Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Help keep Vanilla free:
Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    •  
      CommentAuthormolson
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 1
    An add-on that allows implements hierarchical categories, where categories can be nested within other categories. In other words, a category could have a category, and a discussion could be started at any level.
    • CommentAuthorLoOkHerE
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 2
    heterarchies are the new heirarchies
    •  
      CommentAuthorWanderer
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006 edited
     # 3
     Definition: Heterarchies  Heterarchies represent a new logic of organizing that is neither market nor hierarchy: whereas hierarchies involve relations of dependence and markets involve relations of independence, heterarchies involve relations of interdependence. As the term suggests, heterarchies are characterized by minimal hierarchy and by organizational heterogeneity, a pair of concepts elaborated here.
    •  
      CommentAuthormolson
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006 edited
     # 4
    Okay, see, while I appreciate the article you linked, Wikipedia sums things up so nicely. Can I ask a more general question, then? I appreciate the idea of a heterarchy, and even acknowledge its supremacy (because the ability for something to have more than one parent is obviously necessary when the complexity passes a certain threshold). However, the reason I asked the question in the first place is because I didn't see a way for a category to be categorized.

    Even in a heterarchy, where everything exists on one level, there have to be ways to define interdependence (which is kind of the whole point of a heterarchy, right?). When I looked in the Vanilla documentation, though, it didn't say anything about categories being able to be categorized/related, let alone have multiple categorizations/relations. Did I miss something?
    • CommentAuthorjeffbax
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 5
    I think this is a highly requested item, I'd love to see it too. Would really help getting people familiar with Vanilla.
    •  
      CommentAuthormolson
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 6
    I would also like to point out that the default implementation of Vanilla is not a heterarchy, but is actually a hierarchy with a depth of 1, which is a very different thing. The default implementation, with categories enabled, allows each discussion to be categorized, but only with one category, and does not permit categories to be categorized. Thus, each discussion falls under a category, and categories fall under nothing. So you have a flat level of unrelated categories and a flat level of unrelated discussions.

    The idea of a heterarchy is that no process prevents any element from being linked to any other element. If you're truly wanting a heterarchy, then all discussions, and categories, should be able to have an unlimited number of connections between each other at any level. In that case, I could link two discussions together, or three categories, a category and a discussion, or a discussion and ten categories, ad infinatum.

    Then we'd be talking about a wicked heterarchy in action.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWanderer
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 7
    That's way too cerebral for me molson, I thought I was being funny (ha-ha not weird) linking to that definition of heterarchy.
    •  
      CommentAuthormolson
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 8
    Okay, well, fine! I now amend my original request to be for hierarchical categories or a directional heterarchy (I'm too lazy to find a definition for that, but think of a directional graph in which some edges can be bidirectional)
    •  
      CommentAuthormolson
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 9
    I lied, I'm not that lazy; a selective hierarchy comes closest to what I was aiming for, and would be an absolutely ideal way of working with categories.
  1.  # 10
    Yeah, I agree - this is a useful feature to have. We might get cracking, if no one else does :)
    • CommentAuthoriwek
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2006
     # 11
    This is the most requested add-on, someone please put it together, if I could code, I would definity do it.
    • CommentAuthorCrazyotaku
    • CommentTimeAug 29th 2006
     # 12
    i second the motion for this, I have been using invision powered boards since I found out about forums and just recently decided to check out Vanilla and what it has to offer and I have to say not having this add-on is probably why more people don't use Vanilla for their forum. It is a very nice feature for organizing categories and posts, someone please make this add-on. ^.^
    •  
      CommentAuthorbugsmi0
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2006
     # 13
    too many wiki zombies on the net
    • CommentAuthorguest
    • CommentTimeOct 14th 2006
     # 14
    here here, this would be a great extension
    • CommentAuthorrovnak
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2007
     # 15
    any progress on this?
    •  
      CommentAuthorVincent
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2007
     # 16
    i'm working on this at the moment but i cannot say when it'll be finished
Add your comments
    Username Password
  • Format comments as