h a l f b a k e r yPlease listen carefully, as our opinions have changed.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A question that's occurred to me off and on lately has to do with the Baked "marked for deletion" tag, and how it sort of clashes with the concept of the bakery being for original ideas. Although "not an original idea" is not listed as a reason for MFD, it presumably is one, based on the clearly stated
help file introductory text. "Ideas for the halfbakery should be original to the poster and should, as far as the poster knows, not exist already."
Considering those occasions that happen nowadays, when something is marked as baked but not widely known to exist and therefore permitted to remain MFD-less, it seems to me that even one instance of something being baked is indicative of the posted idea being unoriginal. This is not to suggest that the author lifted the concept - it may well have been original to the author - but baked is baked and if it's been thought of before, then the idea is clearly not appropriate for the bakery.
This being the case, the 'widely known to exist' clause ceases to have any value, and 'baked' in any form is proof of unoriginality and grounds for deletion.
To get around this, perhaps the proper path to take would be to eliminate both "baked-widely-known-to-exist" and "not-an-original-idea" MFDs, and instead replace them with one single "Prior Art" MFD that covers all ground. Seems much simpler to administer too, as it just becomes a matter of time.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
This rule seems too severe to me. I would hate to have to search 12 different patent engines before posting an idea. |
|
| |
Well I have not got a problem with your idea. There was an idea the other day for self fogging skyscrapers which used the same system for fogging as a building I know of. I could have put m f d "widely known to exist" but I chose not to as I don't know how widely known the building is.
I have not marked an idea m f d in the time I've used this site. |
|
| |
//I have not marked an idea m f d in the time I've used this site.//
Well now I just feel mean. |
|
| |
Well you wouldn't have to any more than you do now, World. If you posted an unoriginal idea now, someone would point it out and likely MFD it as not-original. This just replaces that. |
|
| |
It's just consolidating two MFD reasons into one, really. The only change from current protocol that would emerge from this is the loss of the "baked but *not* widely known" loophole by which some non-original ideas get to hang around. In the preamble I have demonstrated how this is in conflict with the concept of originality at the bakery. |
|
| |
UB, the need is for simplification, elimination of ambiguity, and foremost, placing the proper importance on originality. |
|
| |
I appreciate your reasons for this, but still feel this would make the rules a bit too rigid. <wrccmr>Before long people will be posting pictures of brown coffee mugs to prove they already exist.</waugs related "coffee colored mug" reference> |
|
| |
Besides, I don't know of the "not-original" mfd. |
|
| |
World, I don't believe that. You've been around long enough to see ideas mfd'd for being not original. It's variously phrased - 'not an original idea", "not a new invention", etc. It's the one that keeps people from posting ideas about the automobile and airplane and the telephone. |
|
| |
I always assumed they were referring to "widely known to exist". |
|
| |
Perhaps now, but 'not an original idea" predates the "baked" MFD by quite some time. The former more or less came into existence when MFDs first began, while "Baked" is a fairly recent addition. And as I stated, something can be not widely known but still unoriginal. |
|
| |
Rods_, that problem exists now, and admittedly would not be solved by this. |
|
| |
Then doesn't that imply this idea has already been considered by the HB and a decision was made to adopt the "widely known to exist" rule? |
|
| |
Thanks for clarifying. This is the first I'm aware that 'original' was relative to the author. That clears the matter up nicely. |
|
| |
Some confusion might arise from the use of the word "should" there ("...should be original to the poster... should... not exist already"). That gives the implication that if they aren't original (or do exist), they shouldn't be posted. And having seen ideas marked as not original and not a new invention all along, I presumed that was the case. |
|
| |
The phrase "original to the poster," could mean
(1) Original as far as the poster is concerned (knows)
(2) Is originally by the poster themselves |
|
| |
At least, I can see an abiguity here. I thought it was (2). |
|
| |
"That is, it's original if the poster thinks he or she came up with the idea."
