View Single Post
Old 02-11-2011, 04:44 AM   #83
chaley
Grand Sorcerer
chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 12,476
Karma: 8025702
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Notts, England
Device: Kobo Libra 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by kacir View Post
I am proponent of the theory that we should start with something that is not perfect but works and is relatively easy to implement then we can use it and discuss how to improve the result. This is how Calibre is developed ;-)

So, at the moment I would be extremely happy if I got result (1,2,3). I would have to go through results anyway and this would be *much* quicker than going through entire collection author after author (checking for the fuzzines in the author name (that is King Stephen; Stephen King; S. King; King, S.; S KING ...))
Assuming the test I described is used, the natural result would be (1,3) and (2,3). Extending it to (1,2,3) requires more work, the amount of which depends on whether it does one-away or n-away closure.

Also, my experience has shown me that, counter to the RAD religions, having an idea of where one wants to go simplifies life. It is usually hard to unwind a choice, especially ones that have UI and architecture consequences, so thinking a bit about about end points and trajectory at this point is good.

Last edited by chaley; 02-11-2011 at 08:50 AM. Reason: Correct the 'natural result'
chaley is offline   Reply With Quote