I wonder how the last tutorials passed the procedure for the tutorial section which should be in place since April 2023.
Where these topics really discussed in the community and have they all passed quality checks before they were moved to the tutorial section?
a link to video,
short code snippets,
just some lines of basic thoughts
... is that all we request for a post in the tutorial section?
I personally have not seen any flags requesting a thread to be approved. @moderators?
(the process is documented here)
They were not so far as I am aware ever discussed or approved, but I think you knew that anyway.
I don't think the process works or is policed. I would like someone to take it on themselves to review all tutorials with a view to approval and decision on whether a tutorial should be pinned. Before anyone asks, no, not me, partly because I don't really want to, and partly because of the obvious bias I probably have as I have written quite a lot of tutorials. However, unless and until someone volunteers to do this it won't be done.
I could put in some effort to identify "tutorials" which will need an improvement. I could flag them to document it and a moderator can decide to
I agree and I would appreciate if the "process" could be fixed also.
I see following measures:
I support you doing that and happy to assist with the things you need a moderator to do.
@pert are you happy with this if @noiasca decides to review tutorials as suggested? Do I need to ask or can we just go ahead?
Have you read translations of holy books? In particular the Quran, where each page is in three sections, (1) literal, (2) transliterated and (3) arguments. Sometimes the arguments section is longer than the other two sections combined, explaining how a word, words or phrase needed to be kept true to the meaning or true to the word. This is also true in poetry and cliches, for example "you are pulling my leg," whose meaning does not agree with the words used. In programming, will "delay()" be literally translated as "delay()" or figuratively translated into "millis()"? All the time or "just this one time... and this one... and this... and... et c." Nose to the grindstone, shoulder to the wheel!
Eh?
Before I delete your reply as wildly off topic please can you explain the relationship to the topic under discussion, something I am clearly missing?
I thank you.
The relationship: Will the un-moderated tutorials be translated true to the intent of the author (replace archaic methods like delay() and buttonPress = HIGH with millis() and buttonPress = LOW) or true to the writing of author (keep and "work around" delay() and buttonPress = HIGH).
Transliterating causes "painting into a corner" if only one method is followed, so flipping between the two methods might be essential to not make every program a throw-away-and-build-new. Grab a copy of the three-part Quran. The arguments are thought provoking in a lexical way. Programming is another interpreted language.
Some context on the tutorial submission process: Prior to last year, the #using-arduino:introductory-tutorials category was completely open for anyone to publish a topic, just like the other support/discussion categories. We had the usual problem of new users randomly selecting that category for their support topics and then the forum maintainers having to recategorize them.
In order to address that specific problem, the configuration of the category was adjusted from the default "everyone can make a topic" to only allowing topic creation if the user had "trust level" 2 or higher with the forum software. The procedure mentioned by @Coding_Badly was established at that time in order to allow everyone to still submit tutorials regardless of their trust level.
I'm against pinning any tutorials. We will end up with so many accumulating that they take up most of the first page of the category.
You are very welcome to evaluate the tutorials. That would be very valuable.
If you find topics there that you think fundamentally don't qualify for inclusion in this curated category, you are welcome to flag them.
However, I don't think it makes sense to use flags in the case where you want to suggest improvements. The reason is that this puts the burden on the moderators to duplicate your work of reviewing the tutorial. You should instead make a public forum topic for the proposed improvements, making sure to bring it to the attention of the tutorial author (via a mention and/or personal message). This way the community can contribute to the improvement effort. If your efforts don't result in the suggested improvements being made and you feel that the tutorial is not suitable for inclusion in the #using-arduino:introductory-tutorials category at its present state, you can then flag it for a moderator to consider recategorizing it.
As I mentioned above, we already do have restrictions on who can create topics. I think that by the time someone has participated in the forum enough to reach trust level 2, they should be past the stage of confused/lazy newcomer making blatantly miscategorized topics. But perhaps they won't yet necessarily have the nuanced understanding of the forum mores that will allow them to unilaterally decide whether their topic is appropriate for inclusion in #using-arduino:introductory-tutorials. I have adjusted the configuration to now set the requirement at trust level 3. It takes quite a bit of dedicated engagement in the forum to earn and maintain this trust level.
Absolutely. The first post (or first posts if someone wants to organize the content into multiple posts) must contain the tutorial.
I think it is good to separate the discussions about development of the tutorial from the tutorial topic, since these will tend to become less relevant as the tutorial content evolves. However, I don't see any problem tutorials topics having a thread if the tutorial author wants that (they are also welcome to request the moderators close the tutorial topic if they don't want that).
@pert
Thank you for the reminder about the context and background to the introductory tutorials' category.
Good idea!
We disagree! However, I recognise the risk you are concerned about and for this reason I favour an occasional review of which topics are pinned, with the possibility that some might be unpinned. I don't see a problem with there being a complete page full of pinned tutorials as long as they are good quality and relevant. @noiasca I don't know how much work you are considering doing but if you decide to review which topics are pinned then please do not consider mine to be off limits; if you think any / some / all of mine should be unpinned then feel free to propose that.
I agree completely. However, if you (@noiasca ) want moderator help I am quite happy to be involved and I don't mind PMs from you asking for my input, comment and help should you need it.
I propose you just do the same "Flag for moderation" like I'll do. The more community members flag posts, the easier it becomes for moderators to act according to the feedback. My "feedback" might be biased - if others flag the same posts the combined feedback might have more weight than just a single one.
I will start this weekend from the newest posts downwards. I will not check posts older than December 2022 (have read them already some time ago...).
I try to describe in the flag report
@pert, I understand this. However it is not my intention to "improve" such posts with my input via moderators as long as such a post is in the tutorial section. In my opinion any discussion of a tutorial should take place in the respective category and before it gets moved back to the tutorials section. I will contribute to threads outside tutorials when I have the expertise for the topic.
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
