flynnguy at gmail.com
Wed Nov 10 02:18:47 UTC 2004
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:52:03 -0800, Chris Petersen
<lists at forevermore.net> wrote:
> I refuse to add "no/low carb" type stuff, though. I won't give into the
> unhealthy obsession people have with overconsuming protein and cutting
> vegetables out of their diets.
Hehe... yeah, I almost wrote something similar to this but decided not
to lest I offend someone. I read an interesting article that suggested
the initial weight loss on no/low carb diets is mostly water loss
which is definately *not* health. I've always said you need to have a
balance. Not too much or too little of anything. However I guess this
is getting a little off topic...
> the author assigns keywords to each recipe, and each category has
> keywords assigned by the category maintainer -- both of them independent
> of any name/description fields. So for a recipe like "bread pudding"
> the maintainer would add keywords like "british pudding dessert" which
> would then be filed in any category with matching keywords.
Ok, this makes a bit more sense now. I was trying to figure out how
you would parse a recipe to get categories. However to me it seems
like you are just implementing categories in a different way.
> But non-italian noodle dishes are not usually called pasta. and the
> "italian" keyword would not be added, so it wouldn't show up in the
> category marked "italian"
Actually there is this one "thai" dish (ok, it's more of a thai style
dish) that uses regular spagetti noodles. But of course if we aren't
parsing the recipe for keywords and instead adding them to each recipe
then it's a non-issue.
> yes. but consider that most people will be searching, not browsing (or
> should be). Even if a recipe isn't attached to a category, it will be
> But you are right, it's sort of a double-edged battle. my method is
> search-centric, not category-centric. The categories are just a way to
> organize searches. But that's how I cook. I go to a recipe book with
> some idea of what I want, and immediately turn to the index.
Ok, I do like your idea from a search point of view but there are
times when I don't quite know what I want to make and browsing would
be the way to go for me. But then there are other times where I know
exactly what I want but maybe I can't remember the name so your
keyword search idea would be more ideal in the second case. I don't
want to add too much complexity but how about both? That way you could
browse by category or search by keyword. (Either a menu/category style
search or a text based search)
> A cool method would be to let users pick the category in plain english,
> and have the system spellcheck and sound-check and figure out where best
> to place it, creating new categories as it needs to, but that's more
> work than I want to spend on this.
That sounds like a good idea for an eventual upgrade.
> I really want to change the way that people access data, and side with
> google on the idea that searching is key. Categorization is good, but
> I've never seen a GOOD way to adminster a category tree -- nor is it the
> primary way that people look for information. There must be a happy
> balance in there somewhere.
I like your idea of a keyword search but I still don't think I want to
let go of a structured category list. Maybe both is the way to go?
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. - Gandhi
More information about the mythtv-dev