Weave Admin Position
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
   
Author Message

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3064
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Re: Weave Admin Position
Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:01 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
Just to be clear, this is not:
A popularity contest -- I don't want to hear WHO YOU want to be weave Admin... I want to hear from YOU if YOU want to be Weave Admin
A vote thread -- Nominations will be discussed amongst the BOD in the Admin Forum
An invitation to argue -- Let's keep it civil, please.

Thank You.




Joined: January 17, 2013
Posts: 373
Submissions: 5
Location: Probably in the garage...

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:31 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Ahhh, come on DL.... ok, I vote for DL Wink

Ok here goes, I've been trying to post a rant about "the current state of the weaves library" for a few weeks now but I never seem to hit submit. Seeing how the issue would fall into the hands of the new WA, I'm curious to know what others think about this.

Contrary to my usual posts, I'll try to keep it short. /update 6 hours later /HA!

The "Weaves Library" contains a bunch of items that are not weaves, examples are plentiful and most of the proposed solutions to "clean it up" are extremely time consuming or otherwise complicated. IMO, the weaves library IS what people come here for and it's one of the first things they'll browse when they come to M.A.I.L.. I'm of the opinion that M.A.I.L. is the best on-line resource for maille information but I'm concerned that users are getting "bad information" by browsing the weaves library. By bad info, I mean that many of the "weave" examples are NOT weaves and would not pass the current validation to be listed as such but every new user that spends 15 minutes looking through the library will very quickly conclude that any variation on a weave can and IS a distinct weave due to the abundance of examples that indicate so. The weaves library should be a definitive list of known and repeatable weaves, not a gallery for people who got here before we changed the rules. The weave library should be a starting point that shows "real" weaves at a base level so a user can clearly understand the differences between them.

/Switches to another tab and presses the "Random Weave" link.

Get's a link to Old Lace by Nárrína that has the following description.

"Old Lace is based on a variation of Two-Way Spiral in which some of the rings have been doubled. This weave is a web version of that variation."

I'd link to it but the URL ends in "weavedisplay.php?key=rand"... tried to add to my favourites but it added "full persian 6-1 sheet" instead. Found it, http://mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=715

Anyway so "Old Lace" is a variation on a variation, ummm, I heard somewhere that a weave was "A unique and indefinitely repeatable pattern of rings, characterized by the connections between rings, and containing only rings that serve to maintain the physical structure thereof or to connect an instance of the pattern to an adjacent instance." Just to be clear, I'm not picking on Nárrína it just happened to be a perfect example for the situation. Now that was submitted 6 years ago and I'm guessing the validation rules where much laxer at that point.

We've all seen and many of us have been a part of the seemingly routine "Is this a new weave?" threads, they come up all the time. Why is that? IMO, it's because of a weaves library that contains a bunch of mis-leading examples of what a weave is.

At this point I see little difference or value between the weaves library and the gallery. Both contain weaves and non-weaves alike. When people come here they want to learn how to build something and the logical place to start is with a repeatable, known weave list, which you'd expect to find in the weave library. If I wanted a random picture telling me it's blah with an extra ring and nothing else, I'd browse the gallery. I want pictures of things I CAN build and will learn from! Is that not the point of the site? To share useful information.

/Switches back to that other tab and presses the Random Weave link 20 times, 1 out of 20 was a base weave, all the others where "it's blah with an extra ring here" or "it's a variation on blah". Only two of them had tutorial links, all the others a just named variations on something else.

No wonder people keep asking if they've made a new weave, we keep showing them examples of non-weaves with no indication of how to build them or much else but hey "it's a weave". So when someone builds something new and they submit it only to have it declined as a variation on blah, when there are fifty named weaves in the library that are just variations on blah. It's quite discouraging.

I'll use a personal example, my Four Core unit/chain. You can see them here and here, you can also read the thread on it's discovery and how to make it (one picture describes the build process) over here. So as you probably noticed it's not in the weave library, it's in the gallery. So here is a "weave" err "Euro/Helm variant" that has distinct behaviours, only works at a certain AR, has multiple purposes and is stupidly easy to build it. So instead of people getting a useful piece of maille that someone could easily learn to build (thus boosting their confidence and likely hood of returning) along with having multiple purposes, no they get something like Don't Hit Your Sister / I MEAN IT!... again I'm not trying to pick on previous submitters, the random link just keeps feeding me gold today.

I get Nárrína's choice to not approve Fore Core as a weave based on the technical aspect of it looking like E6-1 and as such being a variant but other than looking like E6-1, it's completely different. I did try to appeal her thinking but I wasn't able to convince her and don't get me wrong based on the image it seems that simple. As many of you know when it comes to maille words, an image (or ten) sometimes just can't convey the same understanding as touching a piece of maille can.

