Genre Discussion [DONE/DENIED]

[bbaab]

Just a little correction.

(...)As far as the tree structure goes, I think you're too fixated on viewing these as genres and subgenres.

I'm not. Exp is. I'm fine with a looser directed graph structure (that is, a "genre" potentially being a "subgenre" of more than one other "genres").

[exp]

well, so far I planned to put it in a very easy db structure like

Code: Select all

id   integer,
name   varchar,
parentid   integer,
weight   integer,
...

where parentid points to the id of the category this entry belongs to (NULL for categories on the highest level).
for things like search requests the parent data would actually not be used at all. so it's really only there to allow a nicer display of the cats.

BYe!
EXP

[pelican]

(...)As far as the tree structure goes, I think you're too fixated on viewing these as genres and subgenres.

I'm not. Exp is. I'm fine with a looser directed graph structure (that is, a "genre" potentially being a "subgenre" of more than one other "genres").

That's not what I'm talking about. I meant that you seem to think that everything in this tree must be a true genre, which is clearly not so.

[bbaab]

(...)As far as the tree structure goes, I think you're too fixated on viewing these as genres and subgenres.

I'm not. Exp is. I'm fine with a looser directed graph structure (that is, a "genre" potentially being a "subgenre" of more than one other "genres").

That's not what I'm talking about. I meant that you seem to think that everything in this tree must be a true genre, which is clearly not so.

So far everyone seems to call them "genres", so genres I assume they are.

However, I don't have a problem with a bunch of category trees starting with "setting", "genre", "theme", "production technique", "story type", "ecchiness" and so on. I just prefer to find genres when I'm looking at a "genre:" label.

And I still think that a flat list of keywords, some 100-ish amount of them, grouped by whatever means we can think of (yes, even genres), is a better idea than a strict tree of "genres", half of which aren't.

[pelican]

So far everyone seems to call them "genres", so genres I assume they are.

Then you may have missed this.

[bbaab]

So far everyone seems to call them "genres", so genres I assume they are.

Then you may have missed this.

Yep, I did indeed (well, at least at the time I wrote my posting). Doesn't invalidate the reminder of it, though. Especially not the fact that calling them "genres" is a stupid idea if they aren't.

[exp]

Yep, I did indeed (well, at least at the time I wrote my posting). Doesn't invalidate the reminder of it, though. Especially not the fact that calling them "genres" is a stupid idea if they aren't.

They will be called categories.

BYe!
EXP