Join GitHub today
Create DB entries for all society and venue strings #541
From #536 (review)
At the moment, we have an "other_society" field which is used to store a plain text society name string if the show's society is not already listed on Camdram. Instead, we could create a new society entry for any unique society string. Such entries would be hidden from /societies unless/until manually made visible by an admin.
Ditto for venues.
I think that film listings that spring up ad-hoc venues & societies would be the biggest issue RE the first disadvantage. Then again, I'm not convinced that's necessarily a bad thing in that it wouldn't be any more messy or worse than the
It would also in theory be possible to detect orphaned societies and venues that are no longer linked to shows (through mis-spellings etc.) and purge them. Similarly but more complicated: detect similarly spelt venues/societies differing by a few characters or punctuation.
Had a skim through that earlier and didn't much like the look of it.
SELECT DISTINCT `society` FROM `acts_shows` WHERE `socid` IS NULL ORDER BY `society` ASC
gives 479 results; there's:
All-in-all thoroughly grim data!
If we want to pursue this further I would suggest:
This would prevent further duplicates from appearing as users can then make their spelling conform to what previous users have typed.
@GKFX plan seems very sensible. I like the idea of making society addition work more like person addition.
If looking at cleaning spelling variants, typos, etc (I've played this game many times before), I'd probably suggest trying to use phonetic algorithms like Soundex and/or Metaphone; they'd probably do a decent job of finding probable dupes on society names (despite being constructed for human names mainly). MySQL has
For more work but possibly more reward (in terms of making Camdram a little more self-maintaining) maybe we could expand that workflow?
If a show-creator enters a society that isn't already an approved, publicly-visible one, but has enough other shows linked to it to satisfy our conditions for listing the society: could we prompt them to think "should it be?" and maybe provide us with structured information that can make it so (with minimal-to-no interaction from the webteam).
My thinking is that reasonably often, somebody creating a show for an "unrecognised" society will actually be part of the society committee - most smaller / newer societies are quite small operations and don't have a standalone committee apart from show production teams. If not on the committee, they'll probably know people who are.
Semi-philosophical question: is there any difference between a previously approved, publicly-visible society with no admins any more (like #346), and a non-approved society created via this newly-proposed method?