Hi again Jeremy and thank you for your replies! Ok, so tw.com to curate/store only selected resources, including selected editions and, as far as non-selected resources go, tw.com will display links to those.
As a simple end user, the curating (quality assurance) obviously is a very important aspect but the actual storage *location *is probably less important so a "link store" (instead of an "app store") should be great. But I really hope we can find a way to *c*apture the fuller wealth of community output - in addition to the carefully pull-requested and pre-moderated gems. For instance via; - a webcrawler - something like Erwans community aggregator <https://rawgit.com/erwanm/tw-aggregator/master/tw-community-search.html> - a meta-data list generated from tiddlyspot This could be displayed in a separate TW (like Erwans creation already does) but included on tw.com in a iframe(!) to be displayed in a *prominent but distinct *section. The iframe sandboxes it and makes it very managable as an entity. And the individual entries in that iframed tw could be manipulated using the usual tw tools to slice and dice. Would you welcome something like this? Visitors to tw.com would - and are now!!! - otherwise simply *missing out on 99% of what tiddlywiki encompasses*. What can we otherwise do to capture the material that is out there but that is simply not pull requested to you? I'm *certain* there are incredible TW creations out there built by people with the intention to solve a need they have... and that is all they care about *and they couldn't care less if the rest of us know about it*. All fair, but very unfortunate for us. I believe one key factor for youtubes success is the *post*-moderation, rather than pre-moderation, i.e viewers can report inappropriate material instead of an obviously impossible task to pre-moderate it. (I'm guessing the post-moderation is even automated on the host side to remove a clip after X complaints.) Youtube is of course another league, but it is enough to look at Erwans community aggregator, a service that has been around for less than a year and that hosts stuff from merely 17 authors but has 4370 tiddlers... it is clearly unthinkable that someone should pre-moderate this. They're not all relevant tiddlers, and they are tiddlers not *tiddlywikis*, but okay if we look at *tiddlyspot* I'm certain the number of spots is also a totally unmanagable number to pre-moderate. Not that anyone would pull request them. Besides, the focus on tiddlywikis as opposed to tiddlers is partly because we cannot easily handle single tiddlers. Erwans solution is interesting also from that respect. A direct consequence from pre-moderation is that the reporting of a tw is compromised into an often unspecific summary like "a collection of...". This simplification is 100% understandable, also considering that the content of those sites change, but nonetheless it means the visitor to tw.com simply doesn't really get to know what the reported site offers. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this super important matter. Thank you Jeremy! <:-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/99e9f564-da45-49b2-9efb-ec5321566b78%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
