Suggested Review Title Conventions and Standards

User avatar
Kit Craft
Posts: 4706
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:57 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Suggested Review Title Conventions and Standards

Post by Kit Craft » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:59 am

I thought it looked fairly consistent.

Radar53
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:44 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Suggested Review Title Conventions and Standards

Post by Radar53 » Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:28 pm

I really like Jeff's suggestion because it gets so that everything is in sync. I'm maybe guessing a bit here, but I wonder if the main "path" to review, is that someone sees a knife, or is referred to a knife on the CKTG site. They go there, become interested in it & then want to get some expert views or reassurance. So from this perspective it would be great perhaps to put on the CKTG shop page a link to the "Customer Review" thread on the forum plus a note to search for the "standardised" page title from the CKTG product page.

It also then makes it really easy for someone making a review and then someone seeking reviews, to simply cut & past from the CKTG shop page. Much less fafing around trying to work out if is should be B2, B#2, Aogami 2 yada yada, because someone else has already done all that for you?
Cheers Grant

Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not going to get you!!

salemj
Posts: 2559
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:27 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Re: Suggested Review Title Conventions and Standards

Post by salemj » Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:16 pm

I'm just going to try to follow the original post. Not that I don't sympathize with many of the comments, but just because it is a lot easier to just look at the original post.

Nonetheless, here's my contribution in case a revision is in order: searches work better when you can use less. If the requirement merely started with: < Review: Masamoto > or the primary name of any maker or smith, followed by any other information, then you would at least know that if you searched for capital Review: [Capital maker, profile], you would always at least get hits that were close to the mark, and, to be honest, that were probably relevant regardless of the specific size or steel, since many people consider maker or smith first. Since the search feature is very finicky about capitals, order, spaces etc., etc., this really seems far more important to me than the other information, since the other stuff introduces a zillion variables that will cause failed searches, anyway. So, I would focus on two main identifiers with extremely consistent syntax and capitals (Review: Smith or Brand) as the starting point.

I happen to have worked in libraries and do lots of cataloging projects for archive research and music libraries. Even in such systems as these, things like Blue 2, Blue #2, Aogami, etc., cause all sorts of problems over time. But with how limited and basic the forum is, sticking to the "index" feature as the first two words and a colon is much safer (there are still issues, but far viewer). It allows all search results to be quickly sorted as "reviews," and beyond that you'll never get more than 1-2 dozen hits total, so looking at actual titles for the best fit is still minimal work.
~Joe

Comments: I'm short, a home cook, prefer lighter, thinner blades, and own mostly Konosukes but have used over a dozen brands.

User avatar
Kit Craft
Posts: 4706
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:57 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Suggested Review Title Conventions and Standards

Post by Kit Craft » Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:25 pm

salemj wrote:
Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:16 pm
I'm just going to try to follow the original post. Not that I don't sympathize with many of the comments, but just because it is a lot easier to just look at the original post.

Nonetheless, here's my contribution in case a revision is in order: searches work better when you can use less. If the requirement merely started with: < Review: Masamoto > or the primary name of any maker or smith, followed by any other information, then you would at least know that if you searched for capital Review: [Capital maker, profile], you would always at least get hits that were close to the mark, and, to be honest, that were probably relevant regardless of the specific size or steel, since many people consider maker or smith first. Since the search feature is very finicky about capitals, order, spaces etc., etc., this really seems far more important to me than the other information, since the other stuff introduces a zillion variables that will cause failed searches, anyway. So, I would focus on two main identifiers with extremely consistent syntax and capitals (Review: Smith or Brand) as the starting point.

I happen to have worked in libraries and do lots of cataloging projects for archive research and music libraries. Even in such systems as these, things like Blue 2, Blue #2, Aogami, etc., cause all sorts of problems over time. But with how limited and basic the forum is, sticking to the "index" feature as the first two words and a colon is much safer (there are still issues, but far viewer). It allows all search results to be quickly sorted as "reviews," and beyond that you'll never get more than 1-2 dozen hits total, so looking at actual titles for the best fit is still minimal work.
I agree that less is more. If I search for just the maker I seem to get more hits than if I am more specific. That said, I use google to search rather than the internal site feature. For all I know it might be the same but on a google search the info is a hell of a lot easier to sort through than on a forum. Plus if I look at older data I can see photos that otherwise would not work due to PB being a turd. That will eventually no longer work but for now it does. :lol:

One issue that can not be corrected for searching is knives that are sold under different names at every vendor. :lol: Tadafusa, anyone? Loads and loads more. But I realize that this is obviously geared to a CKTG search. This is another story, regardless but something that just jumped out at me.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests