Editblot strikes again!

Question

I fully appreciate that Editblot can change things quickly.  But some things may not need changing, for instance, 'Australian Army' does not need to be split into 'Australia, Army'.  Yet it has happened.  It is only the name of a Category, not a legal treatise that must be precise.  People will find 'Australian Army' hours before 'Australia, Army' when they're searching.  Next, we'll be changing 'Australian Notables' to 'Australia, Notables' and 'Australian Convicts' to 'Australia, Convicts' I guess.  Please change it back.  It is the Australian Army.

Comments

Hi Ken

I believe the approved naming standard is Location, Theme; hence the change to Australia, Army.  

---

So .. is it also to be Australia, Navy .. and Australia, Air Force?

---

By the approved naming standard, yes.

---

By the approved naming standard, yes.

commented 32 minutes ago by Doug McCallum

.

.

Even though that would be totally incorrect?  

Where does the word Royal fit with this naming? 

Last I checked we were still the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).  Australian, not Australia.  Australia is the country.  Australian is what comes from, or is of, the country.  An American isn't America.  An Italian isn't Italy.  An Austrian isn't Austria.

.

.

My father served in the Royal Australian Air Force, not the Australia, Air Force.  Likewise, my mother was a WAAAF (not RAAF, that came later .. much later).   My Uncle was in the Royal Australian Navy, not the Australia, Navy.  My brothers, likewise, were in the RAN, not the A, N. 

There is no such thing as the A, AF, or the A, N.  This is a fiction.

---

Amy, the 'approved' naming of location, theme should have had Editblot renaming to 'Australia, Australian Army', and not what it has done.  And in this particular instance the theme was 'Australian Army Generals'.  Now, the theme has been changed and no longer aligns with the space.  This is not consistency and it is not simplyfying categories for newbies, let alone experienced Wikitreers, whatever they are.

---

Theme is the key word here. These are not official service branch names by country, they are types of military forces by country. If people can't figure out that Australia, Army is where they'll find categories related to the Australian Army, then I despair.

---

You're thinking as someone who is used to this particular categorisation theme-ing, not as someone coming along, with no idea how to find anything except by the name they are used to using.  They're not thinking "RAAF, oh, I'll find that under 'Australia, Air Force'"; they're thinking "I'll find that under Royal Australian Air Force".  They're not thinking to find the Royal Australian Navy under "Australia, Navy".  Maybe, if they stick around, they might think that way in a few months.

So, despair away.  Some people still think the earth is flat, which any cat owner knows it is not.

---

After reading all the discussion, I think the point has been missed. The data drives the database, and not the other way around.

---

Looking at Category: Military, the highest level military category, there are 66 national sub-categories and NOT ONE uses the national name for the Location!  Why, because it is not about the location.  It is about the name of the nation's defence force.  Please change 'Australia, Army Generals' back to 'Australian Army Generals'. Collaboration usually mandates that the status quo remains when there is controversy.

---

 Collaboration usually mandates that the status quo remains when there is controversy.

 There was extensive controversy over dumping the location of categories into the abyss..... and where do your Categories show up on your profiles? Your definition of collaboration is clearly at odds with the approvers of the approved format. At the end of the day, which opinions matter most?

---

I often at odds, Nick. And am happy to be.  Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Democracy simply means the majority, whether right or wrong, get their way.

---

Everyone, please take a breath. We will look at this more closely and see what the right thing to do is. There is precedent for both ways. The military related categories in particular needs to be reviewed.

---

Thank you, Doug.

Answer 1

The category structure and hierarchy need to be consistent. Once all of these categories are consistent across continents and countries, then finding them will become far less problematic than the previous free-for-all in naming them.

Comments

You do realise there are 4 main ways you can find categories Danielle.

1. The Category picker on every profile(The set of boxes to the left of the big C box for Cite your source).
2. Going to Find then Categories then clicking subcategory links till you find the one you want.
3. Using Category search (Found top right corner on any category which goes to a custom search engine from Google.
4. Wikitree + in the Search area 

Like it or not but the Categorization Project is international in Scope as is Wikitree. In fact our latest member hails from Mauritius which most people wouldn't have a clue where in the world that is. That means that we need to have a consistent Hierarchy to know where the landing Categories (Where Profiles should only be) should fit. Otherwise you end up with duplicated profiles and categories in the same profession (Say Army Generals) not going in the Same Hierarchy because of localized naming differences

The Landing Categories (The Lowest level Categories where profiles should go) have more scope to be reflective of localised standards. But their parent Categories would have to be consistent with the Location, Theme standard.

