Help talk:Categories

From Wikidweb

Table of contents

1 Thoughts on multi-dimensional categories 2 Summary of updates 3 More thinking about categories 4 I need to see an example or a diagram 5 help 6 About the category structure 7 My thoughts:Structure 8 use of Category for Structrure & Keywords not compatible 9 How do I rename a mis-spelt (or mis-spelled if you like) category name?

Thoughts on multi-dimensional categories

I've been thinking about how this model allows for any implementation of categories you can imagine. Currently we have the basic hierarchical structure, with some crossings (subcategories linking to both business and computers, for example), and I think this is a great structure. But we also have the possibility to lay a completely separate structure on top of it, to complement it. For example I was looking at the netzoning.com listing and thinking maybe it would be nice to differentiate "free" from "for pay" directories. And then I thought we could add a category, "free". Not a subcategory, but either a top level category, or a category that stands outside of "Universe". I think this is something that could be powerful (not just "free", but the multiple dimensions of categories), but we should talk about some and plan carefully. I was also looking at Gimpsy (did I get that right?) and thinking it's interesting what they're doing. Not sure I want to copy them or anything, but it's interesting to "think outside the box" for categorization. --Aerik Sylvan 23:06, 17 Mar 2005 (PST)

Yeah there's a category hierarchy based on subject areas, but as you say, a category or set of categories, can also be part of completely separate structure on top that. The language categories are an example of that. But we can also describe other properties of a website: the software it is powered by, the suitability for dial-up/broadband connections (someone was mentioning) using categories which span the subject areas.

For example: A website about a french nightclub. The subject category 'Nightlife' which takes its place in a hierarchy 'Art & Entertainment'->'Music'->'Nightlife', but aside from the subject focus of the website, we might also place it in categories such as 'French lanaguage' (if it's written in french), and 'blog' because it features a blog, and 'blogger' because it is powered by blogger.

This is what I was thinking about when I created Category:Wiki. A wiki can be on any different subject area, so this category will operate as a layer on top of the subject hierarchy.

I was also thinking about wiki4all.com This is a project very similar to this one, but they are seeking a new host (See (link blocked - not on whitelist) ). Their directory of wikis could become just a sub-set of your directory of websites.

I'm thinking a new feature could be handy here though. Some kind of category filter. You want to be able to find all sites which are in the wiki category AND are on a particular topic category. Boolean logic as an advanced search feature perhaps. However it's not just that. You want to be able to set up an overriding filter, then browse the rest of the categories as normal, but with only wikis being displayed. This idea then helps for languages. Someone can browse the directory but include only sites which are in the french language. Bit tricky to implement though I guess. -- HarryWood 17:02, 28 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Hi Harry, regarding the "new feature", I'm with you - I actually started on this awhile ago, but have put it on the b back burner for now. Take a look at http://zdevwiki.wikidweb.com/wiki/Special:Intersections --Aerik Sylvan 23:08, 28 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Summary of updates

My initial thoughts were as above but it may not be the most intuitive and user-friendly way to do things. I think the current thinking is leaning towards more of a hybrid solution - basic categories that look pretty much like Google or DMOZ, but having articles belong to multiple categories, and having a very specific category belong to more general categories. More details to follow... --Aerik Sylvan 14:17, 6 Apr 2005 (PDT)

More thinking about categories

Just to check that we're on the same page - the initial idea about using categories in a matrix was that they are kind of like keywords - if, for example, you had some a category for "Internet Directories" and some of them were free, on the pages that were free you'd add [[Category:Free]] instead of having them in a subcategory of Internet Directories like replacing [[Category:Internet Directories]] with [[Category:Free Internet Directories]].

So in scenario 1 (where you add [[Category:Free]]) you'd use the (still in development) Special:Intersections page to find the free directories. Now I think this is really cool and powerful, but maybe not intuitive...

So here's what I'm thinking:

• Since "Electronics" or "Home and Garden" could be several things and it is useful to know if a site is selling something, or informational, or both, we need a way to deal with this. Currently, "Home and Garden" is under "Shopping" which makes sense until you want to add an information only site.
• We can choose to have categories for things (topics) or activities, or both. "Shopping" is an activity, but "Business" is an area. (Yes, I know it's not that simple, but I'm trying to illustrate some thinking.)
• I'm not sure of the best way to denote a non-shopping site, but I think it makes sense to denote shopping sites by having categories like "Shopping/Home and Garden" - this makes categories that kind of look like the google directory, etc. Maybe we should leave the "Home and Garden" category and use it for informational sites, then if a site was BOTH informational and sold things, it would be categorized as both.

I'm torn between the ideas that we should go ahead and have pretty detailed categories, and also the idea that we should try to be consistent. I am certain only that having the ability to assign multiple categories to a page is a good thing , as this is one of the drawbacks and complained about items with DMOZ. If done right, it will allow users to much more effectively find the type of site they're looking for (for instance, shopping vs. buying guides vs. forums vs. a manufacturer vs. someones blog on the topic).

