On 07/24/10 10:41 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:24 AM, David Kirkby<david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote:
On 24 July 2010 09:38, Robert Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
I like "Published" and "Shared" better.
I think the issue I have with "published", which someone else in this
thread first mentioned months ago, is that in academic circles one
associates "published" with high quality.
I can't think of any normal use of the word "published" to mean making
available a set of documents like this.
I guess I'd say one publishes a web page, or blog, or photo album,
etc. to share it with the world.
But one normally does not aim to publish error messages on a web page. If I get
to a web page which shows a PHP error, it does not give one a good impression.
One does not normally publish out-of-focus photos, but selectively publishes
good ones.
For one reason or another, people often publish error messages on Sage
documents.
Looking at http://www.sagenb.org/pub/
Right now I can't even get to that page :(. Clearly not what we want
for a first impression :).
Agreed.
less than 10% of the worksheets have a rating. At that level, I don't
think its achieving much myself.
Perhaps changing "Rate this" to "Please rate this" might increase the
percentage of people that rate worksheets. Clearly there is not much
interest in rating them now.
Are we sorting by rating? If so, it doesn't matter if the bottom 90%
that probably aren't even worth rating are at the bottom. The problem
is that the random first-time-user's ugly code littered with
tracebacks risks being the first thing anyone sees.
Exactly. Though once you have a rating, if things get sorted by that, people can
easily make their items appear at the top. (I'm not sure if Sage lets you rate
your own documents, but even if it does not, you can easily set up an account to
do it).
The demonstrations could be good pages as well, the question is who is
going to create the content, and ensure that it doesn't go out of
date?
There are good examples around on the servers. It's just hit and miss whether
you find them.
I don't think going out of date will be a major problem. If they could form part
of a doctest, then they would be tested that they at least work. It would be
good if a 'depreciate' warning could be raised if the code is depreciated.
In any case, if they were in the form
http://www.sagenb.org/demonstations/number_theory/
http://www.sagenb.org/demonstations/numerical_methods/
or something like that, someone with knowledge of those areas could have a look
occasionally and flag any problems - if a new largest prime has been found, or
Goldbach's conjecture proven, the page might need an update.
I think aging is a relatively minor problem compared to the much larger problem
of finding a large bunch of error messages.
- Robert
Dave
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
