I'm hoping to have a generator for the code (you click on check boxes) if everyone thinks it's a good idea

unique hits to pg 1:

------------------
my geek code
Hazards: "There is an island of opportunity in the middle of every difficulty, miss that, though, and you're pretty much doomed."

now we just need to add the official copyright info, finish any revisions, and make a standard display

------------------
my geek code
Hazards: "There is an island of opportunity in the middle of every difficulty, miss that, though, and you're pretty much doomed."

-Oz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oz, the Wizard of:
You left out the physical descriptions/marital status area! What will it be without that? It was essential to the original code, this offshoot should have it too.

-Oz

---

ok, ok!

Not only did I post my long post in the wrong topic, but I didn't read the spec correctly on ilmdg4's page. [/me never pays attention] Grr. (be sure to send any replies this way, to avoid dragging the old thread on)

Despite the obvious errors thus created in my post, some of my comments still stand.

Talents seems that it should be broken up, that talents involving computers should be in the Computer section and Skills involving Art should be in an Art section. The grouping, per U's comments makes sence to me, because if someone doesn't know computers they don't have to leave empty varibles for programing... the can just C0 or C1, depending on if the 0 to 9 gets picked up.

I never though of it from that angle...not sure I concur, though. Is there any requirement that selectors be required? Or all zeros necessary? Good question.

Having realised my foolishness in not paying attention to the specs before my last post, I'll re-cover the points which I still believe are important:

• Sub-selectors: For a lot of areas, it is impossible to list every sub-type (every food type, every TV programme, every computing skill). I did suggest allowing for free-form selectors (e.g. "C/5; Perl/9") but I now feel that the point of GCC should be to offer more of a general view of someone, rather than write their biography. Thus, food might have sub-selectors for where you eat (out, at home (cook, microwave) etc); programming might have programming areas (server-side, client-side, event-driven, assembly etc). I'm not sure whether I'm even getting the appropriate level of abstraction here, but I hope you can see what I mean. I'm intending for an overview to be given, and not the precise details, which are best kept unknown (hey, geeks need something left to ask about each other in conversation).
• Issues of hierarchy. I'm seeing a three-level hierarchy at least here, and I don't think the existing specification caters for that. For example:
  � computing.programming.server-side
  � computing.graphics
  � computing.gaming.arcade (or hobbies.computer-gaming.arcade?)
  � hobbies.cycling.some-selector

  But then, why not hobbies.computing.some-selector (which interferes with the for-work qualifier, though).

  I think some sort of distinct, clear hierarchy is needed to keep all this ordered, otherwise it will rapidly get untidy. The hierarchy will also allow one to pick out selectors easily, for example a row of GCC thus:
  � COMP: PROG {SS6; CS1; ED7} GMNG {RP0; AR8};
  would highlight computing, its groupings (programming, gaming) and their selectors (server-side, role-playing etc). I've always found the Geek Code to be a hellish mess, and some sort of clear, line-by-line structured order is both far clearer to interpret, and much more what geeks would device, rather than a jumbled mess where it takes all morning to pick anything out.

• Finally, just noting that we need a jargon set for it. I'm using "categories" (computing), "groupings" (gaming) and "selectors" (arcade) but anything will do as long as we know what to call all the elements for reference.
  

- Uilleann

this way, if I know php html c++ and javascript, instead of using a bunch of odd numbers, i'd be able to go with something like PROG{PHP8 HTML10 C4 JScript7}
before i re-write the code, I just want to know that this looks good (or doesnt)

If you want to have your own selectors per [category|grouping] (will there be any better hierarchy?) it might get a bit out of hand if people use any selectors they desire - less of a code and more like a terse description. On the other hand, maybe that's better, as it offers more freedom. We need more views, we need a consensus here :)

Give us your views everyone!

quote:

---

Originally posted by uilleann:
I think a symbol between the selector and level (HTML4 -> HTML:4) would look a little clearer.

If you want to have your own selectors per [category|grouping] (will there be any better hierarchy?) it might get a bit out of hand if people use any selectors they desire - less of a code and more like a terse description. On the other hand, maybe that's better, as it offers more freedom. We need more views, we need a consensus here

Give us your views everyone!

- Uilleann (and on behalf of ilovemydualg4)

---

The idea for the divider is a good idea between the selector and the number.
Maybe we will instead list a ton of selectors and people will only choose what they want.
what do you all think?
tonight i'll make a new revision with what we see today, and we can keep going on like this

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oz, the Wizard of:
It's looking good so far. Would a value between 1 and 10 on gender indicate bi or hermafrodite?

