meaningful and dynamic large scale public discussions will require a standardized format: initial discussion of details

White Cat: thank you very much for your input.

We're generally thinking along the same lines with the information system part, hierarchies, etc., but you're veering off in the political application part.

The political application is a separate issue. Votes, for eg., of one type or another have to be an integral part of a public discussion format, but any limitations on that vote are political add-ons, and aren't part of the basic structure.

My personal opinion on the vote thing is I suggest you rethink that. I wouldn't interact if I knew my right to vote was limited in any way. I see why you suggest it, but that's definitely not the way to go.

Your comment moderation part is also a bit sticky. My first approximation is that no comments would be banned, even personal attacks. It's the method of organizing and displaying the info that will mitigate the negative aspects of "bad" comments.

Your assertion that we don't have "leaders" is another problem, as I see it. We can discuss that on another thread if you wish.

Just briefly on my take on the political application. I think the best political system would have the same basic physical structure as there is now. Realistically, we're always going to need people to manage public affairs. And we need individuals to take responsibility for the application of the "public will", which means they can't just be spokesperson's, they have to be decision makers.

I don't think that part is the problem anyway. The problem is we face several intimately related problems, all related to our ability to exert real authority as a "people" (meaning after having some suitable public discussion) between elections.

I don't really want to discuss the political application quite yet. The main desire right now is to explain the nuts and bolts of what I believe could be a very effective way to coherently and consistently display details of large scale discussions, including many augments designed to make the management of the info practical for every user, among other things.

The following discussion is initially about how to graphically represent blocks of text. Any internet based discussion, which is necessary for large scale public discussions, is about exchanging information through a computer screen.  If there's going to be a breakthrough in how to conduct large scale discussions, it's going to be in how to graphically arrange the individual points of detail that can only be represented in text.

One aspect I'd like to clarify as well is in how this relates to discussion processes that are already occurring.  Activist meetings, gov't committee's, etc., etc. Information is already being exchanged in many ways, and there's no need to change that. Each has positives and negatives. Use whatever helps you.

I probably should first list a few of the many very great advantages I see in what I'm doing. That should make it a lot easier to decide if it's worth your time to interact, and clarify more exactly what the point(s) is. I'll need a day or so for that.

Ibid.

Probably the most central idea to the record format is that you can take bulk discourse of virtually any kind and identify distinct points of detail, ie. single pieces of information. These can be separated and displayed as individual text boxes which then can be purposefully arranged according to standard and consistent logical relationships. This will make it much easier in several ways.

Also, there's more than one way to present info. I want to describe the discussion format right now, but the simple listing of info is also a main method for info exchange, as well as verbal. The ideal discussion system co-ordinates the different methods.

The senate "discussion" is a good initial example since it has many individual issues, but each is fairly distinct. Each issue could have a number of discussions, so for brevity I'll assume we've already decided to look at one point, and have agreed on the wording of the topic sentence.

A topic (ie. claim(C), subject, etc.) such as, "How should senators be selected." is shown as a small block of text at the top center and is the initial reference, both logically and graphically. There has to be logical references, as reflected in standardized labelling, because ultimately we want to correlate our discussions, in whole and as parts. Each data block, including the initial statement, would have a unique label that can be shown as an informative acronym, for eg. Disc#-C1-D2-W1. This is where there has to be an underlying formality while maintaining total user flexibility. More on that later.

The graphics is what I wanted to look at first, which is generally an augmented flowchart style. We've got a text box and initial statement at the top of the page already.

If you put that question alone to a million people, what response would you overwhelmingly receive?, likely "what are the options" or something like that. So a list of the possible ways would have to be shown somehow.

Let's say there are 6 in total. The important thing is that these points are in direct "support" of the claim, in that they provide the focal decision/discussion points related specifically to the claim or topic.

Each would have a text box and they'd be aligned vertically, and placed under the Claim box and to the right a bit. From the lower right corner of the Claim box a line would go down, and at each box an arrow over to it. So, again, standard flowchart style.

These are labelled as "Data", so there'd be D1 to D6. The second one for this Disc#, for eg., would be labelled C1-D2.

It's important that for the standard discussion display the Data is shown in the same relative position to the Claim box. Each discussion, regardless of topic, would show the Data as a text box list (when expanded) at the lower right of the Claim box like that.

This discussion topic is straightforward, so there'd be little controversy on what constitutes "Data". That kind of thing is a matter of management, though, so for now I'll just assume the text for all Data input has been agreed upon, and we have a list of 6.

I'm sure you're not impressed yet. The next part should be more interesting since now we have to augment the initial display to both progress the discussion and also make it easier for the user to follow and manage the info.

How can the discussion be progressed? In order to understand that we have to look at the common problems in all discussions. One example is lack of focus, which could lead to large volumes of irrelevant discourse and confusion of details.

There aren't a lot of options regarding how to take care of problems. All text input is from users, so the only way to have an effect is through logical and graphic organization. The logical part is to define standard info categories (text boxes) designed to provide focus (eg. "Qualifier" and "Actionable Objective"), for eg. The graphic part is of course to then place the text boxes effectively in the discussion array.

Naturally the full list of specific category designations would be determined, but you see the idea, so I won't detail the relevant characteristics now.

The consistent relative physical placement of text boxes is an essential element. A great deal of the comfortableness a person has with something is that it's the same every time. For complex things that's more the case.

Qualifier (Q) and Actionable Objective (AO) are intimately related to the meaning of the Claim (C) itself, and would be on the right and left, resp., of the Claim text box.

So, at this point, when a person comes to the discussion page to see what it's about, they can look at the Claim box, directly to the right to see Qualifiers on the Claim (since this question is already about a strictly definable list it doesn't need other qualifiers, so this would likely be empty), and directly to the left to see the proposed Actionable Objective (which would be filled).

While there may not be Q in every discussion, there needs to always be at least one AO. The AO represents a decision to do something based on the info.

For this Claim (C1) (ie. topic) of "how should senators be selected" there's more than one thing we could aim for as an end-point, or AO. For eg., we could say we want to only define a possible list, or we could define the list and actually vote to decide which one.

Logically this top line is meant to more specifically define and limit the number of Data and other points required for discussion.

Also on the page is a vertical list of D1 to D6, aligned under the Q, and connected to the Claim by arrows as described above. These 6 points are the main discussion focal points.

This picture shows the most basic representation of a discussion. All discussions would ideally start with these 4 standard categories of info. Once the discussion is initiated, info is added, which will be the subject of the next post(s).

Ibid.

The task ahead is enormous. I must be crazy to think there ever could be a real way to make actual national decisions, or at least to have a realistic way to express "public authority" (beyond a vote once in a blue moon where politicians can lie and bribe to their evil little "hearts" content). Time will tell.

