I had a look at the new Arduino Project Hub. While the idea is great it is in danger of turning into another Instructables site with totally crap projects. There is, or should be, some expectation that the projects featured at least work, and then that they are designed in such a way as to not damage your Arduino.
I came across this mess:- Trafic Lights
Not only was the Fritzing layout totally unfollowable there had been no attempt to route the schematic portion of the Fritzing project. When I did untangle it the circuit was a farce.
Trying to drive 8 LEDs from one pin with current limiting of two series diodes. The LEDs the wrong way round, and the switch pull down resistor going to ground through a diode.
Should there not be some sort of minimum standard for submission to this Project Hub? It is only going to cause a lot of confusion to beginners. I think it is important that beginners start with solid well documented examples. With at least a schematic that can be read.
Ideally there would be some vetting process for the projects but I doubt that Arduino is interested in paying employees to do it. I actually think they would be happy for it to turn into another Instructables, crap projects and all. Realistically the best approach is to just point out issues in the comments as you have done and hopefully people will read them before attempting the project.
I've noticed that some projects have issues reports integrated(for example Arduino Project Hub) but I haven't found out how to submit the reports. This would be a better option than a comment because if there are a lot of comments it is less likely that everyone is going to read through them all.
If a project shows promise it might be worth submitting fixes for the issues. This is easier to do through pull requests if the project uses GitHub, etc.
This sort of stuff is frustrating because the people who are most likely to try these projects are the ones who don't have the knowledge to evaluate the quality of the information and will be the most confused and discouraged when it doesn't work, especially when it also damages components.
This sort of stuff is frustrating because the people who are most likely to try these projects are the ones who don't have the knowledge to evaluate the quality of the information and will be the most confused and discouraged when it doesn't work, especially when it also damages components.
Yes this is exactly what I am saying.
I know vetting each project would be almost impossible, but the requirement for each project to have a readable schematic would take not much time, it could even be farmed out to a volunteer like the forum moderation is.
I've noticed that some projects have issues reports integrated(for example Arduino Project Hub) but I haven't found out how to submit the reports.
Yes the big flaw with that is you are not going to get I2C to operate over those sorts of distances.
I have not looked at the Project Hub and I don't have any plans to do so. I was attracted to this Thread just because it was started by an upstanding member of the community.
It seems to me that the problems that both of you have detected are quite complex and would be difficult (and expensive) to detect for a large number of projects.
And expensive can refer to time (for expert volunteers) or money (for paid experts). It would be interesting to know how long @GrumpyMike spent on the project he commented on?
And they would need expert attention - not just a meddler like me.
All this adds up to a simple binary choice in my mind - leave things as they are OR remove the hub altogether.
It would be interesting to know how long @GrumpyMike spent on the project he commented on?
I spend half an hour dragging the fritzing schematic into place and routing the wires so that I could "read" the schematic. There is probably another half an hour work in getting it to be a good schematic.
However just the lack of a schematic should be enough to trigger a rejection.
A Fritzing physical layout diagram is not a schematic, the tabs in Fritzing says "bread board" and "schematic" so only a complete idiot would think they are the same thing.
I was recently obliged to use Fritzing for a publication so I had picked up some skills with it. However, it is defiantly not a suitable application for beginners to use.
The thing that gets me is that in order to do a bread board layout you must first have the schematic in your head, so why not draw the schematic in the "schematic tab" first before the layout?
This however is rather off the point that we can expect a whole slew of problems coming from people trying to replicate these projects. I can see the posts now:-
fictitious_user:
I have wired it up exactly like the project but it doesn't work.
Before posting libraries, we encourage developers to post them on the forum for review. If no one is interested, then the library can be posted without having been reviewed.
If there is interest, then there is a reasonable expectation that changes will be made before the library is posted.
I see no reason why the same approach wouldn't work for the project hub site, too.
It's all very well to point out problems with a particular project. But quality control only has value if it is applied to EVERY project so that you can say to readers "these projects work"
Without that you will just be where you are now - saying "some of these projects work"
Yes, but short of having to go through some moderation procedure for every post (and who is going to do that?) some sort of voting system by end-users is probably the next best thing.
Something like:
I built the project: Yes/No
(If Yes): The project worked as described: Yes/No
The code appears to be OK: Yes/No
The schematic seems to be OK: Yes/No
Or for the last three items maybe a rank from 1 to 5 (very bad to very good).
Apparently it is run by help@hackster.io, I got an email off them yesterday suggesting some projects I should look at. The first one was this:- Modular Smart Home And his idea of a schematic was the copper side of a PCB. And I thought you couldn't get any more useless than a Fritzing diagram.