Don't get me wrong the foundation that Nárrína has put in place is quite good, it defines things well but I think it's a bit too quick to lump things into a certain classification. "Is that a duck?", "It's got feathers, wings, a beak and it lays eggs.", "That matches my check list for a duck." Ugly ducklings aside, based on that you could consider a humming bird, an eagle or even an ostrich as a "duck". Sure they're all "birds" but they're significantly different from each other. I'm not suggesting we need to further classify things but there should be certain trigger points that let certain variations/patterns and design choices override any "family ties" making it it's own "weave". In particular if it has strange behaviours or different traits from it's parent weave and it's reproducible.

Ok, it's a variant but when does a variant become it's own "weave"? How many base characteristics need to change before it's deemed that, even though it is blah it's just so different from blah that it should have it's own name? I've seen quite a few "new weave" post that are just simple variations but I've seen a few that in mind should be given a name and a place given they are innovative and best of all repeatable.

Now I'd love to get credit for thinking up a weave but I'd much rather if people could just get to a useful, known and repeatable piece of maille from the weave library over a picture of something someone somehow once created with no further information about it. IMO both Old Lace and Don't Hit Your Sister / I MEAN IT! should be in the gallery, neither of them would qualify as weaves by the current rules nor do they provide much value to someone trying to learn about maille so why are they still there? (I know why, keep reading)

Most of you reading this thread know how and why the weaves library got to the state it's in currently and why the admins have now had to take a much sterner approach to weave approvals but the average user probably isn't reading these threads to know the history, if they even read the forums at all. So what I'll call "typical users" are right now using the weave library as a guide to what is a weave. Which nearly brings me to my point(s)/question(s).

/thinks he's failed on the keeping it short part...

As defined above, I really think the current weave library needs some work.

If the weaves library were a printed catalogue it would be 5" thick, with all sorts of images of named products with descriptions. Excitedly you'd call the number (feeling old here) or go on-line to order the product only to be told it was a one time item that no longer exists, no clue how you'd make one, honestly not to sure why it's in the catalogue but there it is... /thinks he should have started with that.

To me a weave is a reproducible pattern with certain known characteristics. Even if it has a beak, lays eggs and has webbed feet, my duck-billed platypus is not a duck, don't tell me it is.

After all that, there are three main issues as I see them. First we need to clean up the weaves library, second I think there should be more than one weave admin and third the definition or validation of a weave should probably change.

How to address these issues?

RE: weaves library, DL (as if you could make it out of here without having to make some kind of code changes) could you make a button available to selected users for the purpose of reporting a non-weave? My thought process is that if a few of the willing frequent users (looks at who's posted the the thread) could start placing an "invisible to users" flag on a weave, once say 5 of us have flagged a weave the weave admins can then look at it and debate it's merits. If it's still a base weave by today's standards then it stays otherwise it goes to the "Once considered a weave, library" or the gallery or well just about anywhere other than the first place the whole world looks to when trying to find a "weave".

I think the weaves library should be solely that a list of known and repeatable weaves that serves as a starting point to show what the base weaves are with forward pointers showing what they lead to instead of always showing what something came from. I'm probably using the wrong terms but we branch or link back to the source weave not away from it. Off the top that seems like a massive task but if the weave library only contained real base weaves it probably wouldn't be that bad to branch out and have pointers to other accepted weaves of the same family.

RE: Weave Admins, as you probably noticed I still think Four Core should be a weave. Compared to many of the other weaves in the library at least it's repeatable, easy to make and I like that similar to JPL3 it's AR constrained so it helps raise AR awareness without being as massively frustrating as trying to build JPL3 with the wrong AR. I'd like to see it in the weaves library some day as I think is it one of those "while it is blah, it's just too different", weaves. Being able to state my case to more that one admin (maybe one of them would make a piece and understand just WTH I'm talking about) would have been nice. Knowing that more than one person is in agreement with the decision would probably make a lot of people feel better about their approval or denial. I'd suggest a panel of three or five "weave admins" that vote on "weave" approvals. Let the bureaucratic nightmare begin.

RE: What is a weave? For the love of whatever... can we please not say it's a

"A unique and indefinitely repeatable pattern of rings, characterized by the connections between rings, and containing only rings that serve to maintain the physical structure thereof or to connect an instance of the pattern to an adjacent instance."

/calls his lawyer to find out what that means
/hears a click at the other end of the phone
/yells at Saul for a few minutes
/thinks he should get a new lawyer Wink

I've read EULAs that make more sense than that definition. Aside from understanding the words used in the definition, I'm at a loss to use that definition to determine if something is a weave or not.

I don't know how to better the definition at the moment but I'm sure we can think of something that makes a bit more sense off the top. Maybe something like "a weave is a reproducible pattern with certain known characteristics". Provide a check list of what criteria a weave needs to meet to qualify as a new weave.

/knows he massively failed at keeping it short....

My questions (OMFG Finally!!!).

