Welcome, Guest. Please Login
Tinderbox
  News:
IMPORTANT MESSAGE! This forum has now been replaced by a new forum at http://forum.eastgate.com and no further posting or member registration is allowed. The forum is still accessible via read-only access for reference purposes. If you wish to discuss content here, please use the new forum. N.B. - posting in the new forum requires a fresh registration in the new forum (sorry - member data can't be ported).
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Analyzing a small community of 40 members (Read 5893 times)
Mark Crane
Full Member
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Orem, Utah
Analyzing a small community of 40 members
Nov 13th, 2011, 5:06pm
 
So I was thinking about the department I work in, and how each member has certain attributes in terms of their professional training, attitudes towards existing policy, time in the department, etc. and I was thinking it would be fun (in a probably unhealthy, obsessive way) to use Tinderbox to create a profile of each person and their unique, relevant attributes and their relations to each other.  I was wondering if there is an existing template out there for something similar, like a product comparison review or the like, that I could look to for inspiration.  I am a woefully ignorant newish user of Tinderbox.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Mark Anderson
YaBB Administrator
*
Offline

User - not staff!

Posts: 5689
Southsea, UK
Re: Analyzing a small community of 40 members
Reply #1 - Nov 13th, 2011, 5:15pm
 
Has someone done all the design work before? Unfortunately, no. But, if you can share with the community the sort of actual things (as opposed to conceptual**) you're seeking to track, we might be able to help with suggestions to get you started.  It would also help to know if you're weeded to using a particular view, e.g. some folk only like to use Map view.

** lest that sound combative, it's certainly not meant that way.It's simply the case that if you're assessing, for example a number (hours spend, cost contributed, whatever), the suggestions might differ from those given if the subject were textual or date-releated. In other words, it's just avoiding the garbage-in/garbage-out sort of guidance.  Smiley
Back to top
 
 

--
Mark Anderson
TB user and Wiki Gardener
aTbRef v6
(TB consulting - email me)
WWW shoantel   IP Logged
Mark Bernstein
YaBB Administrator
*
Offline

designer of
Tinderbox

Posts: 2871
Eastgate Systems, Inc.
Re: Analyzing a small community of 40 members
Reply #2 - Nov 14th, 2011, 11:00am
 
I've done something like this when running program committees.

As many of you know, technical conferences invite people to submit research papers, and then try to select the best. The papers are read by several anonymous reviewers who check the science and scholarship. Then, a program chair (or, often, an executive committee) examines all the reviews and chooses the papers for the conference.

Selecting members of your program committee is tricky.  You need good coverage of all the fields that the conference will cover. You need a spread of opinion and training -- if you get a paper filled with tricky new mathematics or one that depends on new developments in French critical theory, you need to have two or three reviewers who are prepared to read it.  And you need to balance the load, so no one needs to review too many papers.

There's also questions of temperament, personality, and crisis management. Some reviewers are famously reliable.  Some are too busy or too much in demand, and the experienced program chair will be ready to backstop them. Some reviewers have no patience for methodological lapses. Some are more particular than others about citing prior work. Some tend to be amiable and lenient, others write scorching reviews.  All this needs to be weighed when setting up a committee, and again when assigning papers to reviewers.

I find Map View congenial for grouping reviewers heuristically. Badges or other visual coding can indicate which reviewers can only receive a light load. (Nowadays, I'd use a badge to say "special case!" and describe the special circumstances in a Hover Expression).

Tinderbox rules can be terrific as well in toting up how many papers you've got, how many papers are assigned to each reviewer, or which reviewers have the lightest loads (and so can more readily be called upon to read extra papers that turned out to be controversial).
Back to top
 
 
WWW   IP Logged
Derek Van Ittersum
Full Member
*
Offline



Posts: 168

Re: Analyzing a small community of 40 members
Reply #3 - Nov 14th, 2011, 4:40pm
 
I think my first inclination would be to create a map with adornments that represent the qualities you want to code for (several adornments for training [rhet/comp; lit; etc.], attitudes, etc.). Then, create these adornments to automatically (OnAdd) metadata (the rhet/comp adornment adds "rhet/comp" to the "training" attribute that you've created). Then, you create a note for each person and move it into the various adornments that fit that person. Granted, this is the visual way to do it. You could just type the values into the note's attribute fields, but then you wouldn't get to learn about smart adornments!

This is my method of "tagging" reading notes with various themes.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Mark Crane
Full Member
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Orem, Utah
Re: Analyzing a small community of 40 members
Reply #4 - Nov 14th, 2011, 5:12pm
 
This is all very helpful, thank you.  It will take me a while to review what you've suggested and implement it.  And yes, I prefer map view!
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Pages: 1
Send Topic Print