The discussion process has to be structured so it can be applied, it's nowhere near enough to just provide info, since the info itself doesn't allow us to interact and make decisions.

There are 2 ways to provide info, through text and through graphics. So far there are several blocks of relevant text displayed in a specific array. The text provides the point details, and the graphic display reflects the logical relationships between the point details.

But, there could be a good few text blocks and icons, so there also has to be a suitable way for a user to manage the info. That's done with specific categories, highlights and selective placement of text and icons.

Most are likely familiar with one or more kind of "read/unread" highlight. For yahoo e-mail, for eg., the headline is bold when not read yet.

Ideally a user wouldn't have to read a piece of input text more than once. Once read, an icon or highlight, etc. could be attached to help a person remember what they thought of the info. One or more asterisks, for eg., or question marks, etc.

One of the many advantages with using a graphic array like I'm describing is that there's extraordinary potential to convey information through the graphics. Text is essential to understanding the point details, but the personalized consideration of those details can be represented graphically. At least that's what I say.

The text itself is a potential highlight, of course, which could be bold, italic, different background color or font, etc., so it would stand out with respect to the text in other boxes. What exactly that means can be both standardized and personalized.

The box around the text is important because it has a number of definable regions; left/right, top/bottom, inside/outside, corners, edges, attached/detached, etc. Placing a text icon at different locations means different things.

Secondary highlights provide another method of showing personalized details. The main icon is a small box containing an acronym and a light blue background. If the text linked to the acronym was important to my understanding of the point it's attached to, I could change the background color to red or green, or something else I'll recognize readily. I can also change the font type for the acronym, and/or make it bold, italic, etc. I can add asterisks, question marks, plus signs, acronyms, etc. to the outside of the icon box, with one vs two, etc. giving more info.

The main concept is to show enough so even large data volume discussions can be decently managed by most people. It's the simplifications available through the graphics that's going to do that. What kind of info can be added through graphics is an orienting question there.

Right now we're just looking at a single text box. The full discussion page, like the text box, has different geometric regions which can be used to help the user follow the overall discussion. An important region will likely be the area under the Claim box. I put the AO and Q/D boxes to the left and right, resp., in order to keep that area free for user notes.

For brevity I won't go in to those details now, I'm sure you see the thing, ie. use graphics (ie. standard and personalized) to convey as much info as possible, so minimum text has to be open.

Although the above description is a bit sparse, there's now a picture of a full discussion page's general structure. There's a standard grid of open text boxes, with each having any number of icons/highlights attached to them in order to help evaluate that specific text; and there are icons/text/highlights positioned independently on the main page that are most relevant for the overall discussion.

I haven't described the icon acronyms yet, but they're essential to the break up and reconstitution of the bulk text, as well as the advancement of the discussion process.

Acronyms represent all text (info) categories and are of 2 general types, those related to the discussion details (and so are "parts of the discussion", comparable to "parts of speech"), eg. Claim (C), Qualifier (Q), Data (D) etc.; and those related to the management of the information, eg. Discussion (Disc), Notes (N), Vote (V), etc.

(Disc) is meant to be a link to the original input, when relevant. Since on a public grid the bulk info has to be summarized, a ubiquitous concern would be distortion in meaning, context, or whatever. For a private grid that wouldn't be so relevant, but still could be important. It's essential that original input remain fully accessible at the proper points.

Voting (V) is essential to democracy, of course, but there's a question of where and how it should occur. A (V) module link can be attached to any relevant text, so we could theoretically vote on every single detail if it had to come down to that.

Along with the formal vote (which requires special security, etc.) there has to be consistent Rating (RT) systems that can compare, rather than require a specific decision. Five or six stars, 100% scale, 0-10, thumbs up/down, emoticons, etc.

For the simple question of how to choose senators, if there are 6 choices in the Data list, a person would likely want to rate them to put the ones they currently favor nearer the top, in order to ultimately vote for which one. Graphic relationships are an important part of personalization.

The picture of the discussion has been briefly described, but the fundamental meaning of the text icons haven't. The acronyms in the text icons refer to "parts of discussion", and could contain single points or other blocks of distinct text. I'd like to outline those in the next post, and then the political application.

Ibid.

A central concept for this entire thing is that when discourse is separated and displayed, it's according to a logical and consistently definable system, so it's the same every time, and, ideally, intuitive for most people. (Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it.)

Note that although I haven't put up any references, I've looked at work others have done regarding organizing arguments, discussions, etc., but only over the internet since that's my only resource. If I ever formally write this up they'll be added, but since all can be accommodated, it would add way too much needless volume to discuss them now, except for one, the Toulmin model of argumentation.(http://johnnywalters.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/3/5/13358288/toulmin-the-use...)

In the 50's, British philosopher Stephen Toulmin rejected classical argument (logical) methods because they weren't suitable for "everyday" situations, and sought to create a new format more reflecting how people normally discuss.

Toulmin's ground breaking work, even though initally not received well, dissected arguments in to parts more reflective of normal discussions. His model (including equation style graphics) recognized 6 parts of discussion; 3 main ones: Claim, Grounds/Data, Warrant, and 3 others: Backing, Rebuttal, Qualifier.

I use Toulmin's initial 6 categories because I agree that they're essential, although not sufficient, components of discourse. In my work, several core standard info categories have been introduced, and 4 are what I consider the most desirable minimum group to start a discussion, Claim (C) (required), Qualifier (Q), Actionable Objective (AO) and Data (D).

Cost Analysis (CA) is another standard category that would also often be relevant, I think, as it is for each of the 6 options we have for how to choose senators. There's a list of about 60 different potential categories right now, but that will likely get whittled down to 30 or 40, of which 10 or 15 would be commonly used, with the others for less common types of input. That may sound like a lot, but I think the vast majority are intuitive for most people, although some labels might have to be tweaked to be more descriptive.

Although Toulmin appeared mainly interested in comparison to classical logic, the important idea is that discussions are made up of separable points that are the essence of "common" logic, and that these are suitable to satisfy the function of the classical syllogism.

Another thing Toulmin recognized was that common logic is context dependent, so validity criteria depends on what's being discussed.

Real life discussions are ultimately about making a decision, which is a matter of personal choice. Personal choice can be dependent on information or totally arbitrary, but is always specific and potentially dependent on the level of info.

Now that there's a picture of the basic structure (a flowchart of text boxes with icons attached to some or all of the boxes and independent) it's still left to be determined exactly what kind of info to make available, both as open text and icons.

Real life public discussions need more background info than would likely be supplied by active participants, and when decisions are made there has to be correlation to the gov't technical process. Those are part of the application.

Before going in to the applications, I want to reiterate that I know it doesn't matter what decision process we have, right now we don't have the laws needed to ensure the public will is respected. Literally every single citizen could want one thing, and the "gov't", meaning one individual, can disregard that in favor of their own arbitrary, even blatantly self-serving, viewpoint.

In order to change that, we have to change the laws, which means we have to discuss how the laws need to be changed. Once we determine how to exert proper public authority through the laws, we can discuss how to change them to that, but that needs a suitable discussion mechanism that also has as much precaution as possible so we don't cause disaster for ourselves.

Political application is about understanding our country and how we want, and need, to interact. Notwithstanding the personalized perversions in our gov't system today, it's fundamentally nothing more or less than a technical beaurocracy.

Authority Hierarchy (AH), Discussion (Disc), Institution Summary (IS), Investigations (IG), and Laws (L) are several standard info categories most relevant for political application. Deception Technique (DT), Civil Rights (CR) and Expert Opinion (EO) are others.

In order to understand what details need to be discussed, we have to talk about what needs to be done to exert proper public control. To do that we have to put some thought in to the realities of our gov't system.

Keep in mind that there are 2 ways to graphically list info, with and without public interaction.

Information is hierarchical, and what I've described up to now is an end point discussion format designed to facilitate public interaction and decision-making. This format would be impractical for general large scale public info exchange.

Opinions regarding bias and scope, etc. notwithstanding, current methods of presenting info are ok with respect to format, not sufficient, but ok. News articles, meetings, etc. all show specific lines of reasoning and present info in different ways. Face to face meeting adds the element of raw emotion and spontaneity, which are important aspects of public interaction.

There's a lot more to the political application, but I'm going to have to leave it there for now because I have to go out of town for several weeks without my computer. At first opportunity I'd like to describe how I believe we can interpret our gov't system in order to facilitate our discussions and make actionable decisions that won't lead us to ruin.

Ibid.

Now that there's a picture of the basic structure (a flowchart of text boxes with icons attached to some or all of the boxes and independent) it's still left to be determined exactly what kind of info to make available, both as open text and icons.

Real life public discussions need more background info than would likely be supplied by active participants, and when decisions are made there has to be correlation to the gov't technical process. Those are part of the application.

Before going in to the applications, I want to reiterate that I know it doesn't matter what decision process we have, right now we don't have the laws needed to ensure the public will is respected. Literally every single citizen could want one thing, and the "gov't", meaning one individual, can disregard that in favor of their own arbitrary, even blatantly self-serving, viewpoint.

In order to change that, we have to change the laws, which means we have to discuss how the laws need to be changed. Once we determine how to exert proper public authority through the laws, we can discuss how to change them to that, but that needs a suitable discussion mechanism that also has as much precaution as possible so we don't cause disaster for ourselves.

Political application is about understanding our country and how we want, and need, to interact. Notwithstanding the personalized perversions in our gov't system today, it's fundamentally nothing more or less than a technical beaurocracy.

Authority Hierarchy (AH), Discussion (Disc), Institution Summary (IS), Investigations (IG), and Laws (L) are several standard info categories most relevant for political application. Deception Technique (DT), Civil Rights (CR) and Expert Opinion (EO) are others.

In order to understand what details need to be discussed, we have to talk about what needs to be done to exert proper public control. To do that we have to put some thought in to the realities of our gov't system.

Keep in mind that there are 2 ways to graphically list info, with and without public interaction.

Information is hierarchical, and what I've described up to now is an end point discussion format designed to facilitate public interaction and decision-making. This format would be impractical for general large scale public info exchange.

Opinions regarding bias and scope, etc. notwithstanding, current methods of presenting info are ok with respect to format, not sufficient, but ok. News articles, meetings, etc. all show specific lines of reasoning and present info in different ways. Face to face meeting adds the element of raw emotion and spontaneity, which are important aspects of public interaction.

There's a lot more to the political application, but I'm going to have to leave it there for now because I have to go out of town for several weeks without my computer. At first opportunity I'd like to describe how I believe we can interpret our gov't system in order to facilitate our discussions and make actionable decisions that won't lead us to ruin.

Ibid.

radiorahim, thank you very much for the link and your interest.

I often think of movie scenes to illustrate concepts. The general plot lines are obviously all contrived, and so aren't that interesting, but any good director (I assume) tries to capture the emotion of the reality in each scene, which of course feeds the appreciation of the representation.

I recently saw "The Martian", and one scene particularly reflects my attitude, and other aspects of that movie generally reflect our collective situation as well.

At the end, the Martian emperor, don't remember his name, addressed the Earthling astronaut class on his first teaching day, and talked about looking at a problem and solving it, then solving the next one, and the next...and when you've solved enough problems, you get to come home, or something to that effect. I can't remember the exact words.

He was talking about facing a very stark and bleak, life and death, reality. Since that was all made up, I don't feel bad comparing it to our situation, which is a very stark and bleak political reality.

I've mixed in political elements, but probably shouldn't have yet. The discussion process has to be independent of any application if it's going to be effective for all applications. And that's what I want to do first, create a large scale public discussion process/format.

Good enough to run a country, yes (when necessary, but hopefully as rarely as possible), and respecting the basic requirements of logic, validity, focus, truth, trust, security, scope, breadth, etc., etc....that would be required of any truly meaningful discussion, whether between 2 or millions, and whether talking about the national budget, foreign policy or what to have for dinner.

What's the first problem we have to solve? We have to be able to talk, without the politicians, and without any need for organizations,etc. When it's millions of people, and the discussions could be long and detailed, it's not a simple thing.

Far from impossible, I say. But it will take a lot more clarity than I've shown so far, I know.

So I'd like to reset, and consider intially only the issues related to an entire country of people talking over the internet (or more correctly just over the computer, possibly), regardless of subject.

Once we're sure we can talk effectively that way, it can be determined exactly what to do to save our country (which I also have a good number of ideas about).

As with any complex subject, how you look at it makes a big difference. My first reaction is usually to brainstorm a list of distinct points of information that are relevant. By far the most powerful technique for this kind of idea development is visualization.

By visualizing a process, which here is millions of people sitting at their computers and wanting to have a national discussion, it's possible to simply observe problems and issues, without even the need for a supporting theoretical framework.

One of the first things I realized is that although we're talking about millions of people, it can be simplified by seeing that each person is going to demand equality of interaction, so every person can interact in exactly the same way as everyone else.

That means for the personal interaction part, millions turn in to one, which is a lot easier for development. When you have millions adding information as individuals, though, you then potentially have millions of pieces of information.

