@selfbrain Thank for comment yeah i justi realize these options
@DrZwischenzug Yeah Lichess is great, however that doesn't mean that it can't be improved, so why is giving suggestions and feedback is a bad thing?
I think the tag system might be tightened and linked to the search feature to implement many feature requests about making all the studies a more cohesive ensemble for retrieval, reference, and hierarchical meaning based navigation through the mass.
cohesive in space (where the eyes wander or its mind versions) and in time, so that each member might build on already made things (improving on it). but also just within on individual body of content created.
The only referencable or linkable objects of a study are its whole (top level), and the chapters. moves within chapters are not referencable from another chapter, or outside the study.
That right there limits the scope that one study may have for human brain conceptual understanding, or for making a book even "essays" with some navigation ability. There a limit to human tree search and tree internalization abiilities not just when it comes to compute look-ahead in chess game, but also anywhere.
The web has shown the power of hyperlink, when combined with various tree based angles of approaches such as TOC and indexes.
So I think I will make a short thread in the feedback sections, simply referring to this thread. and asking other members to do the same for the other misplaced feature suggestion/request from the recent past in these forums.
As this is where they should be put. And I suggest such threads ops, to present pairs of inconvenient together with initial idea of appropriate feature. But even doing a development as this op about what is wanted in layman terms that seems to be impossible should be enough to get started over there.
I don't think the op should necessarily come up with a plausible ready to code solution. That is where the notions of dialogues and forum, come into play.
But, after a while, and having myself experience in voicing such things, and seeing how lichess has evolved and responded to mine or others concerns, I do have (or did) some sense of the constraints, although I am not up to date, on the infrastructure update powers, there are themes of constraints. Server load, and Dev human/hours availablility, and existing code base ensemble interdependencies between modules. orthers?
Why not do like life has been doing forever, mutate/adapt what is already there to fit into new niches, or new territory.
It seems to me that the TAG system of keywords, is such a budding organ for solving the meaningful navigation of the mass of studies existing and likely to keep increasing as should be expected from the size of the userbase.
I have already mentioned that imparting some structure to the TAG system and linking to an equally somewhat structure would help, and I think it can be done small layers at a time... but I am no dev... going to link this thread ASAP.
I am sure that the lichess creators and developpers would welcome such feedback from the community. And that they are able to see behind any frustration, as long as there is food for understanding, and perhaps seeds for solution. one never knows from where improvments might come. And lichess has time and again shown it is ever developping...
(i wanted to do another CAPTCHA, they became more diverse lately it seems, hence the extra post).
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.