Yikes! My browse through the messages so far indicates some serious energy and interest, and some great ideas. In fact, too many ideas! Well, not too many, just too disorganized.
table of contents
What someone needs to do is create a tree hierarchy of reasonable topics mentioned so far, which could be in the form of a table-of-contents. Then people can add their requests in the appropriate place, and everyone can see the fullness of the topics without reading a zillion messages --- just imagine this thread in a few months!
omit fad wars - keep ratings professional
I also have a question and request. I don't have problems with ratings - that's a reasonable way to judge the quality and popularity of an article. However, I have to point out one annoying problem that exists in gamedev as well as just about everywhere else. That is the problem of ratings and commenting based upon "fads" rather than utility, quality and other values. A huge number of people, especially close-to-newbies try to show how "in" or "hip" they are by trashing anything that doesn't conform to the current set of fads. This just creates pointless fights. But even worse, people with loads of experience get tired of being dumped on by fad-addicts (and "my-way-or-the-highway" types), and stop contributing. Why should they help if their reward is being dumped upon?
So I'm a bit skeptical about a wide open rating system. I'm not sure how to solve this problem. I've seen a few of the moderators behave the same ways in gamedev threads, so I'm not sure leaving ratings to moderators is the solution either. Only let authors who already contributed rate others? Anyone have a solution for this problem?
Here are examples of what I want to avoid:
- lots of negative votes for a great article about SIMD because "assembly language is stoopid" or "outdated".
- for vertex transformation