So another essential aspect is how to administratively manage very large volumes and types of information, keeping in mind that ultimately that info has to be displayed in the original one (two?) page format that prompted the input.

To cut to the chases, there are 2 other essential aspects, one is how to progress a discussion involving millions, and the other is how an individual can personally manage the potentially very large amount of diverse information, sufficient to make specific decisions.

So the focus is on problems associated with potentially millions of people having discussions over the internet, ideally leading to actionable decisions, with each person feeling they can be properly involved; and there are 4 main parts right now:

1)the information interaction process for the individual, internet oriented
2)the administrative management of large volumes and types of info
3)how to progress large scale public discussions
4)how a person manages their personal display, computer oriented

These are by no means the only aspects, and depending who you talk to (me or my dog) maybe not the most important ones.  But they're potentially significant barriers, and each has to be accounted for somehow, starting in the next post.

Once these are accounted for sufficiently, if large numbers of people want to exchange information, at least there's a greater chance it will have meaning, which will make it more likely people will want to interact.

...and then we can look at the next set of potential problems. Sooner or later, we'll get to come home.

Does this refocus help?

I greatly appreciate your response, radiorahim, and hope you and others will continue to comment. This has to be developed over years.

Ibid.

Taking the first of the first set of 4 main issues related to millions of people talking over the internet, as mentioned previously:

1)the information interaction process for the individual, internet oriented
    This refers to when a person sits down at the computer after deciding they want to be in on a public discussion, what are they going to encounter generally.

    1a) A fully user controlled choice between private vs public interaction. This is a ubiquitous, and I believe essential, element for a viable public discussion system. Public discussions would likely be almost all done privately, with potentially only occasional and/or endpoint correlation to the public grid.

By "private" I mean user controlled input and display, but always maintaining the underlying standardized codification.

Standardized codification is possible because although there are theoretically millions of opinions, there are actually not that many ways for us to exchange information, and everyone discusses in basically the same way. Differences arise out of relative highlight, rather than conceptual disagreement.

Users can authorize public input in to their private grid from any number of individuals or groups, after which it can be rearranged and presented in any way for comparison; but when a private page is uploaded to the public grid, the codified bits snap to the standard display, which is based purely on logical association.

This removes organization based personal highlights (such as open text boxes on the private page, which might snap to an attached text icon on the public page), but can easily accomodate other rating style highlights, such as thumbs up/down, 1-10 scale, etc., as cumulative totals for specific points.

    1b) The ability to add information without having to classify is an essential aspect of personal interaction, but volume and detail have to be managed as with all open input aspects, which will be addressed universally later.

The method for a person to add information is very important since it's there a person's going to feel they're actually part of the discussion. Private vs public pages would have the same technical procedure for input, but the vetting procedure of course differs.

For both private and public pages, a user can click on a text icon (or open text box, which is just an expanded text icon), or a general input icon.

With a text icon (such as Question (Qu)) the new page shows any current text, etc. in that box, and a "new data input" icon, among other things. A click on the "new data input" icon brings a fresh data input page, which has an initial codification based on the original text icon, but the code could be changed by the user, subject to vetting in the public page.

If a general input icon is clicked, a fresh data input page comes up right away, and a person can enter text without worrying about how to classify it, although they can.

For brevity, I assume initially that we have a suitable public vetting system that everyone agrees with, and there's no disagreement about what and how info appears on the public grid after being put through it, even when there's millions of input.

    1c) Personal interaction, or how easy it is for a person to generally manage and follow with the info, means either reading, clicking or typing at this point. A person sitting at a computer can only do so many things to be part of a public discussion, but they have to feel they can interact to thier satisfaction. This will be described in detail later.

In summary, when a person sits down to be "part of the discussion," how they're able to interact is going to make a big difference.

1)the information interaction process for the individual, internet oriented
    1a) the choice of private vs public interaction, always with the ability to fully correlate.
    1b) the ability to add info without classifying, but retaining the ability to classify personally, subject to public vetting
    1c) the general interaction with the info system itself has to be so people feel satisfied

So the question is, do you see these 3 points as relevant, I'm not saying sufficient; and do you think they address the main point, in that they'll make it more likely a person would just sit down and want to do it.

Ibid.

Without going in to detail for each right now, here are a few important points about the fact structure.

The fact structure is a universal central format mainly because it's an array of single points of detail. It's much better, storage and analysis-wise especially, to have a correlated list of 10 single details, rather than a block of text that contains the 10 details.

The fact structure aids the discussion in several ways, a main one being that it spreads out the bulk info.

Another way the fact structure aids the discussion is it clarifies the logical linearities, which makes standardized codification possible. Standardized codification facilitates unprecedented social analysis potential.

The fact structure makes it much easier to correlate the info. So for the straightforward question of how should we choose senators, the initial array of C, AO and 6D correlate to provide the context for that specific discussion.

The picture of the standard fact structure, the flowchart, provides a consistent graphic framework that can be augmented in many, many ways in order to aid the user in following and interacting in public and/or private discussions. This is a very powerful aspect.

The fact structure isn't a single type. There's the formal record, which is consistent; and then there's the personalized representation, which is totally user controlled, with the only limitation being that the underlying codification can't be changed without public vetting.

And then there are fact structures associated with general public discourse, such as for an article. Points of detail within the article could be highlighted as a text box with icons attached. I know obviously that articles contain links already.

But how likely are you to click a link that's just blue letters, vs a text box with icons, where you can see the type of info and interaction available. If a boxed statement dealt with a law, for eg., and someone had added it, there'd be an L icon, and a click would give the text of the law, etc.

The fact structure is about showing information as effectively as possible. One essential element associated with public discussion, though, is emotion, which is as important as is the technical system. Emotion is shown by personalization, and isn't represented in the primary display of the formal record, although it can always be correlated to it as well as any number of private grids. So, emotion is shown in the comparison of private grids and to the public one(s).

The fact structure is just one part of public info exchange, but the idea underlies all aspects. Naturally real life public discussions are far more complex and voluminous than the straightforward question of choosing senators. But, all discussions ultimately come down to lists of details that can be dealt with in exactly that individual manner.

Also, the end point discussion has the C, AO, etc., but higher in the hierarchy may usually be simple lists of linked details, not necessarily requiring decision, but continuous with whatever the overall issue is. That's looking at it from the bottom up.

From the top down, a public discussion (fact structure) can be initiated in several ways. Since that will be described in detail later, the initial assumption is that in some way an initial statement, claim, topic, etc. has been presented and put forth for public discussion. That's the peak of one fact structure.