Australia, Army Generals theoretically should not have any profiles in it as it has subcategories that cover the major wars Australia was involved in. A Peacetime category should probably be created though to catch those Generals that served in the periods not covered by the current subcategories.

Looking at the Categories on Thomas Griffiths the Australia, Army Generals category should probably be removed as reading his profile He was a General during World War 1 and the apropriate category is also on the profile. 

---

Right now, Darren, I'm considering grabbing the 4,000 profiles I manage (and that number again that I keep an eye on in the 'orphanage') and remove every category.  More hassle than they are worth.  And I wrote most of the Australian Defence Force heirarchy!

---

I'm hoping I don't wake up tomorrow and find the name of my home State has been changed from South Australia to Australia, South.  ​​​​

---

Incorrect, Darren. The Australian Army was established by Act of Parliament in March 1901.  It has changed names several times since but is the same army, under the same Act, and using the same military law.  In fact, the name adopted in 1947 was Australian Regular Army and has since also been replaced. And, by the way, the Corps are not Australian Aviation Corps but Australian Army Aviation Corps and Royal Australian Army Medical Corps, not Royal Australian Medical Corps.  The Generals are Australian Army Generals, as opposed to United States Army Generals or Salvation Army Generals.  The whole point is that Location is not being used with most Military and War Categories, just Theme.

---

Danielle would you like to repost this as an answer? I don't think it's getting enough attention. You've raised the very pertinent question - Is the Categorisation Project under-estimating and therefore under-using the capabilities of the WikiTree system? Using the Google internal search box, a search for "Australia" would easily be able to return results with "Australia" OR "Australian".

---

I wish someone would explain precisely what is the problem that the "approved naming standard" is supposed to fix. At the moment it looks like a shopkeeper who's been told her customers can't find things in her store, trying to fix the problem by renaming every product when what she really needs to do is improve the lighting.

If the problem is "People can't find the category they want", then point them towards the best search method available. Is that the hierarchy whose index appears on the Category - Categories page (the page you get when you select Find-Categories)? No! That's the worst way! Those of us in the know gave up using that method years ago. Hide that page! Instead, when people click on Find-Categories, take them to a page with only one thing on it, a LARGE Google internal search box in the centre of their screen and the words SEARCH FOR CATEGORIES. Google finds things without them being consistently labelled. Try searching "Australian Generals" - you'll get Australian Generals. (Try "Judean People's Liberation Front", then  "People's Liberation Front of Judea" and you'll get "The Life of Brian" both times)  

So put Google internal search in front of WikiTree users, that's what they'll use, and they'll find what they want. Surely this is preferable to re-naming all the zillion categories in use, and trying to change the behaviour of however many millions of users?

---

I'm hoping I don't wake up tomorrow and find the name of my home State has been changed from South Australia to Australia, South.  ​​​​

commented 18 hours ago by Anne Tichborne

.

.

At least they can't do that with Queensland .. or can they?  Australia, Benders_Banana

Australia, Gropers Sand

Australia, Enders_Top

Australia, [redacted]

Australia, Maniacs_Tas

Australia, Premier

Australia, Right Bl***y Cold Mate

Australia, Islands Nobody's Ever Really Heard Of Brrrrrrrrrrr

Australia, They Ship 'Em We Stop 'Em

---

Hi Darren,

Yes I am familiar with and have used the first 3 of these. The fourth is too buried to be useful and offers no particular advantage over option 3 both uses a custom Google Search. All have their deficiencies.  Let me explain:

1. The Category picker on profiles, like most picklists is excellent for adding categories to profiles once you are familiar with the range of profiles and how each is intended to be used. However, it does not use Boolean Logic, so it takes time to realise that WWI only finds a handful of options, whereas World War One finds many more. It also does not follow the convention used everywhere else in Genealogy or indeed the rest of Wikitree - to use the historical naming convention or even to allow it to be used as a look up reference. Granted there is a case in the case of World War One over WWI, given Google returns 3.85 Billion results for World War One, while only 156 Million for WWI. World War 1 however runs a close second with 3.77 Billion, so that is 3.77 billion article writers who would be slow to find a category of World War One in a picklist and 156 Million who would be lost. It must be noted that good webdesign dictates that pick 