1. Do people agree that the weave library is a in rough shape and needs a reorg?
2. How would you propose "fixing" the library?
3. Do people think having more than one admin for approvals is a good idea?
4. How would you define a "weave" and what criteria needs to be met to make your choice?
5. Tell me as a prospective weave admin, why you would or wouldn't you approve Four Core as a weave.
6. When do you think a weave has grown out of it's parents shadow, so to speak and becomes it's own weave and how would you determine so?

I'm not trying to find a person that agrees with me about Four Core so I can push to have them put in as a weave admin to get Four Core listed as a weave, it just seems like a fair question to someone that will need to make these choices in the future.

I've probably missed 9 other things I wanted to bring up, somehow insulted a few of you and surely pissed off at least one person but it's now late and I'm tired. Maybe my next post will be less than two thousand words... (don't count on it.)


Mostly Harmless

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:51 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Long post. I agree with you, mostly. I didn't find a place Where I was offended or felt "that was wrong".

Now to answers:
1. Yes.
2. Your Idea is great, but I would like to Add a systematical tidying of certain tags. NSR is imho redundant.
3. Yes; that would lead to more non-Hierarchial discussion on submissions.
4. I feel the current definition is good, but could be clarified. While I feel that byz and S/CIRS don't match the definition, I feel that S/CIRS should be consisered a weave. The problem with S/CIRS is that there are Two independent Grains, and we should decide on such matters.
5. As with byz, there is a problem. There are independently repeatable segments. While I can see that it offers difference, I would not believe it is more than a design Choice without a more detailed analysis submitted on why it should be a weave.
6. That is the hardest question! Certain things are easy. HP4-1B differs hugely from HP4-1U and HP3-1. The problem arises with the latter two, as they are base chains for HP6-1S & FP6-1 and HP8-1S & FP8-1 respectivly. The transition from infinite möbius to defined möbius in Brejao Flowers, Moorish Rose and m3 is almost enough for me, but the problem arises with m3, as it's unique in that as a hex web, it can transition into hoodoo hex sheet. With the knowledge of hoodoo, I would require the moorish argument to accept m3. The connection between m3/brejao segments is just a 2-1 segment, though. Brejao flowers turns into hoodoo, when adding rings to the 2-1 connection... It all depends on what is brought forth in the process. As M3 is the logical regression of brejao flowers, it's validity can be questioned with the existance of hoodoo hex, Likewise, Hoodoo sheet questioned brejao flowers.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: March 25, 2002
Posts: 84
Submissions: 30
Location: Selden, NY

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:56 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

...

Right, this was a thread for volunteering as Weave Admin.

...switching back to the topic...

Been around a while, mostly nonvocal here, would happily apprentice to Primary Weave Admin as an assistant to construct, evaluate, and document submissions.

Position on Library is/are:

-Would love to increase clarity on weave tagging (tag for "Multiple Ring Sizes", "Multiple Wire Sizes", etc)
-Do not support excessive removal of data. Non-ring-shaped things... yes.
-Support documenting variants in library that have structural, non-decorative additions, limited progressions.
-Would like to, as part of weave assistant job, create additional examples of submitted weaves as gallery images as additional reference. May include limited tutorial generation. (I finally have a realcamera, yay!)
-Available (minimum) 3-5 hrs weekly for above tasks.

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:49 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Levi wrote:
Ahhh, come on DL.... ok, I vote for DL Wink

Ok here goes, I've been trying to post a rant about "the current state of the weaves library" for a few weeks now but I never seem to hit submit. Seeing how the issue would fall into the hands of the new WA, I'm curious to know what others think about this.

Contrary to my usual posts, I'll try to keep it short. /update 6 hours later /HA!

The "Weaves Library" contains a bunch of items that are not weaves, examples are plentiful and most of the proposed solutions to "clean it up" are extremely time consuming or otherwise complicated. IMO, the weaves library IS what people come here for and it's one of the first things they'll browse when they come to M.A.I.L.. I'm of the opinion that M.A.I.L. is the best on-line resource for maille information but I'm concerned that users are getting "bad information" by browsing the weaves library. By bad info, I mean that many of the "weave" examples are NOT weaves and would not pass the current validation to be listed as such but every new user that spends 15 minutes looking through the library will very quickly conclude that any variation on a weave can and IS a distinct weave due to the abundance of examples that indicate so. The weaves library should be a definitive list of known and repeatable weaves, not a gallery for people who got here before we changed the rules. The weave library should be a starting point that shows "real" weaves at a base level so a user can clearly understand the differences between them.

/Switches to another tab and presses the "Random Weave" link.

Get's a link to Old Lace by Nárrína that has the following description.

"Old Lace is based on a variation of Two-Way Spiral in which some of the rings have been doubled. This weave is a web version of that variation."

