 |
 |
++ Joe Montibello, MLIS Library Systems Manager Dartmouth College Library 603.646.9394 [log in to unmask] On 7/8/13 9:53 AM, "Shaun Ellis" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >I like the idea of vote to promote as well as having a searchable >archive of answers on the web. For me it comes down to it being "out of >sight, out of mind". It has to come to my "inbox" for me to pay >attention, which is one of the nice features of the "Code4Lib Jobs" >app. In that vein, StackExchange has an API, which could be used to >simply forward a daily digest of questions to the mailing list. If all >we need is an increase in traffic to establish the forum, that might do >it. > >Questions could be tagged with "code4lib" to make them easy to >aggregate. For example, we can get all the "php" tagged questions >posted in the past day: > >http://api.stackexchange.com/2.1/questions?fromdate=1373155200&todate=1373 >241600&order=desc&sort=activity&tagged=php&site=stackoverflow > >-Shaun > > >On 7/7/13 4:46 PM, Galen Charlton wrote: >> The main thing that the SE model adds is the ability to build up a set >>(in >> one, search-engine-visible place) of consensus answers to questions over >> time via the process of commenting and up-voting. In other words, I >>view >> it as a way to maybe achieve a community-built FAQ or best practices >> database. Mailing lists and IRC channels provide immediacy, but there >>are >> some important library mailing lists whose archives are not >>(intentionally) >> accessible to search engines, and there are none that I'm aware of that >>try >> to maintain a community-curated set of "best" questions and answers. >> >> Of course, for that model to work, there has to be a sizable number >>people >> participating and actually getting answers to their questions (as >>opposed >> to caviling about asking their questions "properly"). Providing >>immediate >> and (hopefully) well-informed answers to questions would have to be >> priority for the community of users; a goal of building a knowledge >> base would not be achievable without a recognition that it's >>necessarily a >> secondary goal. >> >