Categories as search filters for a Refined/Advanced Search Tool

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Categories as search filters for a Refined/Advanced Search Tool

Roger_Chrisman
Hi,

I want to allow users to filter searches of a Mediawiki's content so
that search results that match user-selected categories *and* the
search term would be returned.

For example, along with the standard search box (text field for search
term) a user could be presented with a treed list of all categories
with check boxes by them. Only when a category's check box is checked
by the user for a given "advanced/category-filtered" search would
content in that category be searched. User could select ***as many or
few categories*** as he likes and the search tool would search only
within those categories.

Has anyone seen anything like this implemented for Mediawiki? Or for any
other content management system?

Thanks,

Roger
--
Roger Chrisman   (650) 387-4732   Palo Alto
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Categories as search filters for a Refined/Advanced Search Tool

Rob Church
"Any other content management system..."

(sigh) MediaWiki is not a CMS. Thank you.


Rob Church

On 04/02/06, Roger Chrisman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I want to allow users to filter searches of a Mediawiki's content so
> that search results that match user-selected categories *and* the
> search term would be returned.
>
> For example, along with the standard search box (text field for search
> term) a user could be presented with a treed list of all categories
> with check boxes by them. Only when a category's check box is checked
> by the user for a given "advanced/category-filtered" search would
> content in that category be searched. User could select ***as many or
> few categories*** as he likes and the search tool would search only
> within those categories.
>
> Has anyone seen anything like this implemented for Mediawiki? Or for any
> other content management system?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger
> --
> Roger Chrisman   (650) 387-4732   Palo Alto
> _______________________________________________
> MediaWiki-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
>
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

CMS or NOT? (was: Categories as search filters for a Refined/Advanced Search Tool)

Roger_Chrisman
Rob Church wrote:
> "Any other content management system..."
>
> (sigh) MediaWiki is not a CMS. Thank you.

According to Wikipedia, Mediawiki is a CMS:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MediaWiki#CMS


( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system ):

"A content management system (CMS) is a computer software system for
organizing and facilitating collaborative creation of documents and
other content. A content management system is frequently a web
application used for managing websites and web content,"



Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS,
please explain.



Thanks,
Roger
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CMS or NOT? (was: Categories as search filters for aRefined/Advanced Search Tool)

Michael Dorosh
A letter opener isn't a swizzle stick, but if it works, why not...

I was going to quote wikipedia's definition of CMS also - check out the page on CMS... :-)
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Roger Chrisman
  To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list
  Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:55 PM
  Subject: [Mediawiki-l] CMS or NOT? (was: Categories as search filters for aRefined/Advanced Search Tool)


  Rob Church wrote:
  > "Any other content management system..."
  >
  > (sigh) MediaWiki is not a CMS. Thank you.

  According to Wikipedia, Mediawiki is a CMS:


  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MediaWiki#CMS


  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system ):

  "A content management system (CMS) is a computer software system for
  organizing and facilitating collaborative creation of documents and
  other content. A content management system is frequently a web
  application used for managing websites and web content,"



  Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS,
  please explain.



  Thanks,
  Roger
  _______________________________________________
  MediaWiki-l mailing list
  [hidden email]
  http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CMS or NOT? (was: Categories as search filters for a Refined/Advanced Search Tool)

Bugzilla from sy1234@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Roger_Chrisman
On 2/5/06, Roger Chrisman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS,
> please explain.

I don't.  In fact, I believe very strongly that a wiki is indeed a
CMS.. since a wiki's primary purpose is to .. be a system to manage
content.  However, some wikis do it in a "wiki way" and break the
common-sense rules found with the older CMS'.

Now it's that "wiki way" philosophical difference that sets a
"real-CMS" apart from the "wiki-CMS".

A "proper CMS" manages its content in the traditionally strict "I am
the management system, I am in charge" most especially with
permissions.  It focuses on the _management_ part of CMS.

A "wiki CMS" merely plays host to its content in a loose "let me help
you put your content somewhere" most especially by allowing loginless
anonymous contribution.  It focuses on the _content_ part of CMS.


Mediawiki is not a CMS in the traditional sense because it has not
been created with the kind of strict security model which a
traditional CMS would have.  Even though there are roles and
permissions in MediaWiki (page locking, administrative pages) I
understand that there is no faith in the existing security to extend
it into CMS-like stuff like per-page unix style permissions.. like
what a "traditional CMS" would have.

So the easy way to explain mediawiki's stance is to say it's not a CMS.

Technically text files in a directory is a CMS.. technically mediawiki is a CMS.
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CMS or NOT? (was: Categories as search filters for aRefined/Advanced Search Tool)

Aaron Sherman
In reply to this post by Michael Dorosh
On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 18:55 -0700, Michael Dorosh wrote:
> A letter opener isn't a swizzle stick, but if it works, why not...
>  From: Roger Chrisman
>   Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS,
>   please explain.