I'd link to it but the URL ends in "weavedisplay.php?key=rand"... tried to add to my favourites but it added "full persian 6-1 sheet" instead. Found it, http://mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=715

Anyway so "Old Lace" is a variation on a variation, ummm, I heard somewhere that a weave was "A unique and indefinitely repeatable pattern of rings, characterized by the connections between rings, and containing only rings that serve to maintain the physical structure thereof or to connect an instance of the pattern to an adjacent instance." Just to be clear, I'm not picking on Nárrína it just happened to be a perfect example for the situation. Now that was submitted 6 years ago and I'm guessing the validation rules where much laxer at that point.

We've all seen and many of us have been a part of the seemingly routine "Is this a new weave?" threads, they come up all the time. Why is that? IMO, it's because of a weaves library that contains a bunch of mis-leading examples of what a weave is.

At this point I see little difference or value between the weaves library and the gallery. Both contain weaves and non-weaves alike. When people come here they want to learn how to build something and the logical place to start is with a repeatable, known weave list, which you'd expect to find in the weave library. If I wanted a random picture telling me it's blah with an extra ring and nothing else, I'd browse the gallery. I want pictures of things I CAN build and will learn from! Is that not the point of the site? To share useful information.

/Switches back to that other tab and presses the Random Weave link 20 times, 1 out of 20 was a base weave, all the others where "it's blah with an extra ring here" or "it's a variation on blah". Only two of them had tutorial links, all the others a just named variations on something else.

No wonder people keep asking if they've made a new weave, we keep showing them examples of non-weaves with no indication of how to build them or much else but hey "it's a weave". So when someone builds something new and they submit it only to have it declined as a variation on blah, when there are fifty named weaves in the library that are just variations on blah. It's quite discouraging.

I'll use a personal example, my Four Core unit/chain. You can see them here and here, you can also read the thread on it's discovery and how to make it (one picture describes the build process) over here. So as you probably noticed it's not in the weave library, it's in the gallery. So here is a "weave" err "Euro/Helm variant" that has distinct behaviours, only works at a certain AR, has multiple purposes and is stupidly easy to build it. So instead of people getting a useful piece of maille that someone could easily learn to build (thus boosting their confidence and likely hood of returning) along with having multiple purposes, no they get something like Don't Hit Your Sister / I MEAN IT!... again I'm not trying to pick on previous submitters, the random link just keeps feeding me gold today.

I get Nárrína's choice to not approve Fore Core as a weave based on the technical aspect of it looking like E6-1 and as such being a variant but other than looking like E6-1, it's completely different. I did try to appeal her thinking but I wasn't able to convince her and don't get me wrong based on the image it seems that simple. As many of you know when it comes to maille words, an image (or ten) sometimes just can't convey the same understanding as touching a piece of maille can.

Don't get me wrong the foundation that Nárrína has put in place is quite good, it defines things well but I think it's a bit too quick to lump things into a certain classification. "Is that a duck?", "It's got feathers, wings, a beak and it lays eggs.", "That matches my check list for a duck." Ugly ducklings aside, based on that you could consider a humming bird, an eagle or even an ostrich as a "duck". Sure they're all "birds" but they're significantly different from each other. I'm not suggesting we need to further classify things but there should be certain trigger points that let certain variations/patterns and design choices override any "family ties" making it it's own "weave". In particular if it has strange behaviours or different traits from it's parent weave and it's reproducible.

Ok, it's a variant but when does a variant become it's own "weave"? How many base characteristics need to change before it's deemed that, even though it is blah it's just so different from blah that it should have it's own name? I've seen quite a few "new weave" post that are just simple variations but I've seen a few that in mind should be given a name and a place given they are innovative and best of all repeatable.

Now I'd love to get credit for thinking up a weave but I'd much rather if people could just get to a useful, known and repeatable piece of maille from the weave library over a picture of something someone somehow once created with no further information about it. IMO both Old Lace and Don't Hit Your Sister / I MEAN IT! should be in the gallery, neither of them would qualify as weaves by the current rules nor do they provide much value to someone trying to learn about maille so why are they still there? (I know why, keep reading)

Most of you reading this thread know how and why the weaves library got to the state it's in currently and why the admins have now had to take a much sterner approach to weave approvals but the average user probably isn't reading these threads to know the history, if they even read the forums at all. So what I'll call "typical users" are right now using the weave library as a guide to what is a weave. Which nearly brings me to my point(s)/question(s).

/thinks he's failed on the keeping it short part...

As defined above, I really think the current weave library needs some work.

If the weaves library were a printed catalogue it would be 5" thick, with all sorts of images of named products with descriptions. Excitedly you'd call the number (feeling old here) or go on-line to order the product only to be told it was a one time item that no longer exists, no clue how you'd make one, honestly not to sure why it's in the catalogue but there it is... /thinks he should have started with that.

