen as well whether
> comments display on the frontend
>Not that important

very important. See my previous examples. We don't want checkboxes that
are not used or do nothing (in the Article Edit screen). This is why you
have to have it on this level. (Sure, show article on front page, section
page and allow users without subs. can currently be overriden in the
templates, but not eliminated from the Article Edit screen, but their time
will also come)

> * Publication configure screen:
> o enable/disable switch which controls whether comment
> interface appears in the article edit screen as well whether comments
> display on the frontend
>For mee one click more than neaded

How many times would you have to make that click? Once? If you think the
step can be avoided for other reasons (i.e. can be done by other means),
please elaborate.

> * Article edit screen:
> o a dropdown box allowing comments enabled, disabled, or
>read-only.
>I have no idea what is read-only, but in general yes status with 3
levels: >Comments on, off and locked

read-only=locked
maybe we should call it locked instead of read-only. Votes?

>You should add moderators interface to this place, or if you plan to use
>phorums interface, please make some shortcut from there to ptoper place,
>so that editor can easily get to management.

Comments to the individual article are listed in the Article Edit screen
and the journalist can respond from there too.

> Comment Permissions
> * User may moderate comments - means the user can
> approve/delete/hide/edit comments
Yes

> * User may manage comments - this means that the controls in the
> "Article Edit" screen are visible
>Yes, but the question is, if this feature should not be agregated with
>other rights. The bigger campsite is, the more rights to set and the
bigger >nightmare to admin. Please do not follow cream in this Smile

The answer is no. Our rights will continue to be as granular as possible.
Remember, "To each according to his technical prowess". We will update the
preset user types that ship out of the box with some corresponding comment
rights, so I don't see it as a nightmare at all. Granted, we'll have to
redesign the user rights page, but it is still pretty manageable.

Sava

import

Good point about examples. I trust Paul and Mugur will supply them.

As for the section-level switch, the discussion (in chats) has been going
back and forth whether we should have them or not. The prevailing
consensus at the moment is that they'd add an extra and unnecessary layer
of complexity. But you can still change this. Just elaborate what's the
purpose (what exactly would be missing if we didn't have them).

Sava

Micz Flor
Sent by: micz.flor@web.de
05/04/2006 06:32 PM
Please respond to campsite-dev

To: campsite-dev@campware.org
cc:
Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments: enabling/disabling

following ondra's suggestions i was wondering if it would make sense
to see template examples on what you have in mind.

and b) also a switch on section level?

At 18:27 04.05.2006, you wrote:
>Thanks everyone for this great feedback. Based on the discussion,
>this is what we are currently thinking:
>
>Configuring Comments
> * Article Type: enable/disable switch which controls whether
>comment interface appears in the article edit screen as well whether
>comments display on the frontend
>
> * Publication configure screen:
> o enable/disable switch which controls whether comment
>interface appears in the article edit screen as well whether comments
>display on the frontend
> o enable/disable whether the checkbox in the article edit
>screen is checked by default or not
> o subscribers: choose whether comments moderated or unmoderated
> o public: choose whether comments are moderated or unmoderated
>
> * Article edit screen:
> o a dropdown box allowing comments enabled, disabled, or
read-only.
>
>Comment Permissions
> * User may moderate comments - means the user can
>approve/delete/hide/edit comments
> * User may manage comments - this means that the controls in the
>"Article Edit" screen are visible
>
>Let us know what you think,
>Paul
>
>
>
>On 5/4/06, Micz Flor wrote:
>>the article-type option will only lead to confusing article-types
>>such as 'news' and 'news_comments' which will be identical, one with
>>and one without comments. and then if you want comments for one of
>>them you have to change the article type - which i find illogical. it
>>just does not compute Smile

>>
>>one thing i strongly recommend: keep moderated and non-moderated as
>>options. i say this out of experience. nobody wants to check postings
>>every ten minutes if a forum needs to be moderated - to make it look
live...
>>
>>i agree with ondra on most points and also think the template
>>language based decision is a good idea. but then it would be a bit
>>like the switch of: unsubscribed users can see this. because somehow
>>in the templates you might want to make the decision - or have to
>>decide - if the article or section has a discussion or not.
>>
>>so, well, back to what i said earlier Smile

>>
>>the second thing is: what about a magazine that has thousands of
>>short news. undiscussed. article type news (or whatever). and a
>>couple of longer articles / essays where they encourage a discussion.
>>and will use the list article function on the startpage:
>>
>>
>>

