What form should the acronym dictionary take?

[tbontob]

We have come to a crossroads of sorts:

The issue is whether we want
1) a very usable acronym dictionary comprised of only commonly used acronyms.
2) a complete list of acronyms, some useful and some not.

The distinction is important, because, #1 will be smaller and therefore the acronym will be more easily accessable.

If we select #2, it will "legitimize" uncommon acronyms and some Users may use them forcing others to refer to the dictionary to find out what it means.

#2 is not necessarily a bad thing, but there may be some resentment if they are used without any reference to their origen, thereby forcing the reader to constantly refer to the dictionary until they become common.

So what form do you guys want the acronym dictionary to take?

1) include only the most commonly used acronyms. Delete acronyms not in common use such as MM's "TL = Large Troops, Hull"

2) The form it now has.

I've set a 2 week time limit, so the poll will close on Novemeber 8th

[Suicide Junkie]

#1, where the definition of "common" is quite loose. Used in more than one thread so far type thing.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
#1, where the definition of "common" is quite loose. Used in more than one thread so far type thing.

SJ, Good question (I assume it is a question).

Unfortunately, it may require a judgement call.

My thoughts are:
1) If 1 person uses an acronym, even if he uses it consistently, it is not common.
2) If 2 people use an acronym in 2 or more threads, then it may have reached a semi-common status.
3) If more than three people have used it over time, then it is common.

Also, while a new acronym is uncommon, if there appears to be a groundswell consensus that it should be included, then we should not wait for it to become common in practice. For example, if MM brings out something new that is 50 letters long and it seems it will be a hot topic like DUC or PBW etc, then it's acronym should be included soon.

Other than the above, I am unable to give a more definitive answer.

EDIT: This may not be too critical in practice. For example, a judgement call in October may be that it is not common, but obvious usage in November may change its status to common and therefore require it's inclusion in the dictionary.

Incidentally, we are being faced with the same dilemma that revisers of "ordinary" dictionaries have...when does a new term become common enough to warrant its inclusion.

[ October 26, 2002, 06:12: Message edited by: tbontob ]

[tbontob]

Something has "bumped" in the night!

[Skulky]

I think we should have a "complete dictionary available" (with short definitions?) and then the main one will be short and to the point with only what is used around here, maybe must be used at least 5 times in the forums.

EDIT: Wasn't done when i posted, oops

[ October 28, 2002, 03:14: Message edited by: Skulky ]

[tbontob]

Hmmmmmmmm

That's an idea...

A short dictionary of acronyms in common usage

followed by

A dictionary of all the acronyms.

Difficult to do in a spreadsheet.

However, we can easily do this:

A short dictionary of acronyms in common usage

followed by

A large dictionary of acronyms not in common usage.

So, if a person can't find it in the first dictionary, he looks at the second one.

[Ed Kolis]

Why not make it part of that Wikki hyperlink thing? Then you can have a section for "common acronyms" and a section for "uncommon acronyms" and an alphabetical listing and this and that...