Should cpaptalk Be Divided Into Categories or Subsections?

[brain_cloud]

I am going to vote NO, because I am on other forums and have found that hardly anyone goes to sub-categories, and often newbies' posts are lost due to them going to the Newly Diagnosed section, which no one visits.

xena

I voted "yes" but with the caveat that I be the one to choose the categories. The reason categories don't work most of the time is that the vast majority of people have not even the remotest idea of how to properly divide up information.

Information, like everything else, should be carved at the joints. I propose "poster's eye color" as the basis for a nice, robust division.

[RipVW]

PLEASE don't change our forum! It's just a more visible, friendly community as it is. Categorizing the posts by subject/topic turns a forum into more of an encyclopdeia than a community forum. It's fun seeing everything in one place. And, if someone wants to find posts related to a specific category, the Search/Find feature does that for them.

[RipVW]

PLEASE don't change our forum! It's just a more visible, friendly community as it is. Categorizing the posts by subject/topic turns a forum into more of an encyclopedia than a community forum. It's fun seeing everything in one place. And, if someone wants to find posts related to a specific category, the Search/Find feature does that for them.

[meraa]

Back to the important topic of this important thread.
Over the years I have used and evaluated critically a number of forum capabilities by various criteria for various web communities: phpBB, vBulletin, Yahoo Groups, Google Apps, LinkedIn. I am enthusiastic about the possibilities, and sad about the implementations failing to fulfill the expectations in the short and long term... or degenerate as the size goes out of control.
I'd like to rephrase the Administrator's topic in a more sophisticated, but potentially more useful way.
The topic of Sleep Apnea connects a multitude of clinical disciplines, of hardware bio-engineers and software programmers, and of course CPAP users with various degrees of severity, experience, time to invest into this complex subject.
Hence the issue to me is not WHETHER AND HOW TO SUBDIVIDE INTO CATEGORIES, rather HOW TO BETTER INTEGRATE THE PIECES.
I regret to see forums implemented like bulletin boards, with the latest posts pushing the previous ones into oblivion.
How about considering the categories as representing individual elements of importance: an explanation of the anatomy and physiology of OSA, a clinical specialty, a mask to pressure generator type, etc. Then the posts could link to these concept and improve the relationships in a multi-dimensional and hierarchical way.
The collection of CPAP user experiences could be integrated to a treasure if properly archived. The result could look like Wikipedia, or like a library catalog. Or like the human brain, with nodes connected to thousands of other nodes (nuclei).

[So Well]

Some people would screw up a bowling ball.

[larry63]

I voted no, because there usually a bit of overlap between different subtopics.
People would post under the wrong subtopics anyway and some posts might apply to more than one subtopic.

If I just search for the most recent posts in the forum, I'm good to go.

[chunkyfrog]

Maybe categories might help, but only with archived material--isolating discussion by year, as well as subject.
Unfortunately, most software was written by software experts, who, (JMHP), know shockingly little about anything else.

[LoQ]

Unfortunately, most software was written by software experts, who, (JMHP), know shockingly little about anything else.

Wow. On the contrary, most "software experts" probably know more than the general public about many subjects. That you could make such a statement shows how little you understand software development. Before you can write a piece of code, you have to thoroughly understand a number of things, not the least of which is the subject matter. "Software experts" tend to become experts in the domain for which they are writing code. There is no way to write code if you do not understand the target material. Code is extremely explicit.

[BusyLyn]

Unfortunately, most software was written by software experts, who, (JMHP), know shockingly little about anything else.

Wow. On the contrary, most "software experts" probably know more than the general public about many subjects. That you could make such a statement shows how little you understand software development. Before you can write a piece of code, you have to thoroughly understand a number of things, not the least of which is the subject matter. "Software experts" tend to become experts in the domain for which they are writing code. There is no way to write code if you do not understand the target material. Code is extremely explicit.

LoQ, I'll agree with you if you also state that not everyone who writes software is a software expert. I've seen (and tried to fix!) too much code written by people who believed that 'anyone can be a programmer'. It's not that easy, and it's an exacting profession just like engineering (I'm trained in both). There is no way to write good code if you don't understand the target material.

I'll also add that it's the rare software developer who can write clear user documentation because they know too much about the application to think from the viewpoint of a new and/or confused user.

[mars]

Unfortunately, most software was written by software experts, who, (JMHP), know shockingly little about anything else.

Wow. On the contrary, most "software experts" probably know more than the general public about many subjects. That you could make such a statement shows how little you understand software development. Before you can write a piece of code, you have to thoroughly understand a number of things, not the least of which is the subject matter. "Software experts" tend to become experts in the domain for which they are writing code. There is no way to write code if you do not understand the target material. Code is extremely explicit.

LoQ, I'll agree with you if you also state that not everyone who writes software is a software expert. I've seen (and tried to fix!) too much code written by people who believed that 'anyone can be a programmer'. It's not that easy, and it's an exacting profession just like engineering (I'm trained in both). There is no way to write good code if you don't understand the target material.

I'll also add that it's the rare software developer who can write clear user documentation because they know too much about the application to think from the viewpoint of a new and/or confused user.

Hi All

I was about to agree with BusyLyn when I saw the post from LoQ.

I was then about to disagree with LoQ when I saw the post from ChunkyFrog.

And I am now agreeing with ChunkyFrog.

In the same way that many men become priests because they have sexual proclivities they are ashamed of, many software programmers join that profession because they cannot interact successfully with fellow human beings.

What LoQ wrote are aspirations, commendable in themselves, but not reality.

Programming is an art, with technical knowledge as necessary backup. If you only have the technical knowledge, you are not going to be a good programmer.

The current outsourcing of many programming tasks also means there is no personal accountability anymore, and the person writing the code is not the person who tests and implements the application.

Testing is also an art that most programmers today totally fail at, because they do not know the end user.

Writing documentation is also an art, and many programmers are useless at it. Also one should always write code with the understanding that someone else is going to be changing it.

When Microsoft started using their customers as software testers, they started the deterioration of programming standards that has continued ever since.

Mars

[LoQ]

LoQ, I'll agree with you if you also state that not everyone who writes software is a software expert.

I do not need to state that. If you understand logic, you can look back at the chain of posts and determine that no other kind of programmer was mentioned but software experts. We are only talking about software experts.

Programming is an art, with technical knowledge as necessary backup. If you only have the technical knowledge, you are not going to be a good programmer.

That is what I said, though in a different way. How can you disagree with me then repeat my assertion?

[mars]

Hi LoQ

I don't get into tit-for-tat arguements these days.

Ignoring most of my statements, and then misrepresenting one so you can score a point, does not work with me.

You forget - I was trained by Rooster

So lets end this with goodwill towards each other

Cheers

Mars

[LoQ]

Mars, if you just have to have the last word, then I have nothing more to say. Cheers.

[Diplomacy]

United we stand at CPAP.com!

[chunkyfrog]

ooh, the ire! Let me explain:
I have struggled with so much software that continually changes, for little reason other than to stroke the vanity of the creator.
I have had to wait and wait for stuff to work that should be working smoothly, but due to an 'upgrade' is now practically useless.
I have worked with computers for over 20 years--and know the frustration caused by poorly researched, untested programs.
Admitted, some stuff is brilliant; but a lot needs to be shredded.