After a game is submitted and accepted to <CG> via something like an editor note?

<ESPN blog:

Dodgers complete sweep of Padres without ever allowing a single run. pic.twitter.com/F0IdMCE2ag>

Without Ever?! Huh?? Why is the word 'ever' even in there??

<MannBee>

<Dodgers complete sweep of Padres without ever allowing a single run.>

You're right, "ever" doesn't need to be there, but it does serve a purpose.

It's an intensifier to dramatize the extent of the achievement. You could accomplish the same purpose by using "even" as an intensifier:

Serious lag time again. When is the new server up and running properly?

I'm not sure how to read your comment.

I do think long-form citations (though impracticable in PGN headers) are useful even outside the academic context, for they offer, at a glance, complete and unambiguous information that most readily directs the reader to the quoted or cited source. Short-form citations keyed to a table of abbreviations reciting a long-form citation for an abbreviated authority accomplish the same result (and would be made to fit into the source field in a PGN header) -- just not at a glance. The reader of either form of citation need have no ex ante familiarity with a given source, and no especial academic expertise, to take full advantage of short-form citations, long-form citations, or both.

<Regarding short-form/abbreviated condensed source citations in PGN headers: using just the page number or range of numbers with hyphen saves two ("p.") or three ("p.<space>") characters -- not inconsiderable in a 32-character field.>

I think <chessgames> put that idea out, in the fashion of "thinking out loud".

As I've already commented, I think such a limit is far too restrictive, both from what the citation needs to do, and from what the PGN would allow (255-characters).

It's not 1970's computing anymore, single disk drives with terabyte storage and 16Gb RAM are quite common. There's no reason we can't accomodate a 255-byte (or character) citation.

I wish <chessgames> would clarify this, but worrying about a one- or two-character savings is not our goal here.

* * * * *

What is our goal?

Our goal is to develop a system that encourages biographers who actually contribute new PGN to use a <Source> tag.

And secondly, that <CG> respects it, i.e. doesn't strip it out.

It's really that simple.

To tell the truth, I would be happy if <CG> didn't do anything more with the tag then just tuck it away until someone looks at the PGN.

* * * * *

Let's be practical in these matters.

At some level, we're just trying to leave navigational aids to find our way to sources such as listed here:

http://www.chessarch.com/library/li...

I would expect everyone who knows enough to use Pope's site to know that <DSZ> means <Deutsche Schachzeitung>. As experts, I would expect to almost never have to write out:

Deutsche Schachzeitung - verbose, vs.

DSZ - concise.

Another example would be the one provided earlier:

<"The British Chess Magazine (London: Trubner & Co.), Vol. XXIX, Sept. 1909, Game No. 3,203, 402.> - verbose

<BCM v24 (Sep 1909) G-3203 p402/420> - concise

I don't need <CG> to do anything with the latter, except not strip it out, when found inside the PGN:

<[Source "BCM v24 (Sep 1909) G-3203 p402/420"]>

This is already a 34-character ref, because of some redundancy, which I think is helpful enough to keep (a topic for another post).

* * * *

What should <CG> do with this Source tag?

It's good enough for me as is, since it allows the game to be looked up.

But what is envisioned for <CG> to do in addition?

OK, <CG> could have a little function written up, using Biographer's supplied tables, to expand a concise reference into a verbose reference.

It could then even accommodate locale settings, so that users get Dates and numbering according to their preference. Maybe such a reference would then be displayable on the game page.

That's one idea.

Here's another. Using the Source ref, <CG> has enough information to construct a url to the game itself (assuming the ref is online).

This would be a very handy feature, allowing one to just click on the link on the game page to hop over to the game page in the source.

Yes, that would be useful.

Of course, the link text could remain in concise form in such a case. Or long form.

I respectfully disagree with the utility and the content of an inductive prediction that all abbreviated/condensed/short-form citations to source authorities would be common-knowledge even to all (or most) editors, let alone to all (or most) readers. In this connection, I believe the short-form citation in the source-field in the PGN header would become transparently apparent if a user/member selected one or more of the three options "PGN: download/view/print" on a game page and the PGN header for that game contained such a citation. Accordingly, both for ease and consistency of data-entry by editors, and for ease of reference and further study by interested readers (users/members), I reaffirm our agreement that while short-form citations in PGN's should be used just as we suggest they should be, a table of them should be available for reference -- for such citations are not self-explanatory, and it might be counterproductive to understanding to presume familiarity with them. No criticism of you intended or implied. :)

Deleting one's kibitz deactivates links upon reposting. If one copies one's kibitz before deleting it and then pastes it, previews it, corrects it, and reposts it, the links have to be regenerated and reinserted manually for them to work once more upon reposting.

Deleting one's kibitz and then reposting a corrected kibitz causes the repost to be placed at the bottom of the thread, instead of back in its place in its original sequence of kibitzes. This can disrupt the flow of analysis or conversation -- especially if, in a deleted kibitz corrected and reposted, one continues to refer to one's own or to another user's kibitz that originally had immediately preceded the kibitz before its deletion.

It seems an editing feature would dovetail well with the tip on deletions: "You may delete your message for up to one hour after you post it. You can use that to fix major mistakes, e.g. posting the message to the wrong page." Edits could be performed to fix minor mistakes, leaving deletions available for the fixing of major ones.

Beyond that, you might find the edit button wouldn't actually help you with either of the problems you cite!

Problem one: <Deleting one's kibitz deactivates links upon reposting. If one copies one's kibitz before deleting it and then pastes it, previews it, corrects it, and reposts it, the links have to be regenerated and reinserted manually for them to work once more upon reposting.>

As far as I know, <cg> doesn't actually store the original raw text behind a kibitz (which is what we would like to edit); to keep things simple and save space, they only store the HTML copy. Perfectly recreating the raw text from the copy might not always be possible, and while one could probably get acceptably close, it would take the admins extra coding effort. The alternative (and the ideal solution) would be to start storing the original raw text, either permanently or for a limited amount of time (1 hour)... but that, too, would require extra coding, not to mention cost space and make things less simple for the admins.

The other option would be the cheap solution - an edit button based on the copy, rather than the original raw text - which the admins could easily implement with minimal new code. But in that case, the edit button wouldn't solve this problem.

Problem two: <Deleting one's kibitz and then reposting a corrected kibitz causes the repost to be placed at the bottom of the thread, instead of back in its place in its original sequence of kibitzes. This can disrupt the flow of analysis or conversation -- especially if, in a deleted kibitz corrected and reposted, one continues to refer to one's own or to another user's kibitz that originally had immediately preceded the kibitz before its deletion.>

Yes, that's sometimes annoying; but unfortunately, the alternative (having a new post in the place of an old post) is exactly what makes edit abuse such a risk, and why an edit button doesn't exist. In 2014 - when we last had a serious discussion about whether an edit button could be introduced - we agreed that to prevent edit abuse, any new edit button would work by giving the edited post a new timestamp that placed it at the bottom of the thread, essentially being an automated delete-and-repost. (chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #20185) has the details.)

So having an edit button wouldn't solve this problem, either.

--

Nothing you could do 'cause I'm stuck like glue to My Guy

I'm sticking to My Guy like a stamp to a letter, like birds of a feather we stick together