-Oz

---

i was thinking it would probably be better for G:M/F/etc. again, it would make it less debate (like saying that if 1=male and 10=female, then is a man less of a person? etc.), that will be there tonight, in .3b

Where you list OSes, are you referring to preference or competence? Preference is implied, but where does competence come in? I might use Windows and be good at it but still hate it :)

Also, just where does the scale begin? The top says it starts at zero, but with some selectors taking their start value as 1, it is uncertain. E.g. "Pa1 I rarely eat pasta" (thus 0 is never) but for "ba1 I never watch Babylon 5" 0 is then a meaningless number. Heh, just me being fussy.

Personally, I'd not want to "rate my marriage" (seems a cold thing to do), and what do the values mean? How does the scale progress up? I suggest: single -> been in a relationship a short while -> long term relationship -> married a while -> married a long time? Where does married come in? Mid-way? Plus, how does it cover aspects like how much dating you do?

Music needs genres, along the lines of your suggestion for programming languages. E.g. music { freq: 7; trance/6 ... } Would the genre number relate to amount of playing, or knowledge, or what? Maybe 0 = does not play (where does hate come in? -ve figures sound nice here), 5 = plays a lot, 10 = knows everything there is to know about that genre. Hrm... not sure.

Food, movies, TV shows and other areas all need to follow the pattern for programming, to avoid the limitation of having built-in selectors that don't cover what you want. Or, yes, as you said, you could list lots and let people choose. But think how many there'd be...

Now, I must stress this point as it seems to be getting neglected. There are more than just computer geeks out there, so this code needs to be made to take into account any geeky area.

Personally, IMHO this is being rushed to completion a bit, I think more thought needs to go into it (esp. on the above) before it can be considered near-complete and ready.

Also: Anime gets one selector, whereas different sci-fi shows each get their own. Anime and sci-fi need equal treatment.

Two more thoughts: meta-entries, at the top, and comments, e.g.
!lupd/2002-06-21 #last updated meta-entry (just so ppl know whether its been altered recently)

im sorry about the mariage thing, it's kinda like the gender thing, it is probably better qualified with a letter
i'm gonna do an update now, i'll post up when the new version is updated, and i'll put in the meta tags

in addition, i put in a colon in between the selector and the number

Religon??? would be intresting to include, but not sure how and that would work... Seems that that would take on a string or tree like shape, and ot a numarical one.

We should also take into consideration offical way of adding an add on... Look at all the people who have modified the original GeekCode, if we could write rules to how to denote where the new portions are from, we could keep a standard code without limiting it to our needs, and it would still be able to be parsed by decoding and encode informations... If we did something like:
|GCC v.1b www.thesite.com - THE CODE HERE| SOME ADDON www.ADD.com - THEIR STUPID STUFF HERE|
That way, the script or programs to traslate it would return the left over (stuff that wasn't in the orginial), and the translation for first. And if we made the script to translate availible to the general public, the other sites could simply add the code to translate their secion. This would make the code more adaptable, and widespread.

That is, a file hosted on a server that contains the specification for the code, e.g.

code:

---

!vers/1.0
!lupd/2002-06-21
P:category,"Physical Description/Martial Status" {
 Wi:selector,"Width" {
  10: "I can't fit through a door!";
  5: "I'm average width";
  1: "I'm skinny as a piece of paper!" }
 He:selector,"Height" { ... }
 ...
}
...

---

That's just a rough idea, to make it more up-to-date, it should probably be XML. Cross-over would be allowed, so that a new add-on file could add to existing categories.

Then, the geek code would identify such files, as the source, e.g.

code:

---

<?GCC
 !spec ("GCC/1.0", http://homepage.mac.com/ilovemydualg4/gcc/gcc.xml)
 !spec ("GameMaster-Addons/0.2c", www.game-master.org/gcc/gmaddons0.2c.xml)
 #geek code here
>

---

*shrugs* I'm starting to think that a little paragraph about yourself would be far more legible ;)

Which makes me ask: what is the basic design philosophy of the geek code (old or new)? It is presumably meant to be a succint summary description of someone's life, but are you also supposed to memorise every single selector? The old one was kept down to a small size (kind of, the +/-s didn't help there), but is this required to be?

I had a go with both your codes earlier (which didn't agree on the GC W+++$ and the GCC W0) (rather hard as it doesn't match the latest version) and did find it confusing. I know there are people who actually memorise all those letters (see the original geek code v.3 - there is actually a selector to take that into account), but I can't and never will. A more structured order, for one thing, should aid in guessing the meanings of letters (such as a line for computing).