2. Find Categories is next to useless, as it again assumes knowledge. You have to know in advance how information is organised and it does not allow you to use the more commonplace web navigational method of using multiple paths to get to a target. As such you can find yourself clicking through multiple pages to find what you want. Per the example in the original question, Australian Army Generals ideally should be found via a navigational construct of Australia>Army>Generals AND Military>Generals>Army>Australian AND what ever other relevant association that people might commonly use based on their own cultural constructs. 

Further, it took 5 clicks from the profile I may have been working on to find Australia, Army Generals, which may or may not be what I'm looking for since I am actually looking for Australian Army Generals, which means I might ignore it and keep looking just in case. IF I click though, I find information that provides a definition that confirms this is the right category, BUT, nowhere on the page does it tell me how to add it to my profile. From there I either have to go back to method 1, now I know what the category is at least called or else I do what I did for my first 6 months on Wikitree - I open one of the profiles linked to category page and then copy the category wiki markup to my own page. 

Good web design says you should never need more than 3 clicks to find what you are after. It should provide multiple paths to and away from the page and breadcrumbs to find your way back. It should provide text and visual clues as to where you are and where you need to go. It needs to be accessible and inclusive to people of all cultural, educational and physical ability. Can you honestly say that Find Categories delivers anything close to good and accessible design that supports our promoted brand value of collaboration?

3. and 4 are two different ways to a Custom Google Search, which while it follows a convention that billions of people understand, it also fills your first screen of text with promoted sites that have nothing to do with Wikitree. For someone not internet savvy (think Accessible again), they may click away without scrolling down. Needing to scroll to find what you want initially is another web design no-no of course!. The other problem with Custom Google Searches are they are not time bound unless you configure them that way. This means that it does find "Australian Army Generals" - Hooray! - even though the category has now been changed, Google remembers what is was before. which can be good and bad.

While Robotic Process Automation Technology (ie. Editbot) seems efficient, without real culturally and historically sensitive collaboration, it can also alienate the very volunteers who spend hundreds of hours of their own free time collaborating and researching to create the 20 Million profiles and counting on wikitree. Without those willing volunteers,  Wikitree is nothing.

---

Thank you Danielle. I support what you've said 100%

---

WikiTree+ (option 4 mentioned) doesn't use Google to search.

And Editbot isn't deciding to change the categories by itself. It's just a tool that carries out requests from a volunteer.

Answer 2

Hi Ken, It looks like the category on Thomas Griffiths' profile was "Australian Army Generals", changed to "Australia, Army Generals", probably as a result of the renaming of the Notables sub categories to the "Location, Theme" format. It just happens to be in both the Notables and Military hierarchies.

14 May 2019

06:56: EditBot WikiTree edited the Biography for Thomas Griffiths CBE CMG (1865-1947). (Renaming category: Australian Army Generals) [Thank EditBot for this]
The category "Australian Army" has not been changed.https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Australian_Army
 

Comments

Margaret, Australian Army Generals is NOT A Notables Category.  It is an Australia Project.  Secondary 'belonging' would be Australia Project.  Notables is a distant third and only associated because many of the profiles are ALSO Notables, just as several would also come under Military & War and Roll of Honour,  hopefully all fit into Cemeteries, etc.

Answer 3

While the WikiTree database is a wonderful thing and is tended night and day by many dedicated people, it exists to serve the needs of genealogits, who are human beings. Usability is important. There can come a point where the database ceases to serve the people and instead,  the people are asked to change to serve the needs of the database. We don't want to cross that line. What may seem like a brilliant idea to those whose work is to make things neat and orderly might not work in practice because people are not clones of each other. We have a completely irrational yet powerful thing called "culture" which includes such elements as how we use language.

Categories are very much about language, and how the individual uses language will determine what they expect to find when looking for categories. There are also elements of sentiment in how we use categories (and, incidentally, stickers). We want to adorn our profiles with terms and symbols that are familiar to us and evoke feelings and memories. No amount of ordering and classifying will overcome this.

