Phillip Smith wrote:
> 1. In the system you set-up for Branded Content, as
each comment a
> story, or a sub-element of a story?
They're stories. The template that burns the real story
includes the
story id as a hidden field. The SOAP template relates the
real story to
the comment story.
Once approved, publishing the comment actually causes the
real story to
be republished and any approved (read Published) comment
stories are
included inline in the output.
> 2. How do your users find the experience of approving
comments in
> Bricolage (for me, this was a plus... but other folks
have suggested
> that a dedicated comment interface may be better /
faster, or more usable).
It seems to work fine although the comment frequency is
pretty low. If
it got higher I would create a special "approval"
story that allowed the
user to read all the unapproved comments in one place
although they'd
still have to go into the publish desk to publish them.
If the volume really grew, I'd possibly look to build an
extension for
Bricolage that would allow comments to be previewed inline
in a desk.
> 3. How does it scale? Are you finding that comments
(theoretically
> outnumbering stories) are cluttering up the
"real" content?
We put the stories onto a "comments" desk so
they're kept separate from
the real content. If I recall correctly we also put them
into a parallel
category structure too. So if we really needed to we could
fence the
comments off completely from the content and give a
dedicated comments
approver rights to this area only.
> 4. Are you running bric_soap on the front-end server to
do the XML post?
Yes. It's a bit hacky but we couldn't get the libraries to
work properly
on their own. Refactoring bric_soap into a
Bric::SOAP::Client library
that does all the heavy lifting would be a great idea for
this kind of
thing.
Simon.
--
Digital Craftsmen Ltd
Exmouth House, 3 Pine Street, bond. EC1R 0JH
t 020 7183 1410 f 020 7099 5140 m 07951 758698
w http://www.digitalcr
aftsmen.net/
|