Ah... Does that help? I'm sure we need to discuss more...--Aerik Sylvan 14:44, 6 Apr 2005 (PDT)

I need to see an example or a diagram

I think I understand where you are going with the shopping and home and garden examples, but I don't understand the free as in directories not being under internet directories and using this "special intersections" tool. Can you diagram this and post an image?

--webseo 16:20, 6 Apr 2005 (PDT)

Hmm... Let me throw together a powerpoint or something, but it's going to take me a couple of days; I've got some other stuff I've gotta focus on tomorrow...--Aerik Sylvan 02:03, 7 Apr 2005 (PDT)

help

How i edit categories of my previous uncategorised listings. Thanks for support

Hi, you can follow this link to see the Special:Uncategorizedpages, then, on any page, you can click the "edit" tab (over the title of the page). I think you have already got to this point. Once you have the edit form, add the appropriate category(ies) - please be sure to use the most detailed category level appropriate - and then click "Show preview" to see that it's working properly. the categories for the preview will be at the very bottom of the page, below the new edit form. Once you have it set up, click "Save page". Let me know if you need more help. Best Regards, --Aerik Sylvan 10:25, 21 May 2005 (PDT)

About the category structure

(being developed for the main article)

There are three guiding ideas:

1. Don't create such detailed categories that the directory is full of categories, and many of them only have (and will ever have) a few sites in it.
2. Categorize each entry in all the most appropriate categories (but not every category that could possibly be considered - think about the direction someone browsing the directory might come from trying to find something).
3. Avoid ambiguous category names structures

--Aerik Sylvan 13:50, 2 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Discussion: I think that the average listing needs to be at least three levels down (universe > main category > speciality subcategory), but popular or heavily populated (or potentially heavily populated) categories need another 1 - 3 levels below that.

I'm not sure if I'm guilty of creating categories that are too detailed or not, but I tend to think longer range about how much trouble it will be to move a bunch of sites to a new subcategory. I generally leave a site at what I consider to be too high of a level until there is another listing that would "pair up" with that one and move them to a new subcategory.

I really welcome some guidelines to assist in categorization. That's my 2 cents!

--webseo 16:02, 2 Jun 2005 (PDT)

My thoughts:Structure

The more I think about it, the more I realise that there is no inherent structure, no scaffold that categories fit into. The Category:xyz form of naming is basically a flat structure. (Please ignore whether my examples represent the current structure) For example instead of Category:Arts_and_Entertainment:Radio we have Category:Arts_and_Entertainment and Category:Radio. Category:Radio might also be a sub-category in say Business. Radio wouldn't have a single 'parent' category of Arts_and_Entertainment or Business. This would mean you can't assume all entries under Radio will be Arts_and_Entertainment entries (eg perhaps Radio_equipment_supplies, or DJ_training or something from the association with business ).
Then categories become more keywords rather than a hierachy thing.

If we don't allow this then we need (in this example) a Radio_Entertainment and Radio_Business category to keep things seperate (a naming convention/name_space issue) because we won't allow Radio under both categories. The rules we use to name categories then becomes part of defining the structure. With this traditional tree approach each category only belongs to a single parent category (although you can have parallel trees, eg the language one (which is not really a tree but just a keyword association!)). We can add cross links between categories for a sort of "see also" or "related" category thing but the only mechanism we have for this is adding more 'parent' categories to a category description, so the structure logically looks no different from my unstructured first example.
Do you see what I mean?, what are you aiming for?

Here is a table of the current top two layers: User:Wikikiwi/Struc but it doesn't show any links between categories or third level categories. There are 16 1st and 161 2nd level categories, and another 813 categories at 'deeper' levels (not including the L:Language category).
It gets more interesting at the next level (incomplete work in progress) eg Search_Engine_Optimization is at levels 2 and 3, lots of other cross links.
--Wikikiwi 00:05, 24 Oct 2006 (MDT)

Oooh - yup, this definitely an interesting topic. That's an impressive table you've assembled! Do you have a tool to do that, or did you have to do it all manually? I need to update the drop down list for the "new entry" category selection, and I will need to go reconstruct some of the same information to do it.

I was trying avoid creating dmoz style categories with inherent hierarchy (like a category called "Arts and Entertainment->Radio->Satellite Radio") but instead implement categories in this way that is built into mediawiki (categories as tags). However, I do want to try to avoid using vague words for categories (I would not list "Satellite Radio" and "Radio Waves" both under "Radio") so I want to try to create category names that are inherently non-ambiguous, and therefore avoid the need for category disambiguation pages. It's a bit messy, but we seem to be ending up with both descriptive hierarchical categories and also categories as tags. Frankly, it doesn't bother me, as long as it's accurate and appropriate. Also, I'm still working on the next generation of Special:Intersections which makes "categories as tags" much more useful. (I'm trying to figure out how to write an apporach efficient enough for wikipedia, which has 6 million category records and there seem to be no easy answers.)--Aerik Sylvan 06:59, 24 Oct 2006 (MDT)

