Nya-chan Production wrote:I would like to point out one important thing - the new org will actually have LESS features when it appears, since it has to be redesigned FROM SCRATCH.
So the actual question for now is more of - What are the basic features that you think you can't go without? Why?
Nya-chan Production wrote:We are now working on the core, not features, so it's pointless to ask about those now.
Corran wrote:Nya-chan Production wrote:We are now working on the core, not features, so it's pointless to ask about those now.
I disagree. If you know the overall vision of what you are eventually going for you can make important yet seemingly simple design decisions early in the core development to accommodate the development of additional features down the road. If you don't plan ahead you may be pulling your hair out and refactoring a lot of code later on.
leptogenesis wrote:Who all is actually involved in the coding process?
Anyway, this seems like a good place to mention the recommender system I wrote for the .org. We may want to put it into greater prominence than the current suggestion query system, since the current consensus seems to be that it works better. It's written in a way that makes it rely very little on the current setup of the .org database or the php code. My wild guess is that the recommender will work better if people are still required, or at least strongly encouraged, to give ratings.
Also, it wouldn't be terribly hard (for me) to modify the same system to find the nearest neighbors to a given video. That way we could have a 'related videos' column on most video pages.
I should also point out that, at least in theory, both of these systems should work better than youtube's 'related videos' system, because the system doesn't have to deal with the huge diversity of videos that youtube has to deal with. If done right, this could give the .org a real advantage over youtube.
Nya-chan Production wrote:
We're thinking about it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest