Quote:Original post by Gaiiden
Keep throwing rocks!
Quote:It's also brought back, for some, memories of the Intel debacle from 2007.
Well, let's be honest, that just wasn't a very good article, especially considering the source (I would expect higher quality from an Intel employee). Then I rather have them sponsor the gamedev.net search functionality, although I have always assumed that was a free service from Google. [grin]
Quote:There is no such thing as a stupid question
I'm sure we've all heard this saying before. Teachers, especially, like to tell their grade school students this. It is, for the most part, very true. I say "for the most part" because questions can appear stupid, especially online where the common response is LMGTFY.
I'd therefore also like to posit that there is no such thing as an uninformative article. Articles can be off-topic, they can be wrong, they can be misleading, or they can be inaccurate. We would certainly never knowingly feed you an article that falls under any of those categories. If it doesn't, then it is considered to be an informative and thus useful article. Maybe not to you, maybe not to a lot of you, but certainly to somebody - like that poor, sheltered 25 year old who doesn't know about sex. (Just to be clear, that was an analogy, not a direct inference :P)
Perhaps it's better to label these questions "lazy" rather than "stupid", as the acronym LMGTFY clearly conveys. As such, I don't really see the link with "no such thing as an uninformative article".
Quote:That brings me to my second issue.
What, exactly, is a Featured Article?
I had not considered until just now the misconception that could be surrounding the concept of Featured Articles on this site. We have quite a collection of articles in our Resources section (2,354 if the count on the left nav bar is accurate) so it's easy to take "Featured Article" to mean articles that we decide are worth mentioning amongst all others in our database. So in other words, stand-out articles of high quality and substance.
This is not true.
The real reason an article is listed as Featured is because it is an article that we've published. You won't find it hosted on any other game development site except ours, at least for the first 30 days. This was all so much more relevant back in the day when Flipcode, DevMaster and GameDeveloper.net (among others) were still around also publishing content (DevMaster forums are still active, but their article publishing is almost non-existent now). We would link out to a lot of other websites (still do, every now and then) and add those articles in our database, but those we featured were always our own.
Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I always interpreted "featured" as exclusive.
Quote:But wait!", you say. "Ok, so these aren't some picks from the bunch, but shouldn't they still all be of high quality and substance to be published on this website?" Yes, but what we're really talking about here are standards, and I've already stated what isn't acceptable in an article, technical-wise. Content-wise, obviously direct plagiarism is a "hells no". Articles that are too similar to an existing published work (that is both recent and well-known) or that seem to draw directly from such work with no reference is also a no-no. Articles that are just incomprehensible grammar-wise are turned back for editing. Articles that ramble or stray off their focus are rejected as well.
So if an article meets all these standards, why should it not be published? If I decide because it's too basic, or not widely-applicable, or just not very interesting, I'm factoring in personal opinion, and that's not very fair. The thing about proper standards is that they do not discriminate. We are very serious about upholding technical accuracy and content validity, but beyond that there's no reason to judge an article.
After all, that's your job. Which continues our discussion...
No, that's your job. [smile]
Your personal opinion matters because you are the content lead. And in case you don't have faith in your own judgment, maybe because you're not an expert on the subject, you can send it to others to review it and base your decision to publish it on their feedback. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but that's how scientific journals work. Quality matters, whether it's a basic tutorial or advanced technical paper. Let me give a contrived example:
Declaring variables in ASP.
To declare a variable, use the keyword "Dim" followed by the variable name.
Dim myVariableThe end.
According to your standards (spelling, word count, original work, technically correct), this qualifies as a publishable article.
Quote:For those who may be curious: The Editorial Review Board watches over and verifies the technical aspects of all our articles to ensure they meet the standards I mentioned earlier. So where do they fit into all this given that I said it's just me and the companies working on these articles? Well, the board is not a committee - individual members are tasked with individual articles and use their technical expertise (most times in specific areas) to review the article. Therefore unless I feel I am unable to affirm the technical accuracy of an article, it is faster for me to collaborate directly with authors. These articles still fall under the ERB when my knowledge does not suffice.
So now I'm a little confused. There's a peer review system already in place, but you or the reviewers don't have or give an opinion about the relevance of an article, only it's technical accuracy?