@brookter (here) noted the difficulty of discoverability of Tinderbox functions, the issue here is how to map outcome-based logic (“I want achieve outcome X”) to a functional descriptions (“This operator does thing Y”).
As a resource, aTbRef is already large and I think adding a section with such mappings might bloat things even more, though I’m open to suggestions. However, I do make an effort to keep aTbRef URLs stable, and elsewhere possible even stable across different baselines (v6, v7, etc.) and keep the old baselines online. So, perhaps, the answer is to start a new resource—perhaps made from a TBX—and cross link those pages to things like the aTbref operator pages. I’d be very happy to host such pages and ‘own’ (for the community) the TBX & output pages, etc.
If the latter idea makes sense, what is needed is a bit of community discussion about how best to frame this mapping. Questions too closely linked to the (imagined) result are not good as a base as generally they are based in a task others may not do.
Perhaps we need a two-level sort. IOW, we have pages telling you things you can do with strings vs. lists linking through to the detail in aTbRef. Then the “I just need to…” type outcome-based descriptions can be pointed to that layer. As I write this, it seems like extra work, but I think it might be worth doing. It will essentially be taking task-based descriptions and abstracting the necessary step(s), even if this abstraction is hidden from some using such a resource and whom can still get to an answer.
In short, I’m trying to think how to help people to bootstrap themselves to an answer from the available resources (and learn in the process) rather than have to ask an another person as the available resources are not clear enough for them.