Category recategorization discussion

[Trickie Woo]

I want the separate OFC and OMC categories back. I only read Snape stories and Snape/OFC is my favorite pairing. The last time I was able to get that list up on my computer, which was Thursday, there were 217 stories listed under Snape/OFC. Why should I have to slog through 106 pages of the M/F stories when there are quite a few pairings listed, some of them very obscure, that have only one or two stories listed?

This quote from LaBiliographe staes what I want to say much better than I can myself.

"I can't really understand why these categories were removed unless it was to make life simpler for the programmers. Should the programmers be the ones to decide how literary categories should be organized? Libraries fought this battle for years as technical types organized the world of information without understanding how people look for information. Please don't let that happen here."

I hope this doesn't turn into the same kind of fiasco that Sycophant Hex had when they institued their supposedly new and better 'Mage' system. They had to return to the old and much better system because of all the glitches and bugs (new ones were popping up every day) and all their members were very unhappy with it and abandoning ship.

I suggest that you add a character search function like FF.net has at the top of the page. It's one of the few things that works at FF.net, and it works very, very well. I can get all the stories archived on any pairing I want in any rating I want just by entering what data I want. If they could only add a filter to filter out the immature stories by immature authors I'd be very happy with them.

Trickie Woo

[manta2g]

1) if you don't like it we can always swap to the dewy decimal system for the archive.

2) we have been trying to balance the best of both sides to keep the archive from crashing, I'm sure you don't want to get your extra cats and then have the database implode... right?

3) As both a programmer and a bookworm I'm sure I'm not being unreasonable, unreasonable would be getting rid of the harry potter zone entierly.

Now if you do not mind, there are more important things that need doing, and apeasing unreasonable demands is not one of them.

Manta2g

[TheBlackadder]

. . . .does that mean that my subcatagory requests are totally out of the question .

I understand if there isn't space for them, but I could fill the Norrington one with at least Five stories right off. But being a webmistress myself, I know that space can be tight and archiving can be a real pain in the butt sometimes. So it's cool if it can't be done.

Oceans of love, ~Marian The Blackadder~

[scottishfae]

1) if you don't like it we can always swap to the dewy decimal system for the archive.

I vote for the Dewy Decimal System!

[DemonGoddess]

. . . .does that mean that my subcatagory requests are totally out of the question .

I understand if there isn't space for them, but I could fill the Norrington one with at least Five stories right off. But being a webmistress myself, I know that space can be tight and archiving can be a real pain in the butt sometimes. So it's cool if it can't be done.

Oceans of love, ~Marian The Blackadder~

What this means is that we are in the process of doing things. When it comes to single character categories, those won't be happening. Sorry.

[Damiana]

I don't quite understand why single character stories are being refused when there are some truly odd pairings that remain. Is this only because you haven't gotten to them yet or is there some sort of methodology I fail to discern?

I'll take the example of the HP section because that's the one I tend to frequent.

In the Het male/female category there are 28 pairings that contain only one or two fics. If the Snape/ofc pairing contained 217, shouldn't it get precedence over less utilized groupings? Wouldn't it be more efficient to have a few single characters (the ones with proven sustainability) if it means that finding the right fics will be a less grueling affair?

I understand that the decision has been made and at the moment the responses that I have seen have been intransigent and a little bit unhelpful. If this no "OFC/OMC" category is gone for good, would you at least mind explaining the reasoning? From where I stand parts of the baby are being thrown out with the bathwater.

I also wonder about the lack of response in regards to the implementation of a search function...Is this because no plans have been made as of yet or because a search function has been deemed unnecessary? If the general categories stand to grow into behemoths, doesn't it stand to reason that searching through them should be an option?

[DemonGoddess]

Haven't gotten to the indepth reorganization yet. We've started THAT now. If you read what's posted in the announcements section about this, you'll see that the way it's being done is methodical. We'll be getting to each section, but please remember that we're looking at 100,000 individual STORIES throughout all these subdomains. That's alot to sort through. Not to mention, we're looking at several different things PER STORY uploaded.

As to the search function...yes, the one we have is bloody awful. However, there are plans to replace it in the future. It worked for the size this all was way back in the beginning, but does NOT work in the way we need with the size we are now. We're definitely aware of this, it's on a very long list of "to do's" that are being addressed.

[tally.k]

I really agree with bringing back the Snape/OFC category. There are many stories in that category that have now been moved elsewhere and will be incredibly difficult to locate - having to search through a multitude of other general pairings.

[losingmybeautifulmind]

Hello,

My name is Zoey, and I would like to request that you would place, "Snape/OFC", or any other OFC ships back to the website, I heavily believe that its easier, when Im trying to find a good "Snape/OFC" ship, its much harder than before. I'm quite a techie myself and a website owned I understand why YOU, as the mods and such have changed it, but as a reader of this site its much to difficult. Im sorry if I was rude in anyway as I try not to be.

Thank you very much for reading,

Zoey(Beautifulheart)

[Scarybearhair]

Oh my gosh, I am so bummed that you have removed the very popular Snape/OFC section. I keep reading too, that you have no intention of bringing it back either. Consequently I am requesting that you please reconsider. I absolutely love this site and I hate to think of some of my favorite authors leaving simply because they don't feel like they have a place where they can post their stories anymore. I realize as moderators that you are very busy. I also realize you are overworked. I appreciate all the time you put in for making this an excellent site and thank you! I have to ask you though, is it really that hard to bring back one very popular category?

Sincerely

Scary B

[magpie79]

3) As both a programmer and a bookworm I'm sure I'm not being unreasonable, unreasonable would be getting rid of the harry potter zone entierly.

Now if you do not mind, there are more important things that need doing, and apeasing unreasonable demands is not one of them.

Manta2g

Hi, I've only just joined the forum,came on to look at the debate about bringing back the Snape/OFC section and saw this, do you realise how rude this post is?

Is there any need to be like that? I can understand it might be difficult trying to sort these things out but at the end of the day you do it out of choice, I've never seen a mod or administrator be so uneccesarily mean to a post before, I think an apology is in order to Trickywoo.

Be nice guys

XXX

Mags

[Solaris]

I can understand it might be difficult trying to sort these things out but at the end of the day you do it out of choice, I've never seen a mod or administrator be so uneccesarily mean to a post before, I think an apology is in order to Trickywoo.

Be nice guys

XXX

Mags

Mags,

Manta was being as rude as she was being polite, Mags, hell, I have seen her post much worse and dare I say it she has a mean tongue when she is reprimanding someone. And she was to Trickie Woo, reprimanding her or him in a rude but yet still polite manner.

Beth

[losingmybeautifulmind]

Mags,

Manta was being as rude as she was being polite, Mags, hell, I have seen her post much worse and dare I say it she has a mean tongue when she is reprimanding someone. And she was to Trickie Woo, reprimanding her or him in a rude but yet still polite manner.

Beth

Beth,

Although she may have posted much worst before, Im sure Trickie Woo is older than five and doesn't need to be reprimended. Nor does anyone else in this site as everyone is over 18(Or should be). I did not see anything polite in what Manta said.

Although you have rights over many of us here on the site, all of us could easily never come back, and you won't have power over anyone. Thats something mods need to learn. All you have to say is, "No, Snape/OFC catagory is not coming back." and everyone can leave and the mods can go on with their merry little selves.

I don't see anything wrong with what Trickie Woo was suggesting as Fanfiction.net does own a server very much like she explained. Maybe you should listen to your viewers and not "reprimend" them.

Thank you for reading,

Beautifulheart

Edited April 22, 2008 by losingmybeautifulmind

[DemonGoddess]

Once again, you people that are complaining are missing the entire POINT here. You complain without knowing just what the hell exactly we're up against, with the database itself, and old outdated software. You complain thinking that because ff.net is the way it is, that we should then be the same way as them. With software, and everything. You don't BOTHER to read the rest of what actually is going on and being done, other things posted that are and were far worse about this elsewhere in this forum (insofar as post content), nor are you willing to factor in the time involved in the task itself. You'd rather just gripe. and gripe. and gripe some more.

[Guest C.Davisia]

Once again, you people that are complaining are missing the entire POINT here. You complain without knowing just what the hell exactly we're up against, with the database itself, and old outdated software. You complain thinking that because ff.net is the way it is, that we should then be the same way as them. With software, and everything. You don't BOTHER to read the rest of what actually is going on and being done, other things posted that are and were far worse about this elsewhere in this forum (insofar as post content), nor are you willing to factor in the time involved in the task itself. You'd rather just gripe. and gripe. and gripe some more.

You know, I have read through all the posts; all of the readers and authors that are nicely requesting the return of an extremely popular section of your website. In return these people are being responded to in less than professional manner. I read your snide replies that are lacking in the most basic of common courtesies, and I am left asking "how does that make sense?". The very people who write and read, buy your products, donate their money, offer up their creative abilities for the entertainment and advancement of everyone concerned with the website are being treated as if they were little more than gnats. Do you not realize these people are the driving force of your website?