*shrugs* Truth be told, I don't really ever plan on using it. Geek codes are good for those who feel proud of who and what they are, and want to tell the world (like, potential mates, or something); I don't feel there is anything I'd want to use it for. Just, I'm a control freak and someone who loves thinking of improvements for stuff (and a perfectionist), so I'm just being a semi-well-intentioned menace along those lines. I'll get over it soon, once it gets too late to hope to have any large-scale effect on it (or, if I actually like the proposed design (*senses a Hell temperature drop*)).

And you've used M for both music and movies...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ilovemydualg4:
well, fyi, I have no clue how to start to make the decoder, i know nothing of xml

---

make a schema (too lazy to do that).....I'll write something to validate and parse it in......*drumroll* php...my new and latest language/toy/plaything/mistress.......
I'll help with the generator too.....if you want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mephisto:
make a schema (too lazy to do that).....I'll write something to validate and parse it in......*drumroll* php...my new and latest language/toy/plaything/mistress.......
I'll help with the generator too.....if you want.

---

yeah, but I'm not gonna bother untill I get a final version

code:

---

<GCC version=".1b" url="http://homepage.mac.com/ilovemydualg4/gcc/">
<Catagory id="P" title="Physical/Description">
  <Wi title="Width>
    <Value number="10">Can't fit through the door</Value>
    <Value number="5">I'm average width</Value>
    <Value number="1">I'm as skinny as a peice of paper</Value>
  </wi>
  <He title="Height">
  ...
</Catagory>

---

code:

---

<GCC version=".1b" url="...">
P{Wi:5 ..}...
</GCC>
<GCCADDON version=".01" url="...">
...
</GCCADDON>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GameMaster:
The php is a good idea.... I was thinking of just some simple perl, or a c++ program, but PHP seems like a better choice.
XML is a great ideas too, something like:

code:

---

<GCC version=".1b" url="http://homepage.mac.com/ilovemydualg4/gcc/">
<Catagory id="P" title="Physical/Description">
  <Wi title="Width>
    <Value number="10">Can't fit through the door</Value>
    <Value number="5">I'm average width</Value>
    <Value number="1">I'm as skinny as a peice of paper</Value>
  </wi>
  <He title="Height">
  ...
</Catagory>

---

And the code could look like a hybrid:

code:

---

<GCC version=".1b" url="...">
P{Wi:5 ..}...
</GCC>
<GCCADDON version=".01" url="...">
...
</GCCADDON>

---

if you(we) opt to use XML, I think that it really doesn't matter as long as it remains consistant so that a purser can read it. I kind of like Uilleann's better than the XML, because the XML is uneededly long.

---

this is gread, but i think we should really 1) work on the code before we make a distribution system or 2) divide into 2 groups one of which will work on the code itself, and the other on the distribution

Now, you can do exactly as you like, but IMHO I'm still concerned about the structure of the code - order, hierarchy and so on. If you're satisfied, then mephisto or whoever can write a parser etc. However, if there are any uncertainties in the structure, then work on the parser will have to be held off.

It matters not what categories/groups/selectors you want to add/remove/change, as the GCC spec file will just need to be amended to reflect said changes, but it does matter if the format of the code itself is not certain yet, and that is the part I'm not content with personally. I'm still not quite sure where the balance comes between terse symbols and open description - and what we are aiming at (is decoder software better, or just a geek code that can be understood by people other than those with a speciality for cryptography?)

I think the other main focus for now is getting a truly broad spectrum of categories into it, as per the original, plus all those the original left out. The original (I read the specs earlier) allowed for [just about, if not] all the geek types we have on the board, but then went on to not to let most such people say anything about their geek talents and skills - it was computing oriented. Quite how all of that can be accompanied into the new GCC, I don't know. First off, the name space will soon get flooded (think two-letter UNIX commands) so you need a method of dealing with that, and secondly you'd have to make all categories optional (and the groups). Or, whatever you have; categories don't exist in the current GCC.

ilovemydualg4 can have the tremendous fun of taking all this into account, and adding in all the missing groups and selectors (including geek type).

I was looking more towards a form which you filled out (which showes all of the categories, you select which ones you participate in, and enter values, then the script generates your code, so that it is more likely to be conforming to the standard), written easilly in php wiht a hell of a lot of if statements

maybe tommorow i'll have time to overhaul, but i'm looking to see more suggestions on selectors, like in art, where we have a void. i think i can fill in with politics stuff myself though

do we want a location selector?

However, just put it in for completess' sake :)

The problem with exsactly what the hierarchy is going to be is lost on me. I don't see the the problem with the brakets... It gives peopl a way to comment on an entire area, if they don't want to give the spcifications. I think that the A{X:# Y:# Z:#} follows logically, as that is how the .mud files for the The MUD worked, but include the sperators and required predefinitions... Hey, that is an idea...