Yes but surely there's a scope for this? I mean, I may post an idea for "magnetic bottles to contain fusion reactions", but many here (most?) know this concept exists. I wouldn't want to keep it, but it sounds like you would. |
|
| |
I'd hate to over-codify the HB...that would take out all the fun. On the other hand, once it was made clear to me that "'Baked' is not valid grounds for deletion", I stopped M-F-Ding altogether. (That's a terrible thing to say as I feel I'm shirking a responsibility, but we've come full circle now) |
|
| |
I agree that largely unknown ideas should remain. By definition they're likely to be repeated and that only adds to the work load of the moderator and the frustration of the users. I hesitate to suggest another tag ([recommended-for-deletion]?) to bring questionable ideas to light, but it may be a workable solution. |
|
| |
I think that's one of the manifold beauties of the HB - that each case is taken on its own individual merits. Let the arguing in the annotations decide.
If an idea has been blatantly ripped off from somewhere else, then it deserves to be deleted; but, if someone posts an idea that is genuinely original to them, and if they write it well and (perhaps) come at it from a different point of view, then, even though there might be "prior art" for that idea, I see no harm in letting the posting stand. |
|
| |
To me, creativity is the lifeblood of the Halfbakery. There's many a time I've read a new idea and been interested by it, read the annos and alternately laughed and stroked my chin in a thoughtful way; but too many times I've been deflated by a link saying "Baked" and found a cold hard product that someone's trying to sell and make some money out of. |
|
| |
What I love about the HB is the fact that people will take an idea (any idea) and run with it. Try and get as much mileage out of it as they can, even if it's only comedic. Most times, the idea is just a seed. It's the annotations that feed and water the bugger, and give it some kind of life. |
|
| |
Sorry, waugs, but the HalfBakery seems to be an art, not a science. |
|
| |
I never knew there was a difference between 'widely known to exist' and 'not original.' I gotta go with [lostdog], set too many things in hard laws and suddenly we're all lawyers out of necessity. |
|
| |
I had often wondered if baking your own idea or someone else’s was cause to have that idea deleted. I am glad that's not so. |
|
| |
"mind jism"
Gotta remember that one. |
|
| |
and the concrete noun form: "mind jizz." |
|
| |
I find it odd that there are objections to this suggesting that it adds complexity and makes things more rigid. I think it does the exact opposite. It removes complexity. Or at least it did from the point of view I had when I wrote it. |
|
| |
// creativity is the lifeblood of the Halfbakery. // |
|
| |
Totally agree, lostdog. The difference is that I associate that with originality, and there are varying definitions of what exactly that is. |
|
| |
//Sorry, waugs, but the HalfBakery seems to be an art,
not a science. lostdog, Dec 01 2003// |
|
| |
So are you implying that art is less exact than science?
I've seen a lot of inexact science and in my experience, if
art (or Art) is not exact (in its own way, that is, relative to
its own existence, but still requiring exact observation of
its own rules) then art and Art suffer, and become
mediocre or just plain bad. (Example: you suspend
disbelief for most sci-fiction stories, but if part of the story
clashes with this suspension of disbelief, the whole thing
falls apart, and the audience loses interest, therefore, art
needs to be exact.) |
|
| |
ox, you forgot to close the tags. |
|
| |
shit, my sarcasm detector still isn't working. |
|
| |
<blah blah blah>Well, yeah, Ox. Art has to be exact //(in its own way, that is, relative to its own existence, but still requiring exact observation of its own rules)//. It can still be kind of fuzzy in the way those self-made rules relate to the world, but Science, by it's very definition, can't. |
|
| |
All I meant by my remark was that the 'Bakery doesn't seem to be governed by hard-and-fast rules. In fact, much of the time it's more about bending if not breaking the rules.</blah blah blah> |
|
| |
You've written a rant on your dislike of MFDs. Yeah, we know you didn't like it when I marked your nanobots for deletion. This is completely irrevelent to the idea you've annotated. |
|
| |
(sigh) leaving that nonsense aside, would some of our younger members know what 'Prior art' actually meant (given their normal enthusiasm for research, etc.)? At least "widely known to exist" is fairly self-explanatory. |
|
| |
Hey! I was going to write that, [moomintroll]. |
|
| |
Great minds, and all that... :-) |
|
| |