I think a special glossary would benefit this site. A user-created or edited list of what all the acronyms and initials actually mean - either a single one-liner definition, or perhaps a paragraph or two if it's a complex or contentious topic.

There's a lot of overlap of disciplines, and it'd be quite handy to have one centralised reference location that people can point at (even if the definition of a term might only contain a further url to something like wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), at least the starting point of the knowledge path exists at this central location alongside all the others within our problem space).

Sounds like a great idea.

not a bad idea Ian, but who would review the info?

Good idea.

Another site that I frequent, called lightcafe.net, has set up some kind of "wiki" and that might be a good way to make this kind of thing happen, permitting various members to review/change/amend/update the info.

That is a point. Should the glossary be a free-for-all such as a wiki, or should it be regulated by posting submissions to a curator who would approve and file the appropriate entry into the pagination system.

In the first instance, you'd have a lot more content, although some of it would have to be arbitrated. In the second instance, people would find it a bit of a bother and the quantity would probably be measurably lower, but the quality would be high to begin with and the maintenance less effort except for the curator. But in the first instance, smoothing the quality over to make it acceptable is probably less work overall, plus gives you more content, with occasional clean-up visits to correct misbehaviour.

Either way, would a glossary structure fit in with what's available on this site's framework? In other words, is there such a feature already, waiting to be used?

g'day Ian
i'm wondering why we need such a thing at all if the search system works well

in my experience whenever i search here, or APUG, i don't get what i want, is that my failing or the systems?

a further thought, just like the internet itself, there is already a lot of crap to wade through here, and on APUG, how can this problem be addressed?

Ray

not a bad idea Ian, but who would review the info?

Its a great Idea and I think the user base can recommend and edit/review the results.

Well, the point of a wiki is that you harvest a lot of info right off the bat, some of which may not be helpful or even correct, but over time it tends to become better and more comprehensive. And with a convenient updating mechanism, the info stays fresh.

Ian, I think a wiki is very easy to implement in a php driven site. I think there are installable codes ready to go.

Ray, there is always going to be a lot of crap to wade through, as long as more and more is being (re)posted/parroted. The idea of a wiki site is that the crap gets edited, distilled, refined, and polished until eventually it is crap no more.

The process takes time; this is a variation on one of the rules of sh*t. Unfortunately, I cannot recall all of the rules, but I will state those that I remember offhand....

Rules of Sh*t
(As Partially Remembered by Keith Wms.)

(1) You can't throw it without getting some on yourself
(2) It tends to move downhill
(3) You can't shine sh*t (unless it's really old)
...

See, Ray, if we had a wiki then somebody else could come in and add the other rules, and eventually we'd have all of them tabulated in one place.

Anyway it'd be nice eventually to have something like a mass dev. chart which also has hybrid methods and everything else associated with photography... broadly defined.