To me a weave is a reproducible pattern with certain known characteristics. Even if it has a beak, lays eggs and has webbed feet, my duck-billed platypus is not a duck, don't tell me it is.

After all that, there are three main issues as I see them. First we need to clean up the weaves library, second I think there should be more than one weave admin and third the definition or validation of a weave should probably change.

How to address these issues?

RE: weaves library, DL (as if you could make it out of here without having to make some kind of code changes) could you make a button available to selected users for the purpose of reporting a non-weave? My thought process is that if a few of the willing frequent users (looks at who's posted the the thread) could start placing an "invisible to users" flag on a weave, once say 5 of us have flagged a weave the weave admins can then look at it and debate it's merits. If it's still a base weave by today's standards then it stays otherwise it goes to the "Once considered a weave, library" or the gallery or well just about anywhere other than the first place the whole world looks to when trying to find a "weave".

I think the weaves library should be solely that a list of known and repeatable weaves that serves as a starting point to show what the base weaves are with forward pointers showing what they lead to instead of always showing what something came from. I'm probably using the wrong terms but we branch or link back to the source weave not away from it. Off the top that seems like a massive task but if the weave library only contained real base weaves it probably wouldn't be that bad to branch out and have pointers to other accepted weaves of the same family.

RE: Weave Admins, as you probably noticed I still think Four Core should be a weave. Compared to many of the other weaves in the library at least it's repeatable, easy to make and I like that similar to JPL3 it's AR constrained so it helps raise AR awareness without being as massively frustrating as trying to build JPL3 with the wrong AR. I'd like to see it in the weaves library some day as I think is it one of those "while it is blah, it's just too different", weaves. Being able to state my case to more that one admin (maybe one of them would make a piece and understand just WTH I'm talking about) would have been nice. Knowing that more than one person is in agreement with the decision would probably make a lot of people feel better about their approval or denial. I'd suggest a panel of three or five "weave admins" that vote on "weave" approvals. Let the bureaucratic nightmare begin.

RE: What is a weave? For the love of whatever... can we please not say it's a

"A unique and indefinitely repeatable pattern of rings, characterized by the connections between rings, and containing only rings that serve to maintain the physical structure thereof or to connect an instance of the pattern to an adjacent instance."

/calls his lawyer to find out what that means
/hears a click at the other end of the phone
/yells at Saul for a few minutes
/thinks he should get a new lawyer Wink

I've read EULAs that make more sense than that definition. Aside from understanding the words used in the definition, I'm at a loss to use that definition to determine if something is a weave or not.

I don't know how to better the definition at the moment but I'm sure we can think of something that makes a bit more sense off the top. Maybe something like "a weave is a reproducible pattern with certain known characteristics". Provide a check list of what criteria a weave needs to meet to qualify as a new weave.

/knows he massively failed at keeping it short....

My questions (OMFG Finally!!!).

1. Do people agree that the weave library is a in rough shape and needs a reorg?
2. How would you propose "fixing" the library?
3. Do people think having more than one admin for approvals is a good idea?
4. How would you define a "weave" and what criteria needs to be met to make your choice?
5. Tell me as a prospective weave admin, why you would or wouldn't you approve Four Core as a weave.
6. When do you think a weave has grown out of it's parents shadow, so to speak and becomes it's own weave and how would you determine so?

I'm not trying to find a person that agrees with me about Four Core so I can push to have them put in as a weave admin to get Four Core listed as a weave, it just seems like a fair question to someone that will need to make these choices in the future.

I've probably missed 9 other things I wanted to bring up, somehow insulted a few of you and surely pissed off at least one person but it's now late and I'm tired. Maybe my next post will be less than two thousand words... (don't count on it.)

Overall, I really like your post. To be perfectly honest, I did not look at your Four Core weave submission in this post, although I probably saw it in the queue when it was first submitted (but I honestly don't remember). In my opinion, there has to be one person who makes the final decision on what does or does not go into the weaves library. Right now, any of the admins who care to make a comment can make a comment on weave submissions. There must be a "final voice". As long as all admins can comment and make their opinions known, I don't think there should be multiple weave admins.

1. Do people agree that the weave library is a in rough shape and needs a reorg?
No, I don't entirely agree. Rewriting the history of the weaves library is not helpful.

2. How would you propose "fixing" the library?
There are a few changes I would make. Some "weaves" are not really weaves... but I would not appreciate a drastic change.

3. Do people think having more than one admin for approvals is a good idea?
No, I do not think that. Second-guessing every single decision from day-one is not helpful. If there are duplicate weaves or weaves that do not contain round rings... yes they should be removed. But reorganizing the weaves library every single time a new weaves admin arrives? No! I realize the weaves library is not perfect. But it never will be.

4. How would you define a "weave" and what criteria needs to be met to make your choice?
That is up to the current weaves admin.