These people are asking why the section was deleted, what is happening with the search engine. You offer a paltry and long winded explanation on the home page, and then become defensive when people aren't happy with your work. The way I see it Tricky Woo was asking a very pertinent question, she was responded to in a shameful way. If the minions, (as you people seem to view us), are rising in anger who is really to blame? Seems to me that if you can't handle the requisite responsibilities of moderating a website without giving into the overwhelming stress and becoming little more than dogs foaming at the mouths, then perhaps you should step down.

C.Davisa

P.S. I am sure that I will be kicked off of the site, and that to me no longer matters. I would never offer word nor dime to a site so lacking in the nurturing capability that is required to create a world of words and enjoyment.

P.P.S. For shame Mags, how dare you respond so crudely to so relevant a question....That Beth is reprimanding, what Mags did before was nothing more than a cruel attempt to strike out at someone. And no matter how you dress it up, it is still wrong!

[Guest C.Davisia]

P.P.S. For shame Mags, how dare you respond so crudely to so relevant a question....That Beth is reprimanding, what Mags did before was nothing more than a cruel attempt to strike out at someone. And no matter how you dress it up, it is still wrong!

I am soooo sorry Mags, I mis-typed! You are not to be "shamed". You seem to be very sweet, best of wishes. I am terribly sorry, I just get so very angry when people are so sorely mistreated. Please accept my apologies!

Manta2g, you really should be ashamed.

C.Davisia

[Solaris]

If anyone wishes to talk about this in a polite manner and try to see it from the POV of the site owner and the mods, feel free to PM any of the mods who spoke in the thread about it.

This thread is now closed.

Beth

[DemonGoddess]

pffft. Doesn't matter how much we disagree with each other, that has no bearing on whether or not a user is kicked. Certainly isn't a REASON to. Again, as a guest poster, there are posts you've not seen which are actually relevant and pertinent to this discussion.

I have asked repeatedly for patience while we go through this very large database (in those other posts I'm referencing), and correct many many things. That's not too much to ask, now is it?

Would you rather that we not bust our asses AFTER we get off work, in order to stabilize this thing? So we can have a crash like what occurred in 2003? THAT is exactly where we WERE headed.

I have addressed the search engine question numerous times. So here I go again.

The search engine, such as it is, was by design made for a much smaller database. It is not made to handle the load of a 6GB database, which is what we have. Due to major changes in coding languages which RUN these programs, in order to make a better search engine, it has to be rewritten. When it is rewritten (which is in progress), the query language itself has also changed tremendously from the time that this original program was written, so the queries themselves within the script need completely redone in order to work in a manner which will allow more thorough search of the database, without OVERLOADING the database. If, for example, the current search engine was given more search options, it is LIKELY that it would open up too many connections to the database itself. When that happens, the SQL server resets. When the SQL server resets, ALL the programs go down for 15 minutes to an hour. For obvious reasons, there is no tweaking we can do to the current search engine. That's exactly why it's being replaced. However, it does take time to make sure that once that module is written, that it is compatible to what is already there. Not only that, it takes time to WRITE this sub routine in the first place. Realistically, it will not be ready to launch until the beta version of the new program is. That is simply due to the fact that there are incompatibilities between the version of language this was written in years ago, and the version that we have to work with now.

[manta2g]

*sighs* I'm not ashamed of what I said, it was true, demanding those ofc catergories back any sooner then we can accomodate is unreasonable. I do have more important things to do, such as the reprogramming that can add an extra level of sub categories more then what we curently can. Demongoddess has been a world of help by doing the reorganizing of the categories and database cleanup because it's setting it all up to make the coding changes go smoother.

I'm a harsh person, but i've seen too much of whiners getting thier way and everyone suffering for it. the 2003 crash was the worst, but we had also had a 2005 and 2006 crash, wich prompted the subdivide, politics for the site happened mid 2006 and most of 2007 and what should had been done as stage two was never done, and when I came back in september, we were headed even with subdivide a 2007 crash. We manage to stabilize it enough to prevent the crash. So what you see now is a well planned stage 2, clean up and reorganizing, stage 3 is the first round of reprograming, and stage 4 is the final rework, after stage 3 or 4 deeper subcatlevels will be available. Till then any demands will be viewed as unreasonable.

Manta2g