In Australia we call our army "The Australian Army". Because we just do. It's  a term that evokes feelings, memory and history. That is the term the majority of Australians will use when searching for categories or anything else. A well designed interface will allow us to search intuitively. WikiTree is already vast and intricate. Please don't ask us to learn a new classification system, as if we were botanists. All your work will be for nothing if people simply don't use it

Comments

The category "Australian Army" has not changed.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Australian_Army 

---

I hope people understand I was talking about principles of usability and intuitive interface, not just this one example.

---

I do. You made the point beautifully, Anne.

---

 talking about principles of usability and intuitive interface

Well said! I also hope wikitree does NOT forget that there is an entire audience of non-wikitree users out in the world that I, for one, would still like to be able to find profiles here and be able to navigate this site. Hey, and who knows?, maybe they might find it usable, intuitive and interesting enough to join..... 

Answer 4

People, please. Calm down. Take a breath. No one will change "South Australia" to "Australia, South" Notables categories were being changed. "Australian Army Generals" got changed and we are looking at what is correct. It was changed due to it being a sub-category of "Australian Notables."

Every Project has rules on how they want categorization to be done. The Categorization Team works on fixing errors in categorization. Contrary to popular belief, this isn't being done mindlessly by some algorithm. There are people working behind the scenes and we are all human and sometimes mistakes happen. Also, categorization is not simple. There are many ways to do things and what you think is the correct way may not be correct for someone else. A lot of effort and discussion has gone on for the "Location, Theme" format for category names. This is not new. Implementing the naming scheme in some parts of the tree is new and mistakes will occur. 

Comments

"I do not know if they have categories yet"

Darren, I know the answer to that. It took me a few seconds. Can I ask, what do you use to find categories?

---

Darren, what you and the other Categorization people on this thread are doing is explaining how steam locomotives work, and why we all have to learn to drive steam locomotives. What we, the users are asking is, why are we still using steam locomotives? The rest of the world is not using steam locomotives.

---

I can tell Doug's getting a bit sick of this conversation and I will create a new thread, but for the sake of others reading this, I can't let a couple of his statements go unchallenged. I suspect that underlying assumptions among the people working on Categorization, particularly loyalty to ideas that used to be true before information technology, may be the root cause of what's driving us all mad.

---

Re the Dewey system, I'm not surprised that Doug, who is a co-ordinator for Categorisation, says the existing system is like the Dewey system. It is similar in the sense that it's a directory or index. An IT system doesn't need a directory or index. Imagine if the directors of Google decided they needed a card index with the name of every website on a card before they could deliver search results to users. What a lot of pointless work that would be.

BTW libraries now use database and keyword search.

---

Re using Google - I was referring to the customised search which is already available on WikiTree if you can find it. It would be a simple matter to make the search box more conspicuous and I suggest that step be taken soon.

---

Re comparison to Wikipedia. There is one huge difference between Wikipedia and WikiTree - Wikipedia doesn't hide its search box.

Also I can't accept the argument that this is the best way of doing things because someone else is doing it.

---

To answer what I use to find categories is simple Anne. I use my Laptop. What I was using when I replied to Kenneth was a Mobile phone which if I haven't bookmarked a page or gain the link from an email it is impossible to do much on there.

For Wikipedia vs Wikitree they are both based from the underlining Wiki Format so yes they will be similar. To find the Categories on Wikipedia I have to go to the All Portals link, then the Categories link and search from there. The main search Option just gives me articles about what categories are and doesn't point directly to a category search. For Wikitree the primary search is for Profiles as it should be.

---

I'll assume you're being funny Darren.

---

Anne, we use the software we have.  Even seemingly simple changes always take much more development time than anyone anticipates. You are free to make a suggestion to the developers to make changes. If the current categorization system doesn't work for you, don't use it. It works for a great many people. Some libraries have started to change but underneath they are pretty much using the keywords that are associated with the Dewey (or other) cataloging system. Some libraries have started shelving like a book store. Switching takes a lot of time.

Until we have a better mechanism we have to work with what we have.

---

Okay, again I think you're mistaken and maybe I haven't explained what I mean as well as I could have, so let's leave it here and I'll start a new thread with a new question and hopefully get participation from more people. Thank you so much for your time in answering, Doug.Much appreciated.

Answer 5

Why not Australia, Australian Army?

{KISS}

Comments

That's funny. Reminds me of Bond, James Bond.