If done with sensitivity
, autonoding need not be a "foul practice
A good autonoder would work like this:
Nodes are created.
- User marks up source material into nodes, giving each node a sensible name (e.g. "Luke 7:15" (qv)). Some hardlinks may be hand-inserted, but many may be ommitted.
- Script compares each word and each phrase of (say) three words or less, with its own list of nodenames, and if there is a match, converts the phrase into a hardlink.
- Script searches E2 for a node matching every word and every phrase (below a given length) in the document, and inserts hardlinks where appropriate. Stopwords would be required, and possibly some human intervention.
- A new login name is created for the autonoder, e.g. "Roger's Profanisaurus", so that:
- Human does not take credit for autonoded content
- Autonoded content is easily identifiable
- Admin may delete autonoded content with a single SQL command if everything goes tits-up.
Any old fool can export junk
: it takes effort
to export quality nodes
. (Effort which so far I have failed to stump up).