Enter our discussion:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>similar to the "topic is" function in the list article command
>>
>>again, this would be a decision on the article level, not the article
>>type level.
>>
>>At 19:56 03.05.2006, sava.tatic@mdlf.org wrote:
>>
>> >Ondra is making a good point there. We could leave the decision as
>> >to whether the comments are displayed to the template language level
>> >only (so no way to control the display through the UI). On the other
>> >hand, I can still imagine some scenarios where the power to allow or
>> >not allow comments should be given to the journalist in the article
>> >edit screen (and what goes on on that screen is mostly controlled
>> >through the article types these days).
>> >
>> >As for Micz's views, I only see a point in having the
>> >comment-related parameters set by section and publication in the
>> >case of moderation or nonmoderation (e.g. you want to have moderated
>> >comments for section "Fashion" but non-moderated for "Politics", and
>> >you use three article types "Big Article", "Snippet", and
>> >"Interview" in all of them).
>> >
>> >I hate to see this get overcomplicated, but would also like us to
>> >avoid some unnecessary rigidity.
>> >
>> >Micz, what do you say?
>> >
>> >Sava
>> >
>> >
>> >Ondra Koutek
>> >
>> >05/03/2006 07:25 PM
>> >Please respond to campsite-dev
>> >
>> > To: campsite-dev@campware.org
>> > cc:
>> > Subject: Re: [campsite-dev] Article Comments:
>> > enabling/disabling
>> >
>> >
>> >If I understand it right, the situation is:
>> >Article comments is a flag assigned to articles the same way as On
>> >section or on frontpage.
>> >And all this discussion is about the ways to preset this flag to
on/off
>> >
>> >If I am right, put this flag preset to as few places as possible, to
>> >make thing simple.
>> >
>> >I cannot get rid of the feeling, that if you put it to
>> >Publication/Issue/Section/Article/ArticleType/.... I will always have
it
>> >on and search for the reason "Which f***g setting sets the flag on".
>> >
>> >In my opinion this flag is even useless, because all the staff can be
>> >fully driven by templates:
>> >
>> >Show discussion
>> >
>> >
>> >I believe the discussion should be created on fly with the first post.
>> >
>> >I also believe it is useless to decide which discussion is moderated
and
>> >which not. I would create all discussions moderated and the ones, that
>> >are not moderated are simply ignored by moderator.
>> >
>> >In my opinion the best is to put only one checkbox to each article
(Lock
>> >discussion) and one button (moderate discussion) which leads to popup
>> >window.
>> >
>> >All other constructions are way too complicated and in my eyes
>> >completely useless. During usage they will become unused and dropped.
>> >
>> >Ondra
>> >
>> >On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 18:55 +0200, Micz Flor wrote:
>> > > i agree with zoran: great!
>> > >
>> > > however, that makes it even more bizarre to link this functionality
>> > > to article types, because they become so flexible and move from a
to
>> > > b and so on. it just feels wrong either way to me. with the new
view
>> > > on the flexible types it feels as if i would depend the decision of
>> > > comments or not on the image number 12 attached to the article - or
>> > > something so vague Smile

>> > >
>> > > what is the question of comment (yes|no)? it is a property of the
>> > > article itself - like *show on front page*. the same should be the
>> > > case for the article type (and with the flexible types it will be).
>> > >
>> > > i am fine if the article types thing is also an option, but i see
>> > > trouble... so i stick to what i said earlier:
>> > >
>> > > my suggestion:
>> > >
>> > > switch for publication
>> > > switch for issue
>> > > switch for section
>> > > switch for article
>> > > the lower one always overrides the higher one.
>> > >
>> > > so if i have comments for a publication switched off and then
decide
>> > > at issue 12 i want to switch it on, then it's available for
>> the issue 12.
>> > > or i go back and take one article from issue 5 in the archive and
>> > > allow comments there, then this is happening only for this one
article.
>> > >
>> > > article types makes no sense (to me at least)
>> > >
>> > > At 16:31 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>> > > >wow,
>> > > >thanks paul
>> > > >
>> > > >Paul Baranowski wrote:
>> > > >>I'm not sure if you are referring to the previous inflexibility
of
>> > > >>article types, but in Campsite 2.6 article types are getting a
big
>> > > >>boost in functionality. You will be able to reorder the fields,
>> > > >>translate types and fields, show and hide both the types and
fields,
>> > > >>and merge article types together.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Once this new functionality is there, do you still have a problem
with
>> > > >>comments being related to article types?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>- Paul
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>On 5/3/06, Micz Flor wrote:
>> > > >>>yes, good planning helps. but from my experience: after two
years you
>> > > >>>change stuff and the article types stick with you like flies on
honey
>> > > >>> Smile

so tying more decisions to the article types gives me a bad
>> > feeling...
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>At 12:35 03.05.2006, you wrote:
>> > > >>> >Micz,
>> > > >>> >Comments are property of the article. Connecting comments
>> to article
>> > > >>> >type is a way to "preset" value. It gives much more freedom in
>> > > >>> >design of site structure and functionality than to
>> connect it to the
>> > > >>> >publication, issue, section, and article. With a good planning
in
>> > > >>> >this way you can save a lot of time to the editors and scale
down
>> > > >>> >manual work to the minimum.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >Zoran
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >Micz Flor wrote:
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>>- Comments should be connected to the article type
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>i think this is wrong, because you can not change the article
type
>> > > >>> >>once the article is generated. it will create confusion.
comments
>> > > >>> >>on/off should be a property of the article, ok. but not the
>> > article type.
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>content and media development http://mi.cz
>> > > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>> >>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>> > > >>> >>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>> > > >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>content and media development http://mi.cz
>> > > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>> > > >>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>> > > >>>--------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>> > >
>> > > content and media development http://mi.cz
>> > > --------------------------------------------------------
>> > > http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>> > > http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>> > > --------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz
>>
>>content and media development http://mi.cz
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
>>http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>

Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

content and media development http://mi.cz
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campware.org -- http://www.suemi.de
http://www.redaktionundalltag.de
--------------------------------------------------------

import

Hi,

Here's an example of what I implemented so far:

- list of article comments:

Comments:

Enter our discussion:

Enter our discussion:

Enter our discussion:

Enter our discussion:

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Poll

Top Posters