The problem that you have is that there is no concrete definition (the
CMS page on WP notwithstanding) of CMS. It's a general label that has
come to be applied to "that stuff that's non site-specific, and sits on
top of a Web server". Because so many people first hear the term in
connection with a specific CMS, they often come to expect that that
CMS's features are universally "CMSish".

It is often more valuable to discuss specific terminology for specific
tasks. For example, Vignette's StoryServer (now simply Vignette) was
based around a workflow publishing system. Workflow is a common element
of many CMSes, but not, for example, MediaWiki. Revision control is a
major part of MediaWiki, and of many other CMSes, but not all. The
feature list goes on.

MediaWiki *is* a CMS, but that does not mean that it provides that
facilities that everyone has come to expect of a CMS (nor, in all cases,
should it).

--
Aaron Sherman <[hidden email]>
Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith
"We had some good machines, but they don't work no more." -Shriekback


_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CMS or NOT? (was: Categories as search filters for a Refined/Advanced Search Tool)

Rick DeNatale
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from sy1234@gmail.com
On 2/6/06, Sy Ali <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2/5/06, Roger Chrisman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS,
> > please explain.
>
> I don't.  In fact, I believe very strongly that a wiki is indeed a
> CMS.. since a wiki's primary purpose is to .. be a system to manage
> content.  However, some wikis do it in a "wiki way" and break the
> common-sense rules found with the older CMS'.

The critical word here, I think is "management".

> Now it's that "wiki way" philosophical difference that sets a
> "real-CMS" apart from the "wiki-CMS".

The wiki-way is doing content management only in the loosest sense.
It's really a way of content organization, which allows the content to
be built up as a directed graph of nodes/articles/pages whatever you
want to call them.

But a wiki itself leaves management of the content to the users.  It
takes a laissez-faire attitude to controlling what the content is.
Wikis are really a social experiment which tests the notion that a
base of interested users can police the content without requiring
sophisticated/complicated policies implemented in the software.

> A "proper CMS" manages its content in the traditionally strict "I am
> the management system, I am in charge" most especially with
> permissions.  It focuses on the _management_ part of CMS.
>
> A "wiki CMS" merely plays host to its content in a loose "let me help
> you put your content somewhere" most especially by allowing loginless
> anonymous contribution.  It focuses on the _content_ part of CMS.

We're in violent agreement here, except since wikis don't focus on
management, I think that it's stretching things to call them a Content
Management System. Perhaps another term like Content Aggregation
System might be more appropriate as a general term which would cover a
gamut including wikis, CMSes, file systems etc.

> Mediawiki is not a CMS in the traditional sense because it has not
> been created with the kind of strict security model which a
> traditional CMS would have.  Even though there are roles and
> permissions in MediaWiki (page locking, administrative pages) I
> understand that there is no faith in the existing security to extend
> it into CMS-like stuff like per-page unix style permissions.. like
> what a "traditional CMS" would have.

It's not really a matter of faith, but one of beliefs.  The "wiki-way"
is a belief that it's better to allow incorrect content to be quickly
fixed by users instead of putting security hurdles in place which
prevent this.  It's a belief that the user base is better at keeping
the content on track than a pre-planned authorization scheme.

>
> So the easy way to explain mediawiki's stance is to say it's not a CMS.
>
> Technically text files in a directory is a CMS.. technically mediawiki is a CMS.

It's interesting to note that the Content Management System article on
wikipedia makes no mention of wikis, and the Wiki article makes no
mention of CMS, Content Management System(s), (or even the word
management for that matter). This also appears to be the case with the
corresponding talk pages for these articles.

So while one could read the definition of CMS from the wikipedia
article as covering wikis, I think that it's stretching things a bit.

It seems that there are a lot of folks who discover wiki software like
mediawiki or one of its "competitors," then decide they really want
more "management" and start asking for features which are incompatible
with the belief system which motivates the wiki developers. At the
risk of stirring up controversy, that's somewhat like walking into a
mosque because you think that it's a beautiful building, wandering
around inside for a while, and then asking, "where can I get a beer?
Let's put a bar in that corner!"

It's an example of Maslov's observation that "when the only tool you
have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."  When the tool bag
doesn't afford the tools to meet your needs, it might be time to start
looking at adding to it. Those looking for more structure to managing
access and creation of content, are probably better served by looking
at other tools such as drupal, plone/zope or the many other available
tools which come from different belief systems.

--
Rick DeNatale

Visit the Project Mercury Wiki Site
http://www.mercuryspacecraft.com/
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l