Hey everyone. The way that I’m categorizing mistakes isn’t really working for me, and I’m curious what all you users of the site think about what we’ve been doing.

Here are my questions:

- Suppose that I stopped categorizing posts by CCSS standard (i.e. “A.REI.3”) and instead used the CCSS categories (i.e. “High School – Algebra – Reasoning about equations and inequalities”). Would that bug you? Anybody out there really like the categorizing by standard?
- Right now I categorize posts in two different ways. First, by topic and course (i.e. “Algebra 1, Inequalities”) and also by CCSS. Let’s say that I told you that I was going to just do the CCSS stuff. Would that make you happy/sad/morose/nonplussed, or would that have no impact in your life?

I’m looking for feedback. Please leave a few quick thoughts in the comments of this post.

(Also, feel free to start a more general conversation about features of the site.)

## 4 replies on “Call for feedback: Categories”

Where is calculus going to go? Will you make a special section? Not that the mistakes are necessarily calculus, they seem to be more algebra mistakes applied to calculus.

But actually it will only impact my life in 3 weeks’ time when I start putting up the mistakes for my 9th graders, and then I’ll let you know.

I think you are a kind and wonderful person for putting these up anyway, so however you categorize them is fine with me. Whatever is less work for you.

Two suggestions: considering that blogs often attract audience outside ones own country and therefore curriculum, I’d suggest that you provide more “universal” categories than the standards-based one you’re referring to above. “Algebra”, “Geometry”, “Calculus” makes sense to almost all math teachers everywhere, whereas “A.REI.3″ could be the name of a robot in some sci-fi movie for all I know. Also many mistakes could/do fall into several narrow standards-based categories, which is why it’s better to use broader categories.

My second suggestion is to not worry much over categories, and instead make sure that each post is searchable. If I want mistakes on using the quadratic formula, then searching “quadratic formula” on this site should bring those posts to me. Many posts would therefore include multiple tags, rather than one broad category.

Just to agree with the previous remark, you can use CCSS if you like, but don’t make it the only thing, or I doubt I’d be able to find anything on the site. I’m from Canada (following along on Twitter) and “A.REI.3” seems like a type of sunblock, just as the Ontario curriculum codes probably wouldn’t make much sense to you.

In fact I didn’t even know what “Algebra 1” versus “Algebra 2” meant (though from the subcategories, I’ve gathered it’s like Grade 9-10 curriculum versus Grade 11-12 curriculum – do you guys also start teaching Trig in Grade 10?). That said, I grant it’s possible that other people in Canada or Europe are smarter or more well versed in global standards than I am. ^_^

I would definitely cast a vote for identifications based more on course distinctions or topic titles rather than CCSS coding.

Thanks for this thought provoking site!