I got half way through creating my table and realised that the list of categories I was using from your drop down menu (under add new entry) was out of date as you say ... You'll really have to automate the construction of that menu. I'm rebuilding my table which is being done manually - If you wish to create such a table automatically from your end I'd be very happy ;-) --Wikikiwi 15:43, 24 Oct 2006 (MDT)

Ah, Ok I've just re-read your comment - "I was trying avoid creating dmoz style categories with inherent hierarchy" which is slightly astonishing as you are creating a directory which seems to me to be an inherently heirachical thing and your browse by categories page displays it as such (albeit only to two levels). I suppose if you're modeling yourself on a telephone-book yellow pages where everything is under alphabetically organised categories and listings within each category are simply alphabetical then it makes sense. But a telephone book that grows to the size of ODP let alone the size of the internet wouldn't be very helpful (scanning long lists of alphabetical names isn't really useful unless you already know who you're looking for :-). I suppose we need to think about how people are going to find things using a directory, and why they'd use a directory rather than a search engine. --Wikikiwi 16:17, 24 Oct 2006 (MDT)

Hi! Sorry in advance, this will have to be a short reply as I got up very early and I'm really tired. I'm sorry too - I think I did a poor job explaining my intention with the categories. What I'm after is creating categories not necessarily as a strict tree structure (as this prevents you from acknowleding certain relationships) but more as a grid/web structure, allowing for acknowledgment of any relationships between categories. So the telephone book analogy is only kind of right. I think that thinking of categories as tags is probably the best way to describe what I'm after, then the category structure allows you to define the relationship of tags.--Aerik Sylvan 23:40, 24 Oct 2006 (MDT)

use of Category for Structrure & Keywords not compatible

An example of what I was saying about having a flat structure with a hierachy imposed upon it and what happens if we have a category that fits under a number of parent categories is:
Food_and_Beverages
Which comes under Health, Home, and Shopping.
Which means people walking down the tree of Health will find unexpected entries under Food_and_Beverages about buying all sorts of unhealthy things for example!
The category title is common to all three groups but the contents would be expected to vary, or do we do a sort of inverted tree and have Food_and_Beverages split into three sub-categories of Health, Home and Shopping!!!
I think we can't use categories as keywords and as structural elements at the same time without gross corruptions :-) --Wikikiwi 15:36, 24 Oct 2006 (MDT)

Could you expand on that last bit? "categories as keywords and as structural elements at the same time" ? You raise some good points though. And I don't have a great answer. I think some pages of Food_and_Beverages could be in a subcat called "Health_Food". For that matter, the whole "Food_and_Beverages" category is so high level that maybe no pages should belong to it, they should all belong to lower level categories and "Food_and_Beverages" only exists to tie them together...--Aerik Sylvan 23:44, 24 Oct 2006 (MDT)

Your suggestion of health_food under food_and_bevages is an example of another phenomina where you want to create a recursive tree structure under sub-categories. I'll try and explain :-) The problem is typified on DMOZ/ODP with regional and subject trees, eg you walk down the regional tree Regional/North_America/Canada/ Alberta/Arts_and_Entertainment /Organizations/ and find a bunch of arts organisations which may or may-not also be listed in arts tree Arts/Organizations/Regional/Canada. You sort of want some subjects broken down into regions but equally have another tree with regions broken down into subjects. ODP try to resolve this duplication with related-links etc but it seems to me messy and confusing (hence my confusion :-).

The wikidweb structure of categories is not a hierachy - you can't use a nice branching tree with a root at the top and branches forking down because that doesn't fit the actual interconnected and inter-related nature of the categories. Yes, we can follow branching paths through the categories but there is no real up and down. So I suppose my comment about use of categories as structural vs keywords is more about not trying to use them as hierachical structural elements. Hmmmm, perhaps more to the point if you navigate through the wikidweb web of data, you are going to end up at a category, the contents of which are not limited by the path which you have traveled! Whereas searching for data that has as keywords the categories through which you walked (once you implement your intersection search stuff) is going to give you very specific results. --Wikikiwi 15:58, 26 Oct 2006 (MDT)

How do I rename a mis-spelt (or mis-spelled if you like) category name?

I tried to move a mis-spelt category to a correct spelling but I wasn't allowed to - is move disabled or is this just a one-off problem.
Problem is Category:Student Activites which should be Student Activities
Category:Rugby Football League - UK should be UK - Rugby Football League to be consistant with format of other entries under Rugby League --Wikikiwi 16:26, 24 Oct 2006 (MDT)

You can't move a category, it's a limitation of the mediawiki software. What you do is recategorize each page having the category in question, then delete the old category. (I did the ones you mentioned.) Best Regards, --Aerik Sylvan 23:58, 24 Oct 2006 (MDT)

Thanks for that, I notice that the old categories haven't actually been deleted. --Wikikiwi 14:56, 26 Oct 2006 (MDT)

Whoops - looks like I got the rugby one but missed studed activites - thanks! --Aerik Sylvan 14:00, 1 Nov 2006 (MST)