This page is for discussing the contents of Classified Business Directory.

  • The North Chico, South Chico, Central Chico, West Chico, Downtown, and many other miscellaneous broad category pages (most on the front page) kind of make the business directory redundant. And it also might give the impression that the wiki is primarily a business directory. That said, is this necessary? The directory itself is unmanageable and there can be no table of contents. I'd rather go to the Yellow Pages. —RyanMikulovsky


2009-05-11 20:54:25   I have always thought the page was fairly redundant, and it never really occurs to me to add anything to it when I am creating new pages. It seems like another thing to have to maintain, but if someone wants it as a pet project, that's great. However, I think our efforts could be better spent on other things than this. If there was a way to have a table of contents, it would be a lot better. As is, it's really just a long list that is incredibly difficult to navigate. If no one is really determined to keep it, I definitely have no problem with seeing it go. I feel it is unnecessary. —StaceyEllis

2009-05-28 12:31:45   I think the Gyms edit is another problem with using includes all over the place from the directory. iirc someone from Wikispot also said using includes would only serve to confuse people. In this case, the individual probably didn't know what the heck that thing did so he removed it and placed their business. Or he knew but it was easy to wipe it off for a competitive edge. In any case, it's one more line of evidence in favor of not using includes on main category pages whenever possible. —RyanMikulovsky

  • Great minds think alike? And apparently, so do we... —StaceyEllis

2009-05-28 12:34:38   I just realized how difficult this business directory can be when you want to add something. Someone erased the contents of Gyms to put in one company's information. When I reverted it and tried to add in the business to the list, I had to search around to find the proper place to add it in, since the page was [[include(Business Directory/Gyms)]]. This meant I had to hunt down the gyms business directory in order to add the new gym rather than edit the Gyms page. Having the page with the list directly on it would make it much easier for the community to figure out how to edit it. The includes are inherently confusing, and having to hunt down a second page in order to edit the initial page is not user-friendly at all. —StaceyEllis

2009-05-28 14:09:14   (2¢) : A general rule I've found over the years with wiki content is that the more technically elegant the solution, the fewer people can contribute, and that subject withers. The more human powered the solution, the more people can contribute (and have to contribute), the more that subject grows... and that growth tends to leak into other subjects. —JabberWokky

2009-05-28 14:51:55   In light of the recent comments, I have a proposal. I say we start systematically replacing the includes in order to make the lists themselves on their standalone pages. So Gyms, for instance, will have the list that is currently on Business Directory/Gyms rather than the include. The business directory idea isn't all bad, I just don't think it's properly executed. I think we should reverse what references what. Any reason why we couldn't redo that page with a table of contents (which it desperately needs!) and headers, then use an include for the page that it references? Hopefully my idea is clear... For instance, rather than having the "Business Directory/Gyms" page, we simply have "Gyms". We create a heading on the "Classified Business Directory" page for gyms and then do [[Include(Gyms)]] to get the list from the main page to show up in the directory. It would still probably be a little funky if we didn't write on each of them "See also Gyms" since they'd still have to get to the standalone page to be able to edit it. Still, I really think this could work. Thoughts? —StaceyEllis

I am not very opposed to doing away with it altogether. However, rather than doing that perhaps we should just de-emphasize it where it is linked. Perhaps someday someone will come in and really re-vamp it. —Gregbard

2009-05-28 20:36:57   Sounds good to me, Stacey. Thanks for your input JW & Greg. I do see utility in having everything listed on one page but not as it currently stands. Not so sure how best to whip it into shape though. —RyanMikulovsky

2009-05-28 21:01:04   For now, I say we take Greg's idea and remove the prominent links to it (front page especially). We will need to find all the includes and change them over to regular pages, which could take some work, but won't be terrible. That will eliminate the confusion about how to edit the pages. I agree that having a page with all of that info in one place would be useful, but I think we need a better plan to execute it that what the directory currently is. Let's think that over and see what we can come up with. My idea from earlier today might work, but there is almost certainly another, possibly better way. Thanks everyone for all the input! And please chime in with any ideas of how we might make the directory more user-friendly. —StaceyEllis