Sponsorship for Feature Tracker item #63: Multi-categorization
|
Posted
#77760
(In Topic #15986)
|
|
|---|---|
Community saint |
0000063: Multi-categorisation - ocPortal feature tracker There are currently two people interested and following this item: friendly and me. I am curious how many others are interested in this feature being added and if they might be willing to split the cost of 90 credits. It's easy to argue that this is basic functionality that should already be included in any modern CMS and I confess to overlooking its absence in my enthusiasm for ocPortal. But it is also true that it is not likely to appear without sponsorship. If you are interested in this feature being added, please vote for the item in the tracker: Feature development tracker - ocPortal We can then discuss the possibility of splitting the cost amongst those interested. Bob |
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
Community saint |
Paul
Webmaster: Air-RC An RC Aircraft Community. |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
Some might argue that tags can deal with this but my information is better-presented hierarchically and tho would allow me to easily include items in multiple categories, where needed. Based on the Chris's description, it would also resolve the breadcrumbs display properly based on the path used to get to an entry (at least I think this is what Chris means). I have numerous entries that belong in multiple categories so this change is kind of important to me. I actually wish I had thought to sponsor this instead of some of the other catalog improvements that i sponsored. Anyway, if we could get a group of people to contribute, the cost would not be so onerous and I think many could put this to good use. Bob |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
But why stop at primary and secondary categories? Couldn't it be done with an array of categories it belongs in? Sort of an index to category database so you can could put an entry in many different categories? The first in the array would be the 'primary'.
Paul
Webmaster: Air-RC An RC Aircraft Community. |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
This will allow the item to appear through multiple paths to the item but with breadcrumbs properly reflecting the path used. I think I have this right but maybe Chris can comment on it a bit further. Bob |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
Community saint |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
Bob |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
ocStaff (admin) |
I am paying attention, so of course, discuss merits etc. I suppose we could do both via an option that makes ocPortal start passing through nav-paths in the URLs as extra parameters, but only if the option is on or the nav-path is already there. If I answered something that you think should be in the documentation, please take the initiative and add it to the community documentation. We really need people to help out here and build a well-organised large support resource. |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
I completely misunderstood your intent. For my situation, I have catalog entries which belong, for instance, in the clowns and showgirls categories. If I set clowns as the primary category and someone navigates to the entry through the showgirl path, it just seems odd to me that the breadcrumbs would reflect a different path. Duck's point about duplicate content is the more important issue here. I think you would need to resolve this regardless of which approach you take but we gotta make the search engines happy. Speaking of which, did the canonicalized URLs survive into the new v8? I am really hoping so since Google doesn't seem to pay any attention to input for their URL parameters feature. Bob |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
ocStaff (admin) |
If I answered something that you think should be in the documentation, please take the initiative and add it to the community documentation. We really need people to help out here and build a well-organised large support resource. |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
Bob |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
Community saint |
I just want to reiterate my interest in this feature. For me, the potential for gallery rich content websites like I have it would give me the ability to duplicate pages for diverse categories that would make use of the the same gallery image/page. I believe that would mean the maintenance of the primary page would also be passed on to control the the secondary pages too. I have held off on creating duplicate pages for a long time thinking that this feature might become integrated into some future version of OCP. It has the potential of greatly simplifying some of the web mastering job as well as opening up a ton of possibilities for website expansions. Right now my gallery pages are set up by the artists who create the art work but I also want to be able to take the gallery pages and set them in a category where they are by subjects. If I understand this multi-categorization feature right it can be applied to the following modules: Galleries Catalogues CEDI Comcode pages **Chris, please correct these if I am wrong or add to if there are additional modules affected.** I'm sure you can find several areas where this multi-categorization can become integrated into your websites to make it better too.
Prehistorics Illustrated
http://prehistoricsillustrated.com Another ocPortal powered website & The Fascinating World of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures of all Kinds |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
I am surprised at the lack of response for this item. It's a bit like going to a library and finding there is only a single catalog available to search for content. Or even your cabe/sat set-top box. One of the main attractions of computerizing records (or creating databases) is the ability to recall information in a variety of ways. Hopefully some others will voice their interest/need for this option even if they are not willing to sponsor it. I think it is important for Chris to know understand the prioritization it requires even as a funded project. Bob |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
Your opinion may work fine especially for younger people. However, if you have an older viewership such as I do they know nothing of tagging and the like - they simply want to browse categories. I could extend your argument and say that you could do away with categories all together and just make people search based on tags. I doubt you would consider that a proper solution. This is something I deal with frequently. People cannot find a painting because they know it has a showgirl in it but I've chosen to classify it as a clown painting because of the presence of clowns. These paintings belong in two categories. One way to gauge the value of a feature is to determine how many other pieces of software provide support for the same solution and you will see that many do across a variety of software types including CMSes. Perhaps it would be less important if there were a good filtering system in place but even then I am not sure that my older viewers would be satisfied by due to the inability to browse complete collections by categories. I suspect that once the project is funded and made available, we'll see people commenting on what a great benefit it is. Bob |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
Chris- Can you please confirm the above as to where the multiple categories apply. Also, can you please update/confirm the cost in the tracker as appropriate. Bob 
Last edit: by BobS
|
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
ocStaff (admin) |
 .Re Friendly's note… "CEDI" - already supports this "Comcode pages" - would get too messy, their too much of a primitive construct to want to control them in this way. But you can simulate it anyway, using the 'include' Comcode tag. You missed "Downloads" though. If I answered something that you think should be in the documentation, please take the initiative and add it to the community documentation. We really need people to help out here and build a well-organised large support resource. |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
Community saint |
Bob |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
ocStaff (admin) |
If I answered something that you think should be in the documentation, please take the initiative and add it to the community documentation. We really need people to help out here and build a well-organised large support resource. |
|
|
|
|
Posted
|
|
|
ocStaff (admin) |
If I answered something that you think should be in the documentation, please take the initiative and add it to the community documentation. We really need people to help out here and build a well-organised large support resource. |
|
|
|
1 guests and 0 members have just viewed this: None
Control functions: