THanks Dan for the suggestions. I'll see what I can do.

Thanks also for the recognition of the hard work. Meanwhile, there is one very particular article that might be just right for your starting into. That would be the "Risking Our Future" - http://www.quicktopic.com/10/D/Y4HnEBT8Q5R8A.html

It's a lot shorter in length that all the others, and chalk full of provoking questions.

Edited by author 11-02-2001 11:18 PM
Wow! A heckuva lotta work went into your Shared Topics page at http://www.quicktopic.com/share?s=Wagz !

I especially respect how you did the uploading (resulting in the usual cryptic QT URLs) and then used those in your updated version of http://www.newciv.org/c4c . Kudos!

As you said, the order of display is "most-recently-commented-on-top." And it is for that reason that I think it would be good if the heading on your Shared Topics page contain a literal pointer to http://www.newciv.org/c4c .

Further, I recommend that that page (which is the static version of a Table of Content -- doesn't change order when someone comments on something) should have its own pointer to your Shared Topics page. That way, folks will have a quick way of seeing your entire list of content from either static or dynamic viewpoints.

Whaddayathink? I'm getting close to passing your URLs to my other QT buddies... :-)

Yes. Seen went offline soon after 9/11. No sense going into the story. Actually, at the top of some of the more recently uploaded articles, I do provide links to the original both at seen.com (which does work) and - yes - the originals at NCN are linked at the bottom, but to the archive index at http://www.newciv.org/c4c

You will see at the archive index, that I have provided both alternatives, and updated the articles both at the top, just below each title, and at the end of each article, a link to quick topic. Since it was the original intent of the articles that they should be interactive, I've tried to alter the old links within the body of the articles, to link directly to the quick topic version.

As far as where you, or anyone should really start, (now that I think about it;) is at the NCN archive listing. That's because the articles are listed in order of publication. The shared topic page lists them in order of uploading ... and then if I am not mistaken, most recent commented.

More unsolicited coaching... Hope I'm not getting boring...

I'm part of a biggish community of other QT users, many of whom might be interested in reading your stuff. I was gonna post them a pointer to your Shared Topics page but then I began wondering "Hmm, where do I start?".

On my Shared Topics page (which has about 12 Topics thus far, and which I use as a table of contents for "my users,") I tell folx which is the 'main Topic' -- as in "start here to get the overall context."

In the case of C4C and Seen.com magazine, maybe you could put up some pointers on your Shared Topics page to where any reader can see the text in its "original non-commentable format" -- i.e., in its natural, in-context previous state(s)? [Oh foo, I just found that seen.com is offline. Probably yet another casualty of the dot-bomb world. :-< Is NCN up somewhere? If so, where?]

Edited by author 11-02-2001 07:23 AM
Done Dan.

Now, if you could help me populate my articles at http://www.quicktopic.com/share?s=Wagz with comments, and to promote the shared list, I'd greatly appreciate it ;)

Edited by author 11-01-2001 11:07 PM
Hi Bernie -- Tnx for the pointer to Seth's original URL. I just D/Led the sourcecode and tweaked it some. As I'd remembered, there were some parts that needed some "improvements" such that QTDR could preserve the general layout of Seth's original. Also, it was missing a DOCTYPE, HEAD and other normal components, so I added those. Because the link to the stylesheet was relative, I excised it. I don't think that did excessive damage to the layout...

The result is visible on my website in http://www.kalikow.com/~drdan/qt/itzkan-3.htm . I uploaded it to QTDR and the results are at http://www.quicktopic.com/10/D/Y5mA4U2fQbuet.html .

I really encourage you to encourage Seth to not make comments into that particular QTDR -- but instead to grab my source and upload it to QTDR himself. ??Why?? Because s/he who uploads anything to QTDR becomes the Administrator of that entire Topic and Document -- they can delete individual comments and/or the entire Topic when it suits them.

After all, it's Seth's doc; he should be the person who decides when the doc has had enough exposure/comments. If someone else started the Topic, he'd have to ask them to delete it... Hope this is all clear? Ask if not, of course.

OBTW, you're perfectly free to invite Seth into this Topic anytime.

Dan. Seems that Seth has returned from New Mexico and has sent me his thanks. Dare I say drop into his QT version at http://www.quicktopic.com/10/D/7hqvbCryneHd.html to leave a comment or so.

Seth's original is at http://dev.planet-tech.com/papers/showEssay.htm?cid=572 but I had to upload it first and format it for it to work with QT. Was a piece too.

Bernie, what's the URL of Seth's original "Visionary Vermont" article? As I recall it was heavily TABLE-formatted, and didn't "mix well" with QTDR's expectations of HTML markup. Nevertheless when I peeked at it, I had some quick ideas about how the original fmt could be preserved yet still be in QTDR format.

Nice use of the Shared Topics page -- just what Steve designed it for! More later...

Dan, Seth asked me, well hinted actually, that I could upload his article to Quick Topic. He is away right now, so I haven't actually recieved his final nod (on a job, I think well done ;)

His article is at http://www.quicktopic.com/10/D/7hqvbCryneHd.html

Meanwhile, I have been one busy beaver, and replicated all of my Catalyst 4 Change articles at QTDR. The index is at http://www.quicktopic.com/share?s=Wagz and I invite you to feel free broadcast the url as far and wide as you like. I really want to bring these articles to life, so hope you can help me out.

Since the search engines do a fair job of finding the articles located at http://www.newciv.org/c4c I have integrated cross-links to QT wherever I could. Took a lot of careful planning, since I had to upload the documents first before I knew what the random links would be.

I'll look forward to seeing your comments here or there. ;) and thanks again for the leads. :)

Seth didn't keep me on pins and needles. His reply was almost immediate. His 'Visionary Vermont' really hit home, especially since it connected me in a more personal sense, with 9/11. Thanks again for the heads-up.

This morning I received an email reply from Steve regarding the problems I experienced. I sent him a pointer to this QT, mentioning your hope that he pop in ;)

>Steve's creation caught my attention because even in its earliest form it was the most creative amalgam of web and email I'd ever seen -- and the simplest to use.

You'll get no argruement there from me. Dispite my problems, and confusion ... QTDR is awesome. Like I said, it's just what I was looking for when I first initiated my C4C articles with Seen.com - and will eventually replicate them all here. Since I've gained a fair profile within some search utilities, it might help to draw attentions to QT/QTDR.

> ... I've found over the years that
super-implementers are rare and precious creatures that it's fun and stimulating to be around.

Yes, it can be a ton of fun :) Facinating as well. Besides which, the net still lacks simplicity and Steve seems to have succeeded a achieving that.

At 09:30 AM 10/22/2001, Bernie Slepkov posted:
>I came to realize where I went wrong. I had thought that first I
>establish a topic, and then I upload a review document.
>Actually, QT and QTDR are separate. I have deleted the orphaned
>QT topic files I had no intention of initiating.

I see. What this misunderstanding reveals (to me at least) is that there perhaps needs to be a way to "spawn" a QTDR from a Topic, in a way similar to the way we now spawn new Topics from Topics. That is, one should be able to create a new QTDR and explicitly link it to the "parent topic." I know that Steve Y. was once subscribed to this topic so I wonder what he thinks of this notion.

>What I feel is terribly lacking (perhaps my inexerience with
>QTDR :\ is an ability of editing the uploaded document.

No offense, but as I understand things, QTDR is not for
"editing-web-pages-on-the-web-proper" (that's the province of certain specialized web-browsers-cum-editors, such as the still-experimental "Amaya" now being developed at the World-Wide Web Consortium in Cambridge).
QTDR is designed to solve a different problem -- to aid authors and editors who have a "latest version" of a doc-in-progress, and want to collect others' comments on their Mss. When it's ready for review, they can upload that "latest version" to the QTDR server and allow others to "mark it up" with comments (while not affecting the "latest version" -- which remains untouched in the author's hands). At any time they wish, they can close off new postings, and then consider which comments to "fold into" the next rev of the document, and how to write them in. And/or to take other many other actions they wish. Then they can upload the next rev, re-invite the reviewers, and so-on. Hope this brief characterization of the "problem being solved" helps put QTDR in perspective.

OBTW I'd be interested in any comments you (or other Topic readers) might have in my Topic "QTDR (of others' Mss) and Copyright: any issues?" which is at http://www.quicktopic.com/9/H/mEqSXb2tCWSZ . TIA if you're interested.
>Thanks for the heads-up on Seth. I'll email him shortly.

Clue me in on how that goes, please. I've often thought that his writings, to which he distributes pointers to many in hopes of eliciting comments, are apt for QTDR. I believe that QTDR is an excellent
community-of-ideas-building tool -- which is why I was hoping to connect you to him.

>That I have connected with individuals involved with the
>Internet's beginnings is exciting, given my own obsessions with
>it - the net that is. I have driven myself to distraction trying
>to create prototype webpage designs, but am reaching the limit
>of my patience regarding their limitations.
>
>Might I ask what your interest/involvement with QT/QTDR lie?

Independent informal volunteer consultant. I met Steve Yost a couple years back, thru an email-distro list run by a mutual friend. I've been interested in groupware since the crudest form of it -- email -- was invented by a friend of mine at BBN, and he showed it to me the day afterward. I've followed that thru email distro-lists, USENET, archived email-lists, pre-web groupware (e.g., DECnotes) and then had the fun of helping to accelerate the plethora of web groupware. Steve's creation caught my attention because even in its earliest form it was the most creative amalgam of web and email I'd ever seen -- and the simplest to use. I began consulting (on user experience, functionality and QA) and evangelizing it. Why? because I've found over the years that
super-implementers are rare and precious creatures that it's fun and stimulating to be around. And because what I do can't happen without a product to kibitz on -- I don't implement anymore, but I understand it in principle :-) Internicity (Steve's privately-held company) has some VC funding and unexpectedly granted me some options last year, though I had never thought of asking for 'em. Long (but I hope useful?) answer... TTFN

Dan;

I came to realize where I went wrong. I had thought that first I establish a topic, and then I upload a review document. Actually, QT and QTDR are separate. I have deleted the orphaned QT topic files I had no intention of initiating.

What I feel is terribly lacking (perhaps my inexerience with QTDR :\ is an ability of editing the uploaded document.

Thanks for the heads-up on Seth. I'll email him shortly.

That I have connected with individuals involved with the Internet's beginnings is exciting, given my own obsessions with it - the net that is. I have driven myself to distraction trying to create prototype webpage designs, but am reaching the limit of my patience regarding their limitations.

Might I ask what your interest/involvement with QT/QTDR lie?

(Reposted from http://www.quicktopic.com/9/H/UkdRKy5kXwBg/m45)

Hi Bernie!

First off, might I suggest that we transfer our discussion of your questions/issues with QT/QTDR to Richard Seltzer's "Business on the web" topic, which is (a) where we "met" and also (b) a "vanilla Topic" rather than a QTDR. If we conduct our "conversation" there, what we say will be easier to follow (imho) rather than built atop a single paragraph in the demo-doc QTDR. Hope this is OK by you.

I have no problems seeing your "Thought Provoking Action" doc at http://www.quicktopic.com/10/D/yykSmrnVa9Emx.html . It looks (and reads!) good. I just Subscribed to that QTDR, put in a couple of test comments, and that all works fine. I don't exactly follow the sequence of events you described ("after the upload, I had exited,") but I don't think it's a cause for concern. Storage costs on the QT server are covered by QT's author, Steve Yost. Yes, there might be an "orphaned version" of your uploaded doc up there somewheres, but it's virtually impossible that it would be found randomly. And any successful upload has always resulted in a useable URL, so if you don't see one, it probably means that there's only one working QTDR up there, which is the one I commented on.

Say Bernie, there's a guy you should meet (and maybe invite into your "Thought Provoking Actions" QTDR). His name's Seth Itzkan. He and I worked for BBN (Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., the birthplace of the internet) though at different times. We both belong to the 'xbbn' distro list. He's also a self-styled futurist and I enjoy his writings (which he regularly flags to the xbbn email-list). He recently distributed a pointer to his latest imho excellent and moving essay, "Visionary Vermont," which also deals with post-Sept-11^th issues. I won't redistribute the pointer; that's his to do of course. But his email is sitzkan@planet-tech.com .

If there's anything more I can do by way of coaching in the whys and wherefores of QT/QTDR, I will be happy to do so (modulo available time; gimme a day or so:-) -- and I hope to see ya over in Richard Seltzer's "Business on the web" topic!

(I'll repost this same text there, for continuity's sake)

Yes, we're explicit about not spamming users.

Regarding unsubscribing, I'd like to put a link at the bottom of each email that QT sends, with a two-click link for unsubscribing (one click to get the usub web page, one to submit the form). It's pretty high on the priority list.

Edited by author 10-11-2001 03:35 PM
The complete transcript of the just-completed chat is available at http://makeashorterlink.com/?D4235041 (-: complete with lots of chat-experimentation prior to the event -- just search forward for the string

magic hour

and you'll skip past all the extraneous verbiage. :-)

Thanks for a wonderful experience and service, Richard!

I know that Steve Yost will be dropping in here sometime, so let me suggest that the current link

Subscribe to get & post messages by email

might be slightly expanded to read

Subscribe to get & post, or stop messages by email