#www.thesite.com/GCC.xml //GeekCulture Code v .1b
#www.addon.com/addon.xml //Some add on
A{X:# Y:# Z:#} B{GCC.X:# addon.X:# Y:# Z:#}

That way, X could come from GCC and the Y could come from addon and they be parsed as both belonding to catagory X. Which might cause problems if two addons use the same identifer (variable name) but a dotsyantax could be uesd to clear up conflicts, like in catagory B.

The cgi script to creat the code would just have a list items with selection boxes with options from 0 to 10 and the modifiers (with a checkbox for the varies?).

The decoder would access XML files or Uilleann Script files (hey, you should TM the script if we use it U!)

After we set up what exsactly the script will look like, there will be two groups of programers (one working to write a cgi script to decode, ont writting a code generator), and someone correlating all the attributes and catagories that need to be created (from suggestions added to this thread). Someone should also write a short document about how other addons should appear, and how the values of the modifiers remains constant.

I know U has a problem with the A{X:# Y:# Z:#} syantax, as you can just A:#, and there really isn't any nesting (yet...) but I really don't see that to be a problem (and being a C++ programer rather like it).

And what is the difference between these:
* Indicates area of extreme (Placed instead of a number)

@ Indicates this is a person's specialty area (Placed before a qualifier)

Should we have our own url? I'll register www.geekculturecode.tk though I think it is a bit long, and I don't know if it will be possible trademark infringement, though Snaggy offered to put a link up, and if we all put it in our sigs, then I'll just leave it how it is

The problem with exsactly what the hierarchy is going to be is lost on me. I don't see the the problem with the brakets...
Nor do I. What I was trying to explain is that there are at least three levels of hierarchy. For example, the selector Wc (Windows Competence) is found inside the group of OsComp (OS competence). However, OS competence falls inside the larger category of computing, alongside OS preference, computing talents and programming.

The gcc.html page doesn't list all groups of same category adjacent to each other, and at mininum, they should be listed as such. Even then, that won't enforce people to put them in that order in their code, and trying to track down the various lifestyle or computing groups as they occur in the code could get to be a nuisance especially if all the selectors retain their terse names. Even when listed in order, some sort of structure would be nice to help you work with it.

That is the reason behind my suggestion that groups of like category be listed on the same line with a category identifier at the beginning e.g.
  Comp: P { ... } OSComp { ... }

Just, if there's a fourth level of hierarchy, this will break (I'll have to keep quiet if I think of one, I'm a hierarchy addict ;).

#www.thesite.com/GCC.xml //GeekCulture Code v .1b
#www.addon.com/addon.xml //Some add on
A{X:# Y:# Z:#} B{GCC.X:# addon.X:# Y:# Z:#}

Thus, you've gone so far to suggest that an add-on can both update groups as well as add new ones. I started off thinking that was good, but then decided that it would get muddled as people might all be interfering with ilovemydualg4's own groups and selectors at the same time and create conflicts. But, maybe it would work.

The decoder would access XML files or Uilleann Script files (hey, you should TM the script if we use it U!)
Eh what? That was just a random idea, although trademark it if you like on my behalf. If you decide to use it, it might want to be improved a bit. I do like the idea of XML, though, as it is then using a standard framework format. *notes that the XML shown in this topic is actually not all correct, but still*

- uilleann

And of course I'll put it all together in groups tommorow/later today

And what is the difference between...area of extreme [and] specialty area[?]
Firstly, what is an area of extreme? It replaces the number, so that means that it would supposedly have a numerical equivalent. Why wouldn't 10 count as extreme? To me, though, extreme suggests manner only, in that you do it a lot (to the extreme) whether you are good at it or not. Thus, surely it would be added after the number, and not replace it? You might only consider yourself to be a rating 5 RPG player, but if you play RPGs all day and all night, you might have a qualifier of 5*.

As for specialty area, that is something that you specialise in, and its usage does indeed follow my reasoning above.

Personally, I think the format for qualifiers should be improved. I suggest:
 selector ::= <selector-id>(:)<qualifier>
 qualifier ::= <rating><modifier>
 rating ::= 1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|0|?|!
 modifier ::= (@)($)(*)
OK, have 10 as a rating too, but I want to keep ratings one-digit ;) Plus, that order, now consistent, also makes parsing easier than before.

I'm also a bit uncertain about the meaning of ! and ?. If you choose not to participate in a given selector, why not just omit it? The same applies for if you don't know. The use of ? suggests you want people to know that you don't, and ! implies that you are making a stand by refusing to say, as opposing to quietly omitting the selector.

- uilleann