5. Tell me as a prospective weave admin, why you would or wouldn't you approve Four Core as a weave.
No opinion, because that is too specific to YOU. A weaves admin has made a decision. I get it. You don't like the decision. You can resubmit at will.

6. When do you think a weave has grown out of it's parents shadow, so to speak and becomes it's own weave and how would you determine so?
I'm not sure how to answer this question. It depends on the specific "weave" that is submitted. There simply is no "cookie cutter" decision regarding weaves.


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: December 20, 2010
Posts: 138
Submissions: 2

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:21 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Levi wrote:
1. Do people agree that the weave library is a in rough shape and needs a reorg?
2. How would you propose "fixing" the library?
3. Do people think having more than one admin for approvals is a good idea?
4. How would you define a "weave" and what criteria needs to be met to make your choice?
5. Tell me as a prospective weave admin, why you would or wouldn't you approve Four Core as a weave.
6. When do you think a weave has grown out of it's parents shadow, so to speak and becomes it's own weave and how would you determine so?


1. Yes.
2. I have no idea, but I wish there was more cross linking. For example, the page for Elfsheet links to Elfweave. But Elfweave does not link to Elfsheet. There are number of related weaves as well, and most of them only link back to Elfweave. I feel like ALL related weaves (variations??) should be linked together so people can find more weaves easier.
3. Yes, but as Lorraine points out, someone still needs to make a final call. I worry that with a panel things might take longer, especially if there is disagreement about a particular weave in queue.
4. I have no idea. I love reading the theory crafting threads, but I'm not versed enough to really 'decide' anything.
5. See above, I am not qualified to answer this.
6. I think if everything linked to each other, there wouldn't really be a need for parent/child 'relationships' in weaves. The relationship would be more cyclical, if that makes any sense.

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 602
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:40 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Just to chip in;

We'ce had reorganisations before. When we got 3.0, the system changed radically.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3064
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:52 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
Just to chip in;

We'ce had reorganisations before. When we got 3.0, the system changed radically.


Reorganization does not equal removal.



Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2246
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:45 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:


Reorganization does not equal removal.


Agreed

3.0 was a new way or organizing and labeling things. No information was lost or removed.

Yes, there are weaves in the library that are currently not considered weaves. I look at this event as a glimps of history to see what was accepted when the art was young, what is accepted now and where we might go in the future.

Just because we don't consider Pluto to be a true planet any more does not mean that it is not included in our solar system.


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: November 25, 2010
Posts: 1718
Submissions: 100
Location: Es-whoy-malth B.C.

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:25 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

i wonder if there might be enough information in the weave section at present, Lorraine repeatedly invites us to post to the gallery, perhaps our energy would be best spent developing that area of our profiles.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3064
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:41 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

reform wrote:
.....but I wish there was more cross linking. For example, the page for Elfsheet links to Elfweave. But Elfweave does not link to Elfsheet. There are number of related weaves as well, and most of them only link back to Elfweave. I feel like ALL related weaves (variations??) should be linked together so people can find more weaves easier.....


It's on the list of things that will be done one day... In fact, hidden database fields exist for it.
Problem is, nobody can really agree on a weave "family tree"... Everything is subjective.
It's also a butt-ton of work... As it requires touching each of over a thousand submissions, analyzing them, and inputting the data.

Not saying it won't happen... I want it to happen... I have placeholders in place for it TO happen... It just hasn't happened YET.

sakredchao, lorraine, etc wrote:
DL Will fix everything... It just might take awhile.




Joined: January 17, 2013
Posts: 373
Submissions: 5
Location: Probably in the garage...

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:54 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Thank you for the responses.

@Karpeth on #6, Sorry, too many weaves and too many vague comparisons for me to draw any kind of direction. I'm interested in understanding what you're insinuating between the weaves but I'd have to look them all up and that's just too much work right now.

@Cinnibar, yes it's a thread on volunteering to be the WA but these are the issues and questions the new WA is going to be met with, so you may as well get used to it now.

@reform on #2, Exactly!

@lorraine on #1, That's a very interesting way of putting it. "Rewriting the history of the weaves library". So is it a historical list of submissions by people who beat the rule change and not a list of known weaves?

@lorraine on #4, Let's say you are the WA in a week from now, what's your answer then?

@lorraine on #5, I could resubmit but I won't. As you said, an admin has made a choice and I'm going to live with it. If M.A.I.L. doesn't want unique, repeatable weaves or techniques as per it's mission statement so be it, I tried to help... someone else can build it, take the shots and explain it, it's not exactly complicated and all the info is there in the forums. I don't care about getting credit for it, I used Four Core as a personal example (because I know it) to try and elicit responses or shed some light on the process prospective WAs would use to determine if a submission is a weave or not. You know what, just forget about questions 5 & 6 all together, I hoped it would serve to help enlighten the general populous but it's being seen as self-serving so please disregard the questions about Four Core. /goes and cries in the corner /jk

@all

If the idea behind the weaves library is that it's a historical list of approved pieces... then maybe it should be renamed as such. It would be flawed but at least it wouldn't be as misleading to new users trying to figure out what a "Weave" is... The weaves library alleges to be an authoritative source for "weaves" but based on the responses it seems like it's more of a historic e-peen gallery containing whatever got past the gatekeeper at some point that serves as a merit badge that can in no way ever be revoked. So...

Leaving "precious" as is... maybe we could start a new weave library, maybe call it a "weave database" or "fundamental weaves", so we all know it's a different thing and populate that new weaves database with known, repeatable, base weaves with forward links to "the weaves library" or whatever. Start a new badge system (or not), leave the old one as is so no one looses their existing badges or credit.

Ensure the items listed are a weave by current standards, to the note of DLs 15 IMC, hold the submissions to a certain standard with some sort of image consistency through out and, make it what people expect to find when they come here trying to learn how to make maille.

Given all the weaves should be known, having a tutorial for each one shouldn't be hard either. Oh no, wait a minute, that means someone could loose credit for a previous tutorial that now won't be the first one linked to, oh no no, that would be horrible... forget it bad idea! /hopes you get the sarcasm.

They'll all start with E4-1 anyway, just don't make them think that there are 824 unique European weaves because we all know there aren't. I'd love it if someone did compile a list of actual known, qualify as a weave today European weaves. Let's see more than 50, please!!!

It's like Ford or Toyota saying they have 300 different car models this year! Only because each different colour, trim and option package is being counted as unique model. In reality you only have 12 cars (just a guess, I don't know what's in either line-up, I drive a Subaru...) to choose from, so pick one then pick your colour, trim and options. They don't have 300 models but you may have 300 options in the end.

Just about anywhere else, you pick a base product and work your way up from there. It's a logical progression, why that can't happen here is beyond me. Of all things this site should be able to provide, a list of known repeatable weaves by current definitions, should be one of them. Collectively, we (M.A.I.L. users) know more about maille than the rest of the world, yet we can't produce a single list of base weaves to serve as a reference/starting point. That makes me sad.

Woot, under 750 words. Razz
/goes back to being depressed Wink


Mostly Harmless

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:36 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Levi wrote:
@lorraine on #1, That's a very interesting way of putting it. "Rewriting the history of the weaves library". So is it a historical list of submissions by people who beat the rule change and not a list of known weaves?

@lorraine on #4, Let's say you are the WA in a week from now, what's your answer then?

@lorraine on #5, I could resubmit but I won't. As you said, an admin has made a choice and I'm going to live with it. If M.A.I.L. doesn't want unique, repeatable weaves or techniques as per it's mission statement so be it, I tried to help... someone else can build it, take the shots and explain it, it's not exactly complicated and all the info is there in the forums. I don't care about getting credit for it, I used Four Core as a personal example (because I know it) to try and elicit responses or shed some light on the process prospective WAs would use to determine if a submission is a weave or not. You know what, just forget about questions 5 & 6 all together, I hoped it would serve to help enlighten the general populous but it's being seen as self-serving so please disregard the questions about Four Core. /goes and cries in the corner /jk

@all

If the idea behind the weaves library is that it's a historical list of approved pieces... then maybe it should be renamed as such. It would be flawed but at least it wouldn't be as misleading to new users trying to figure out what a "Weave" is... The weaves library alleges to be an authoritative source for "weaves" but based on the responses it seems like it's more of a historic e-peen gallery containing whatever got past the gatekeeper at some point that serves as a merit badge that can in no way ever be revoked. So...

Leaving "precious" as is... maybe we could start a new weave library, maybe call it a "weave database" or "fundamental weaves", so we all know it's a different thing and populate that new weaves database with known, repeatable, base weaves with forward links to "the weaves library" or whatever. Start a new badge system (or not), leave the old one as is so no one looses their existing badges or credit.

Ensure the items listed are a weave by current standards, to the note of DLs 15 IMC, hold the submissions to a certain standard with some sort of image consistency through out and, make it what people expect to find when they come here trying to learn how to make maille.

Given all the weaves should be known, having a tutorial for each one shouldn't be hard either. Oh no, wait a minute, that means someone could loose credit for a previous tutorial that now won't be the first one linked to, oh no no, that would be horrible... forget it bad idea! /hopes you get the sarcasm.

They'll all start with E4-1 anyway, just don't make them think that there are 824 unique European weaves because we all know there aren't. I'd love it if someone did compile a list of actual known, qualify as a weave today European weaves. Let's see more than 50, please!!!

It's like Ford or Toyota saying they have 300 different car models this year! Only because each different colour, trim and option package is being counted as unique model. In reality you only have 12 cars (just a guess, I don't know what's in either line-up, I drive a Subaru...) to choose from, so pick one then pick your colour, trim and options. They don't have 300 models but you may have 300 options in the end.

