On 9/3/21 1:21 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi - I think that the CLC application’s UI is what caused the negative reaction. It looks like a scoring system because it presents that way. This may be fine, but if your purpose is evaluate what you can do to improve your repository a more exploratory system would be more helpful and less intimidating. (1) There are actually only a few words that are being flagged. Ones that are problematic according to the context. (2) I don’t think that scorekeeping is helpful, but search would be.
As someone who has this work as a job responsibility, scorekeeping is very helpful, in the "how much progress have you made on this" kind of question that my manager asks every Thursday at 1pm.
What if repositories were indexed in Apache Solr and guided search forms created? The results could be in Solr’s default UI. A project could then perform whatever research they wanted. Putting repositories into a search engine serves other purposes as well.
Yes, that does indeed sound useful, for projects that already have a notion of what words/phrases/patterns they wish to address in their project.
Also what we need to do more of is documentation of words/phrases with 1) reason why it might be a problem and 2) recommended/suggested replacements/rewordings.
-- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com @rbowen