Each discussion of course has it's own hierarchy tree going down to end points. As info is added and decisions are made, end point discussion/vote positions would change. Ultimately, the goal is to come up with decision trees that sufficiently address the primary claim/topic.

But that's a bit down the road. Right now the important thing is to see that we can just have a consistent and sufficient information/decision grid for a very straightforward question, such as how to choose senators.

I almost forgot that the fact structure supports the formal vote system. Where and how there are actual votes is a matter to be decided for each discussion, but any point of detail could be subject to vote, accessed through an attached VOTE icon, which is an independent technical entity.

Another thing I almost forgot was the requirement for a "fact check" system. Anyone following the insanity of the Ukraine conflict online won't have to be convinced of the importance of that. The fact check process is potentially attached to every point of detail, but what's actually needed remains to be seen.

Naturally the fact check process is important probably for most people, but since it's an independent technical entity like the vote process, it can be developed separately and use a lot of what already exists as a starting point.

On a less formal note (I think), ideally the fact structure is meant to provide a consistently referable database format that's as lean and streamlined as possible, and is an attempt to take potentially large volumes and types of information, related to specific concepts, and display the most critical detail hierarchy so virtually every person can follow the discussion, while keeping all information accessible.

I mentioned previously that this is probably the most central and ubiquitous concept for a viable public discussion system. If you don't see that discussions can be broken in to distinct points, or that those points can be arranged as an augmented flowchart so the vast majority of people can follow the discussion, then you might want to stop reading, because it's mainly about using and applying that.

By applying I mean the specific augments required to address individual situations, such as political application (which is the primary motive for this entire thing, so there's a bit there).

Next I'll post a short list of a few other details associated with the management of large volumes and types of info, which the fact structure is a part of, as well as a mock up figure of the base discussion grid for the question of how to choose senators.

Ibid.

Thank you for your post Mr. Magoo.

I'm not ultimately dealing in semantics, but pedantics for sure. If you wanted to be ultra-anal you could say that since I'm defining things it's semantics. But, is it a matter of semantics that something is a subject vs a predicate in a sentence? Once you define the classification system (which is as parts of discussion here), it's pure pedantics.

With respect to pragmatism, I'm looking at this in the only way I can, which I think also happens to be the best way, given the situation. This is basic research conducted over the internet, and is a test in itself.

Right now it's information gathering. Any viable public discussion system will be dependent on many distinct concepts, and I want to examine those as individual points first. The vast majority of people wouldn't read this part, but would likely do what I'd do if I weren't creating it, and listen to someone they trust as to whether it's good enough to try, and other details.

The context is that we, the people, need a way to discuss complex issues without the incompetent, self-centered, perversely corruptable hired managers (politicians), and the main medium is a computer screen. The question of how to choose senators illustrates many of the core details common to virtually all discussions, including the nature of rating and voting. If we can't exchange information and interact sufficiently to deal with that kind of issue, how much chance is there we can deal with anything more complex.

That's pragmatism, since the question of how to choose senators is a real, essential issue that we should be deciding, not the untrustworthy hired managers.

Note that although I declare the question of how to choose senators is "straightforward", that doesn't necessarily mean simple or easy. Straightforward refers to the initial information display only, not the moral and/or conceptual, etc. difficulties associated with the question, or it's final info network.

Also, I've looked at Drupal 7 (web-page program), and think the current software can easily do what's required. So creating a program isn't a worry, it's just that I'm not going to start the process of creating a program until I feel reasonably sure there isn't some major flaw(s) in the reasoning going in to it, which there's a fair bit of.

So far several major concepts have been identified, and I hope for comments about those, as well as anything else of course.

One of the most important is that in order for the "average person" to be able to manage the large volumes and types of information that will be part of the public discussion process, display of information will likely be mostly through graphics rather than text. This is a major concept.

There always has to be some kind of text grid. The only way we can transmit detailed ideas is through text (on a computer screen).

But, our understanding of the text itself is facilitated by the graphic arrangement of the text boxes on the screen, ie. the Claim/Topic box at top center, Actionable Objective box at top left, etc.

And, graphics will be all important in remembering how we've interacted with the information. Ideally we'll have to look at a piece of text once, and then record through graphics whether read/unread, agree/disagree, like/dislike, question, etc., etc.

That's a bit of a simplification, but a great deal of personalization and other info can be shown through graphics. Indeed, the greatest value of the internet here may not be the ability to connect people to talk, but rather the ability to consistently use and share graphics within the same context.

Another aspect of showing information through graphics is the arrangement of the text boxes, icons and other elements on the computer page. A computer page is a grid, and I doubt there's anyone that doesn't (or can't) look at each portion of the screen and give it some kind of personal relevance.

I don't (necessarily) mean a block of text on the left is more evil than one on the right. But, the relative positions of each text box and icon, etc. can be used naturally to convey extra meaning, both in the standard record display and the private, personalized discussion page of a user.

Figure 1, next post, shows the picture of an initial input for a discussion, this one being how should we choose senators. Note this is the initial standard record display. A user can start a discussion through personalized formats, but the common format is this one, without personalization.

There are 2 different kinds of feedback I hope from this. One is about the question itself, how should we choose senators, and whether the info shown is enough, etc.. The other is about the display of the info.

For the question itself, what info would you add now and where do you think it should go. Would you rearrange anything? Is there anything about the info that's either good or bad? Is it easy to understand how the info is layed out?  Etc.

For the display, each text box is a gateway, but the page itself can convey a great deal of meaning. There's a fair bit to that so I won't expand here, except to say that the effective use of the graphic space of the discussion page will be a key to universal acceptance of the discussion process. Do you see how graphics can be used to help understand and manage the information?

Another main point is that although I don't claim to know all discussion styles, I believe a major advancement in large scale public discussions will be using a box to outline single points of detail, and then attaching extra info and discussion about that point itself as icons around the box, illustrated as part of Figure 1 and expanded in Figure 2, below.

This format will greatly clarify logical associations, and is a major part of separating the information, so people don't have to wade through reams of text to find a specific detail, the greatest shortcoming of the linear comment board style.

Comments are appreciated, and next text post I'll comment on each of the Figures (below) in more detail.

Ibid.

Someone told me they liked Figure 1 (post #) because it reminded them of a diagnostic screen. That's what it is I guess, a diagnostic screen for discussions.

Please keep in mind that the main purpose is to convey sufficient information according to consistent logical principles, and it addresses one of the greatest barriers to public discussion, which is the personal management of the potentially large volume of diverse information.

Also, there are 2 general ways we need to talk, the simple listing of information and an actual decision tree. Figure 1 illustrates a decision tree, and Figure 2 illustrates one style of listing information.

Since the format has to accommodate all input, mine is as good as anyone's to use as an example. So Figure 1 is what I'd put forward as a start. The next step is to add information, but before that, since this is still the early development phase, I wanted to look at the picture itself for a minute.

A main assertion as to the viability of a realistic public discussion system is that graphics and text need to be integrated in order to be able to convey enough information so each person can suitably follow and interact in any discussions.

"Enough information" is the elephant in the room. It refers to both volume and type, and needs to be discussed and specific points defined.

Only through text can we communicate sufficiently to be able to run our country.

But it's only through graphics that we'll be able to manage that text.

Representing discussions as linked, single points (as text) is a core requirement for classification and universal comparison, and the entire page(s) is then for framing that text. This is akin to separating sentences in to parts of speech, where each part; adjective, conjunction, subject, etc., is a point detail.

The sentence provides the physical structure (ie. flowchart format) for the point details related to it, but we have to create a structure for a discussion.

You'd likely be surprised, as I was, how many nuances there are in discussion, potentially leading to different open text box arrays, that can be defined as distinct "philosophies", once you really start looking.

Not only that, but there are important differences in face to face vs computer oriented interaction, and individuals vs groups, etc.

I've stated (my opinion) before that any viable public discussion system has to be indendent of any application in order to be effective for every application. That, given the blinding array of potential styles, requires reduction to the fundamentals.

And there it is again. Little words, etc. slipped in to discourse that have a profound effect. "Fundamentals" this time. Gives me the shivers every time, even though I'm doing it. (How many of those kinds of things have been traitorously incorporated in to our laws.)

One main fundamental I use is the reduction to point details, so each can be uniquely classified. What's the right classification system is the question, of course, and that's why I mentioned Toulmin's work regarding how "normals" actually discuss.

Toulmin wished to find the everyday equivalent of the "all A are B; C is A; therefore C is B" classical syllogism. He recognized that people normally present an opinion or Claim, and then provide specific points to support that Claim, which he called "Grounds/Data".

Subsequent information; Qualifier, Rebuttal, Warrant, Backing; is then framed around these 2 core elements.

We have to considerably expand Toulmin's work, including adding a fairly extensive supporting information system for political application, but the idea of the general classification hierarchy and linearity of details (reflecting real discussion) is a common thread.

We also have to incorporate elements meant to progress the discussion (another fundamental). Large scale public discussions could easily (or would normally, given reality) become mired in endless interaction. Besides the nature of the beast itself, potential sabotage is an ever present threat.

The "Actionable Objective (AO)" is a standard information category specifically meant to provide a defined end-point to a discussion; and the position of it in Figure 1, on the same level and to the left of the Claim, also implies it's basic relevance. The AO also provides a better focus as to what Data points have to be discussed, potentially limiting the number required.

The "Qualifier (Q)" is another important standard category that potentially limits the number of Data points needed by limiting the Claim. In Fig.1 the Q arrow is not attached since there isn't one (yet) for this question, and the empty box wouldn't be shown unless desired. There also wouldn't be a Q icon on the Claim box, as there is for the AO.

Figure 1 shows 3 expanded Caveats (CV) linked to D1. These text boxes are expanded because they show potential decision points. If a person votes for D1, the 3CV also would have to be voted on. When you look at these 3 CV, it may strike you that one (or more) is missing.

And, you may have ideas as to required Qualifiers.

Ibid.

Thank you very much for your assistance with uploading the figures.

The discussion format is Figure 1:

And Figure 2 shows a point detail box:

Figure 1 (post#35) shows the discussion/decision format.

Before describing the structure, to help visualize how it's used, let's say a person wondered if C-51 should be examined to see if there are problems with it, they'd use a Figure 1 to post a Claim/Topic like, "What are the problems with Bill C-51", and an Actionable Objective (AO) like, "vote on starting a full public evaluation". Others add Data (D) points, etc. and ultimately the decision is made to start an evaluation.

To evaluate C-51, we start with the table of contents, each heading (a Figure 2) is a link, or expands, to show each sub-heading (also Figure 2's). Just like is done all the time now, nothing new.

Let's say there's a page big enough to see the whole expanded flowchart of headings only. Now we apply the color augment mentioned previously for blocks of text (red, green, etc.) to indicate current state with respect to discussion. The augmented heading flowchart now shows up to 6 relevant conditions that are very easily discernible. Just visualize that. Click one of the headings shown in plain black text (hasn't been examined yet) and go to the text.

Remember that we always have to get to text. Everything up to that is a function of graphics. Good graphics means easy navigation, which will be a critical aspect for success of the global system. That's something web designers, etc. have known for a very long time, so again, nothing new.

Once at the text, we'd start by identifying the points and put an initial color code to them or look at someone else's. Extracting single points gives a Figure 2, which can then be used as a point in a current discussion as is, or be the basis for a Claim/Topic using Figure 1 style.

For eg., Part 1, section 2, sub-section 2 of Bill C-51 (http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/412/Government/C-51/C-51_1/C-51_...) (bold is my highlight, and pretend it's red too) is:

“activity that undermines the security of Canada” means any activity, including any of the following activities, if it undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada
or the lives or the security of the people of Canada:

(a) interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada;
(b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;
(c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreigninfluenced activities;
(d) terrorism;
(e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;
(f) interference with critical infrastructure;
(g) interference with the global information infrastructure, as defined in section 273.61 of the National Defence Act;
(h) an activity that causes serious harm to a person or their property because of that person’s association with Canada; and
(i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.
For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic  expression.

I don't know even a fraction of the vile perversions the traitor regime of harper slipped in to our laws, but if this section of C-51 isn't the most despicable, I shudder to think what else is out there. But I don't want to debate the content here, rather the structure of our evaluation.

Each letter is a point detail, as is the first and last text blocks, so each is a Figure 2. I'd start by highlighting as bold (tentative) and red (disagree) the text of letters (a) and (i). I use bold because that's an initial opinion. A person can label and personalize in any way they want, but I would always label the first look as bold.

You can see that when I finish highlighting, whether or not I do any more even, or any, I can upload it for direct comparison. What would that give?...a poll.

I think it would be a particularly good and relevant one, but it's nothing that can't be done now. And, once it's put out there, even if popular at the beginning, it's only a matter of time for it to be judged too laborous for little gain, and forgotten.

Without my work, we can improve things a bit, such as when a point is clicked it goes to an information page for that point. That's an improvement, but nowhere near enough.

With my work, when you click on a point detail, you go to a discussion page. The discussion page has information (as Figure 2's and not), so it incorporates what we can already do; but it also now has Figure 1 style discussions/decisions.

With Figure 1 and 2 styles, we can not only organize the static info more easily and better, but also make decisions about different aspects, ultimately deciding if we should change the wording of the point detail, since it's part of a law, or leave it as is.

So there'd be a list of Figure 1's related to whatever is relevant. For laws, etc., one of the Figure 1's would be a decision if the text of the law should be changed. If the decision is to change the text, another Figure 1 would decide what the new text should be.

When you incorporate my work, the end-point isn't just information, but also interaction and decision. By using the actual Table of Contents grid as the gateway, when the color coding system is incorporated it would be a dynamic poll, so as discussions and decisions continue, there'd be a running poll and the effects of the changes would be seen directly as people react.

Note that this is an application, and not part of the core system. I wanted to outline this one particularly, though, because it's a general framework for analysis and it shows how large numbers of people can interact right down to the actual wording of laws. I know our decisions are meaningless right now, but that's another problem. I also wanted to show that I do have an endgame, and there are others. But, from now on please keep in mind an idea articulated at the end of Star Trek VI, that just because we can do a thing, it doesn't mean we must do that thing.

Next post I'll continue with explanation of the structure of the Figure 1 page.

Ibid.

Fig1 organizes information, it's not a discussion. Once the Fig1 grid is created, the discussion occurs within the point details. Ultimately it's decisions about the individual points, particularly the Data (D) points, that follow through to a decision about the Actionable Objective (AO).

That's why the static area outside the mobile Fig1 on it's home webpage can't have unique elements essential to it's content. That has to be attached directly somewhere, so it could be drag/dropped as a unit with Fig1.
 
Interaction in public discussion isn't just the Fig1. For eg., if a person was part of a political comment board, quick access would be outside Fig1, most likely on the far right or left, but it could be anywhere outside the space of Fig1.

Notifications of any kind, note boards and specific chat links, etc. would also be there, as would text/info a person has chosen for any reason not to add to Fig1, but still wants in a prominent place. For analysis, only Fig1's would be used, so any info a person wants others to see would have to be attached to it.

Having 2 distinct spaces like that, one publicly uploadable (and so comparable on a large scale) and the other private, reflects (I believe) an important aspect of discussion; that everyone shares some info while keeping other info secret. This provides the structure for that part of it.

I think that's enough about Fig1 and 2 for now. More will come out, but you likely get the general picture. Let me continue with the potential for analysis and the universality aspect, then the systems aspect, using Gall's list (ref. post#39) for orientation.

Just generally, anyone in to social analysis of public discussions, etc. should be drooling over this. I'm not an expert in that area, but I doubt there's anything anywhere near this. Once the standard record format is defined, meaningful user personalizations can be directly and consistently compared. Since those personalizations are based on personal opinion of point details, a single comparison could reveal many subtleties of public opinion.

When a person starts or enters a discussion, information is at the default location (still to be determined exactly what that is). After initial, the person can move and/or highlight anything.

The icons are drag and drop, so if we arbitrarily defined the top of a text box as important, and the bottom as less important, no matter where it is to start, when uploaded to the public page and numbers are tallied, it's a running poll of the importance of that particular icon's text (wrt (with respect to) the relevant "higher" point detail). We can add: a person is indifferent for a detached icon (but near). Let's add the red/green highlight system, etc., etc.

Also, analysis of subtleties of opinion is possible by comparing how different people word Claims for the same issue, etc., and which Data points are used for each, etc., etc.

If those aspects could be effectively developed it would be extraordinary. There are many, many possibilities for that kind of thing. There are other aspects of analysis related to specific applications, but I just wanted to show that the potential for analysis is mind-boggling. I have many ideas to expand on later, when dealing with that part in detail.

I also wanted to comment on why this is a universal format for public discussions (information exchange). There are 2 main reasons.
    1) The truism that all discourse (incl. public discussions, but not only) is composed of linked, single details.
    2) My opinion that all discussions have basically the same information structure.

By now, anyone following this is likely sick of hearing that "single point detail" statement. But, before I stop mentioning it so much, it has to be explained more, since it may not mean exactly what you think.

"Single point detail" can be defined as anything from a single character to the whole block of text, even if it's an entire book...and that's the greatest power of the concept.

Literally, all people speak by linking together single characters. Individual letters for english, more complex characters for other groups (like chinese, etc.). No matter what language, you come down to the smallest units, it doesn't matter if they're equivalent or not.

Then, those smallest units (point details) are linked together to form "higher" point details, and ultimately link to become discourse. Once you see that, the main question (which is now answered) goes from, "what is universal to all discourse" to "how do single details link to produce discourse."

There are 2 parts to the new question. The more fundamental is, "how do the single details go together to produce concept," then there's, "how do those concepts link to produce discourse."

There are mountains of information and discussion about language, etc, but it's not necessary to go in to that great of detail. It's sufficient to see, for English for eg., that the minimum point details, letters (ie. characters), go together in specifically and consistently definable ways to make groups that are "higher" point details. Those details go together in strictly definable ways to make parts of speech and ultimately sentences, paragraphs, etc., each of which are progressively higher point details.

Point details incorporate in to higher associations in order to impart more information, which affects comprehension. Minimum point details for different languages may not be the same, but ultimately concepts have to coincide. Fig1 can't make them coincide, it can only show if they do or don't, and exactly how.

(cont'd next post)

(cont'd from last post)
A person might say that the Claim is moot, since the senate should be abolished. That's a Counterclaim(CC), and if you agree with the CC, it's pointless to discuss the current 4 D's because the C would be irrelevant. On Fig1, a CC icon would be attached to the Claim box.

A person coming in at any time, and from anywhere, can see there's a CC, and that it's specifically relevant to the C. They can look at it, and mark it as important or not for themselves, without having to wade through reams of text to find it. As other info is added, it's attached to the point detail box it's referring to, and labelled with a descriptive icon.

So Fig1 shows a grid of point details, where the open boxes and layout reflect how people actually discuss. On the one hand, a point is put out there and then other points are listed to support that point. On the other is the ability to evaluate each individual point detail, both within and out of context (through Fig2).

I don't know if the preceding discourse clarifies anything, but the utility and universality of this approach will ultimately be shown through application.

And, it may not be obvious how this kind of info format will help, since probably the most significant and pervasive problem we have is that it doesn't matter what we say or decide, we have no power to do anything but complain. Right now that is.

But if the time ever does come when we, the people, can exert real authority, especially between elections, there has to be a better way to do it than just trying to create a "better" or "more inclusive" political party, or vainly hoping to hire "honest" managers.

Big decisions are the sum of small ones. When we find a way to make small ones with confidence, it's only a matter of time before we can make the big ones.

Next post I wanted to look at the "system" aspect. Then the NDP's "Leap Manifesto", with respect to the information exchange process only (a bit boring), not decision making about the point details.

Ibid.

Many (most) likely won't bother to read the "Leap Manifesto" (LM)(https://leapmanifesto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Manifesto-en.pdf), because they don't like (trust) the NDP.

The information in it is politically motivated, of course, but that makes no difference to the identification of the idea structure. It's like any other block of text, from an analysis point of view, and could as easily be a recipe, "news" article, free trade agreement, or even the constitution.

The LM is a good example for 2 reasons. It's meant for political persuasion and is also a formal document for an organization, so exact wording is important, just like for laws.

Since this is dealing with a real, current document (ie. block of text), and since it's a political "manifesto", I might as well start in to political application as well. Of course, that means there'll be much more explanation. I just want to apologize in advance.

Political application has to deal with a number of specific big issues, but a ubiquitous aspect for all applications is text analysis. Only through text can we communicate sufficiently to be able to run our country.

Two of Gall's axioms(http://wtf.tw/ref/gall.pdf) are particularly relevant here:
"31. The Vector Theory of Systems: Systems run better when designed to run downhill.
Corollary: Systems aligned with human motivational vectors will sometimes work. Systems opposing such vectors work poorly or not at all." and,
"32. Loose systems last longer and work better."

When a person reads a block of text, they're doing it for a reason, there's always an expectation of some kind. That expectation could stem from something like, "I want to see just what kind of wackos the NDP are," "I want to evaluate this with a view to improving it," "there's nothing to read so I'll read this," or anything else.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter why, everyone has to evaluate (ie. make decisions about) text by reading single point details, there's simply no other way. So, differences related to expectation (ie. motivation) can't be in the process itself.

Differences in expectation are reflected in the extent of analysis. (Keep in mind this deals only with how a person interacts, not whether that interaction will ultimately mean anything, which is another issue.)

The possible range is from nothing, meaning reading all or part of it without subsequent interaction; to full analysis, meaning separating, highlighting, labelling and arranging all point details in the appropriate Fig1, Fig2 and list style detail hierarchies, incorporating that in to the common info system (or finding them in it), and looking at the analyses of others.

The entire range would be easy on a computer, but media units with small screens would likely be a bit harder for some aspects. For many (most) people phone apps will be essential to interact, though, so it's necessary to consider that right from the start. Management based on rearranging text blocks wouldn't work well, but what I call the 6 point text highlight system could.

Before continuing, I want to clarify exactly what's going on here.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss details related to large scale public discussions, and how to make them meaningful and dynamic through format.

All I've done so far is define essential missing general structure, Fig 1 and Fig2, which are visualizations of a database. Once we have the missing structure, it still has to be integrated in to the current information system to produce the application, which is the conceptual basis for the discussion/decision (network).

I'm using political (a big one), since it's a pressing issue, but it's the same for any app.

All applications ideally do at least 4 main things, define down to decision points the detail hierarchies that are relevant for the info, highlight the most relevant decisions necessary to express the relevant will, ensure sufficient supporting info, and dynamically correlate current info to the formal decision network.

One of the most important issues for political application is the last one. While we can literally follow a flowchart of single points to any detail/decision, it's not the natural way we exchange and evaluate info, so (large scale) interaction based only on that would surely fail.

The natural thing is to read articles (ie. block text) and listen to speakers (ie. verbal text with extra non-text cues). Serf and owner alike do it that way.
(cont'd next)

Last post gave a link to the Leap Manifesto text with my 6 point text highlight system applied. I asked anyone interested to hold off commenting because I want individuals to teach the system, rather than vice versa.

It occurs to me I should point out a couple of things about apps in general before going in to that, though, because that goes directly in to political application.

I've mentioned there are different potential apps, but haven't explained exactly what I mean by that yet. For an information system, political application may be the giant in the crowd, but although application to something like recipe development is a great deal easier, it's because of context, not structure.

Say I want an info system to develop and keep recipes. I want people to interact easily, so have posted a list of recipe titles and a click on a title brings up a single interactive page for each.

At the top of the page is the name, "Jello Surprise", or whatever. Below it there's a column of numbers and beside that another column with associated specific ingredients. Below those is cooking instructions as block text across the whole bottom.

I doubt there's a single person that couldn't look at that and understand the meaning and specific relationships for each point detail. The instructions is a single point detail (ie. irreducable in the given context) that contains is own linked single point details, and the others are single point details themselves, but that doesn't ever matter.

Instead of just reading, a person wants to interact in order to create the "best" recipe, and that's what I want too. There are only so many ways a person can interact that are relevant for the concept. All require something specific to be identified first, ie. a specific point detail, and that's the same for all app's.

If a person disagreed with the amount of white sugar, using 2/3 cup instead of 1/2, they could indicate by highlighting the 1/2 in plain red. If the change had significant potential impact on the desired outcome, meaning a "good" dish, they could bold it. I think all 6 text highlights are general enough to be relevant for all apps.

An assumption is that the "1/2" the person highlights red refers to white sugar, and that's based purely on physical relationship of the text on the page. All apps are the same that way.

When I see the red 1/2, I know someone disagrees but not why, and would click on it. If it's bold I know it's important to someone, and are more motivated to check, etc. A click on the red 1/2 brings an interaction screen where you can see the information someone added. All apps are the same that way.

Now there's one subtlety to distinguish different apps, standard prompts for info. Every app has the same technical format for the interaction screen, but the initial open text displays are going to differ. "1/2" (or 1/2 cup) is a number, and when it's highlighted red it means someone disagrees somehow. When you think about how someone could disagree with a number in this context (app), whatever the reason why, it must be associated with a suggested new number, regardless whether they input it at the time.

Also, there has to be a reason for the change, so a comment of some kind. The standard display would show the original number, 1/2, an arrow and an empty open text box with the label "New Measure" or something, and beside that an empty text box with the label "Comments" which would be for how that person thinks that change affects the dish, why they're suggesting it.

There'd always be the 1/2, but none or all of the open boxes could be filled. If a cook clicked on a red 1/2, but saw none of the open input boxes were filled, they'd probably click off right away without a second thought, or add the details themselves. When blank, experience tells them the extra info they need to evaluate the interaction isn't there.

But if someone not so sure checks, they still see that those pieces (categories) of info are particularly relevant, even with no values, and it may help them in further analysis. So application is basically finding good prompts, and every app w(c)ould have a unique default info display in both what's initially open and how they're arranged, but all are just rearrangements of the universal format, and so can be fully correlated anytime, internally and externally. It's all the same market.
(cont'd next)