Just about anywhere else, you pick a base product and work your way up from there. It's a logical progression, why that can't happen here is beyond me. Of all things this site should be able to provide, a list of known repeatable weaves by current definitions, should be one of them. Collectively, we (M.A.I.L. users) know more about maille than the rest of the world, yet we can't produce a single list of base weaves to serve as a reference/starting point. That makes me sad.

Woot, under 750 words. Razz
/goes back to being depressed Wink

I think one of the problems with all of this is that we are trying to make weaves "scientific". They aren't. They are subjective. It's all opinion and everyone has one. (Okay, that's not true. Probably 99% of the people who have an account on MAIL couldn't give a rat's patootie what a "weave" is. They just want to be able to come here and navigate the site and make maille, which is something I'm fine with.) And every time we get or need a new weaves admin, we have to put up with the fact that not everyone is going to have the same opinion on a weave. It seems that every weave submitted is someone's "baby" and they want everyone else to love it. That's easy for me to say because I don't have any weave submissions that came from me. I haven't been told "your baby looks like a gorilla, does not meet our current standards of beautiful, therefore we are rejecting your baby." I don't honestly know if that makes me a better candidate for weaves admin, or a god-awful candidate for weaves admin. Hell, I'm not even sure I want to take on the responsibility...

I'm fine with the current definition of a weave. We need a definition. But again, it's not science. The weave still needs an opinion to "pass the gatekeeper". It can't be done scientifically or by robots. So an actual person must make an informed (hopefully) decision. There are many weaves that have been in the queue since Narrina took the position of weaves admin. I have commented on many of those weaves. Sometimes she agreed with me, sometimes she didn't. She made the final decision. Once she made it, I shut my mouth about it whether I agreed or not. Because... someone has to make a subjective decision.

I think one of the other problems, and it's a MAJOR one, is copyright. I think the people who started MAIL had the absolute best of intentions, but could not see into the future. Their magic eight-ball just wasn't working. In an effort to ease people's fears that by submitting something to MAIL they would somehow lose control of their "baby", they came up with the Content Policy which continues to bite us in the hind-quarters every day. It's sort of a misguided, hippy-dippy "everything belongs to everyone man, but this is a community and we all share, right? But don't you effing take credit for what I made or I will stick a flower in your cold, dead... hind-quarters."

Levi, your posts are long. I like that in a person. Levi, your posts are thought-provoking. I like that in a person. Levi, your posts sometimes make me laugh (in a good way). I like that in a person. Very Happy


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:38 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
sakredchao, lorraine, etc wrote:
DL Will fix everything... It just might take awhile.

I love you, man! In a platonic way... Please don't give up on us?
*sticks a daisy in your beard and skips away*


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: May 26, 2010
Posts: 236
Submissions: 30

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:27 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Levi wrote:
1. Do people agree that the weave library is a in rough shape and needs a reorg?
2. How would you propose "fixing" the library?
3. Do people think having more than one admin for approvals is a good idea?
4. How would you define a "weave" and what criteria needs to be met to make your choice?
5. Tell me as a prospective weave admin, why you would or wouldn't you approve Four Core as a weave.
6. When do you think a weave has grown out of it's parents shadow, so to speak and becomes it's own weave and how would you determine so?


1. yes
2. I outlined my general strategy earlier in the thread, but basically I'd like to see non-variant progressions footnoted in the description of their respective base weave rather than in the general catalog. Existing entries that are non-compliant with the current weave definition should be moved to the gallery.
3. I think that would make the job easier as well as improve the overall quality of operation. More experience is always better for determining if something is a new weave or not.
4. I happen to like the current definition very much as it is thorough and precise. I can see how it may use daunting language but it really does define a "weave" extremely well.
5. From what I have seen so far, I would not. To me it seems to be a sort of trim on either side of a strip of E6-1 rather than something new. That being said, I believe that it is just as valid as Alligator Back as it is simply a strip of E4-1 with HP3-1 trim. If I were the weave admin I would build a piece myself and examine it more closely though.
6. When the properties of the prospective pattern differ from the base weave then it is a new weave. This can include different connections that affect the structure (see Hilt Chain and Pencil Weave) or AR restrictions that allow a specific pattern while disallowing continuation into others (see M3 and Hoodoo Hex Sheet). The phrase from the official weave definition: "...containing only rings that serve to maintain the physical structure thereof or to connect an instance of the pattern to an adjacent instance." Would be more carefully considered as well. For example, Inverted Round and Captive Inverted Round are not unique weaves according to the current definition, and likewise nearly any captive variant of any other weave would fail this test as well. I think that accusation might get some negative feedback in this thread though.

Honestly the current weave definition practically invalidates most captive, orbital, rhino, and berus entries.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 2 of 6. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:04 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
Display posts from previous: