Hi Bob,

I'm certainly not sure that this is the best way, in fact one thing
that I am pretty sure about is that better minds than mine have already
considered this subject.  I actually prefer to access the SuperSwiki
through the Navigator Find button and your sortable directory list. 
But none of the Project info is available there (or much of anywhere
else) and I don't know what things to search by that might yield some
interesting results.  I realize that not too many people have actually
filled this in when publishing their Projects, but it seems like it
ought to be more useful than it is.  Also, when I publish a new
Project, how can I pick a category or keywords that might correspond
with existing entries to make searches more productive if I don't know
what already exists in other Projects?

If I really wanted to rock the boat a bit, I might suggest that
Squeakmap is something less than the ultimate solution because there is
(currently?) no means of automatically/programatically generating a
Squeakmap entry when publishing a Project.  Or maybe Squeakmap amounts
to the after-the-fact info update that I referred to earlier?  In place
of Project info?  Then I'm back to the question of using Scamper for
accessing Projects (which it won't load) when my preferred method is
through the Navigator Find button.

I think I'm going around in circles here.  Surely there's a better way!

Bob Arning wrote:
>Without suggesting that this is the only (or even the best) way,
>remember that this is a regular swiki as well and that people could
>create such lists without too much difficulty. Actually creating these
>lists manually for a while might help refine the concept and prove
>their worth.
>

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:56:30 -0700 (PDT) David Faught <dave_faught at
>yahoo.com> wrote:
>>As an alternative to the huge gallery page, how about navigable lists
>>of the Project info that HAS been filled in? Like a list of authors
>>(or uploaders?) and a count of projects that can be drilled down
>>into. And the same for category, subcategory, etc. Along with this,
>>it would be nice to have a way to fill in the info after the fact (of
>>publishing) so that the existing stuff could be categorized (by
>>someone?) without needing to republish everything. I have to disagree
>>with Alan about interrupting the fluidity by being forced to fill in
>>the info when publishing. A reasonable way to do this would be to
>>always pop up the info to fill in when publishing, but accept null
>>fields so that a user would always see and be reminded about the
>>info, but not be forced to fill it in when they are "in the zone".
>>And an after-the-fact info update would give them an easy way to
>>update it later.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com