   GDNet University - A Modest Proposal
  A debate on the current state of the Help Wanted forum got me to thinking about what the key problems are with it. Some have proposed a new interface for the forums, along the lines of classified ads in newspapers. However, it's hard to see how this would solve the issues related to simple ignorance of how game development works.In my view, the solution is education. (Okay, so I'm the son of a teacher; so sue me!)Specifically, I'd like to revive the idea of creating a "GDNet University" site under the GDNet umbrella. However, unlike previous attempts, I don't think this should be handled by the present GDNet staff. Why? Because GDNet is set up as a peer-to-peer community forum, not a one-to-many educational resource. Its core interfaces and infrastructure reflect this and the work on replacing this infrastructure is clearly taking a hell of a long time. (Not surprising given that running GDNet itself is generally a part-time job for most of the staff involved.) Whether we want to admit it or not, attempts at making the articles and other resources on GDNet a more important element have not proven any more successful than earlier attempts at bringing these resources to the foreground. Pretty much every activity still revolves around the forums. The FAQs are, due to the design of the forum software, not made particularly obvious, and few people want to (or can) write them anyway -- game development is a complex subject to explain. In fact, if anyone clicks on the "Active Topics" feature -- and many do -- the FAQs and stickies never appear unless someone has recently posted to or added them. This is a major design fault with the existing software: It's quite possible for a complete neophyte to come across this site, register and make his first post without *ever* seeing any obvious "START HERE!" FAQs or forum-rules stickies. Last time I looked, forum etiquette was not a mandatory subject in schools.Clearly, GDNet's UI is designed for the "intermediate" and "expert" levels of game developer, rather than the beginner. GDNet's forums can be somewhat schizophrenic for newcomers, with some posters offering (flagrantly inaccurate) advice or ill-advised encouragement, while experts (who have no way of proving their expertise) are ignored or flamed. There is, at present, no way for a beginner to tell whether a poster is an experienced industry veteran, a neophyte like themselves, or an ignorant troll.I therefore propose:1. The creation of a completely separate educational resources site, under the GDNet branding -- e.g. "university.gamedev.net", to be modelled loosely on the Open University.2. Said site to be set up, owned and managed by a *completely separate team* from the existing GDNet staff.3. Said site to use off-the-shelf software or any other tools necessary to get started quickly.4. Said site to be primarily a one-to-many resource, rather than peer-to-peer. 5. Said site to take on the proposed Wiki. (Using the "Citizendium" model,  not "Wikipedia".)6. Said site to take over (and ultimately replace) the venerable, but now obsolete Nehe site and all similar sites.The final two points are of key importance:7. ALL major contributors will be paid. (Note, not "should", but "will".)This is absolutely crucial: Industry professionals are, by definition, very busy people. Offering an incentive to devote even more of their precious time imparting their knowledge is the only way we're ever going to change the status quo and also ensure quality content. We also need to pay at least one (ideally full-time) content editor. This editor will be responsible for ensuring we have a good spread of articles across all the relevant fields, as well as organising the peer-review process.This is where my next point comes in:8. The new site will be *explicitly* designed to provide a reasonable revenue stream.The devil will be in the details here, particularly with regard to the proposed GDWiki, which should ideally be free at the point of use.Donations are a possibility, but far from ideal. A combined, cross-site subscription system could be implemented, such as adding a "GDNet+ Gold" level, offering access to "premium" content such as video tutorials. Or GDNet U could have its own, separate subscription. Sponsorship and merchandising are also likely to be important avenues. In theory, sponsorship could cover all the site's costs, but such an approach could create conflicts of interest and will need careful management. However, sponsorship seems the ideal option in all other respects: we could have a sponsor for each area -- e.g. "Programming... sponsored by Microsoft*", with appropriate branding; "3D Modelling... sponsored by Maya", etc. (Naturally, there are options here for offering discounted tools and the like to subscribers.)The intention is for GDNet U to become a valuable resource across _all_ levels -- beginner, intermediate and advanced. Once a critical mass of articles is in place, we could also look into areas such as traditional publishing (perhaps a "GDNet Gems"-type book) and other repurposing of material.*GDNet University would, at all times, remain a non-profit organisation, with proceeds being ploughed right back into the GDNet group (with a ring-fenced percentage always returning to GDNet U itself). Ideally, it should be registered as a charity so that sponsors can take advantage of tax incentives. GDNet itself could also be converted into a charity, for similar reasons.While the non-profit approach means nobody's likely to get stupendously wealthy working with the GDNet websites, it does make sponsored full-time staff and contributors more viable. (I'm assuming, of course, that the present attempt to make GDNet make a profit of some sort isn't proving 100% successful!)Regards,-- Sean Timarco BaggaleyPS: The bit about modelling it on the Open University isn't mere glibness: I really do want to see actual qualifications being offered by GDNet U. Whether we could offer courses right away depends on how well this suggestion is received and what level of input and sponsorship we can get. (I do have experience in obtaining certification and approval for courses due to my work in the education sector, so this isn't as optimistic as it sounds.)* (This is one area where the GNU/ Free / Open Source movements are at a disadvantage, although individual companies in that field would be more than welcome to provide sponsorship.)   
Quote:Original post by stimarcoA debate on the current state of the Help Wanted forum got me to thinking about what the key problems are with it. Some have proposed a new interface for the forums, along the lines of classified ads in newspapers. However, it's hard to see how this would solve the issues related to simple ignorance of how game development works.Those are orthogonal problems, though. Help Wanted is for people looking for collaborators. The current Help Wanted, with its deluge of clueless posts, buries genuinely interesting projects and is consequently less useful to everyone. A classifieds system allows those looking to run searches based on various criteria and find only those postings that match. In effect, its greatest asset is that it makes it easy for you to ignore the posts that don't interest you.The GDNet University idea, while interesting, will not solve that problem: the people posting unrealistic Help Wanted threads never sought information about how games are made, since that information is abundantly available. (Its usability is a separate discussion.)Quote:I therefore propose:1. The creation of a completely separate educational resources site, under the GDNet branding -- e.g. "university.gamedev.net", to be modelled loosely on the Open University.2. Said site to be set up, owned and managed by a *completely separate team* from the existing GDNet staff.3. Said site to use off-the-shelf software or any other tools necessary to get started quickly.4. Said site to be primarily a one-to-many resource, rather than peer-to-peer. 5. Said site to take on the proposed Wiki. (Using the "Citizendium" model,  not "Wikipedia".)6. Said site to take over (and ultimately replace) the venerable, but now obsolete Nehe site and all similar sites.You are proposing that we replace free, albeit inconsistent, resources with one that requires tuition? That we hire professionals to create, manage, moderate, administer and oversee this resource? That we restrict the ability for the general public to contribute, aping a project that has so little mindshare that even an avowed internet fiend like myself had to look it up to recall that it was an idea he had heard floated and near-immediately dismissed as being regressive (ie, Citizendium)?It doesn't seem terribly pragmatic, it doesn't play to GDNet's core strengths, and it's duplicative - it's GameInstitute all over again.Quote:7. ALL major contributors will be paid. (Note, not "should", but "will".)This is absolutely crucial: Industry professionals are, by definition, very busy people. Offering an incentive to devote even more of their precious time imparting their knowledge is the only way we're ever going to change the status quo and also ensure quality content. We also need to pay at least one (ideally full-time) content editor. This editor will be responsible for ensuring we have a good spread of articles across all the relevant fields, as well as organising the peer-review process.Industry professionals are, by definition, not educators. And vice versa.Quote:8. The new site will be *explicitly* designed to provide a reasonable revenue stream.I'll briefly look at the options stated:Donations don't make sense if tuition of some sort is being paid.Subscriptions are a delicate model, as an individual would logically only need a GDNet University subscription for a finite time until he had acquired the necessary skills/knowledge. During this subscription period, do we provide access to all content or only some? What criteria are applied to determine access? Do "courses" have prerequisites?Merchandising is not appealing for a pay resource, and thus unlikely to be a significant revenue stream. People purchase merchandise associated with their pay schools because of the physical time spent there, the extensive traditions, the athletic programs, the friendships formed - artifacts of a period spend at a physical location, which can not be replicated online.Sponsorship is a possibility, but given a tuition requirement then the potential audience is limited, and the appeal of sponsorship diminished.It is not that GDNet University is a bad idea - not at all! It merely raises a simple, single question: why GDNet University? There is nothing about GDNet that makes it uniquely or even logically equipped to create this resource, and there is nothing about the open university model that is logically extensible to GDNet as is. In effect, there is nothing that ties these two things together, and I think the "Game Education Resource" idea is a more interesting/compelling proposition standing on its own. Of course, it then has to justify competing with GameInstitute and the plethora of game design/development programs emerging at bricks and mortar institutions across the world.(Btw, I'm the scion of two university professors myself!)   ;GameInstitute's faculty includes André LaMothe, who is famous for writing mediocre textbooks on game development. They refer to him as a "real game design expert" right there on their front page. I have no idea how they get away with that flagrantly inaccurate assertion.Your other arguments have some validity though. Specifically, I'm now convinced that sponsorship is the best solution: I'm a firm believer in education being free at the point of use. (Call me a pinko commie if you will.)I think another problem is that the term "university" clearly has far too many connotations that don't really apply in this case. Perhaps "GDNet Learning" might be a better term.Some additional points: Firstly, I spent five years working at a private, bricks-and-mortar college here in London. They specialise in adult education (mostly for immigrants and non-English speakers), covering languages, healthcare, ABE business courses through to IT. Some of their courses are at degree level and I was involved in the management and admin side, helping obtain course approval and certification. I know what's involved in setting something like this up. It's not easy, granted, but it isn't as difficult as people tend to believe either. (Granted, I'm mainly familiar with UK and Italian procedures, but the principles are generally similar the world over.)The "university" concept is only applicable to the range of qualifications we could offer. In terms of methodology, I'm far more in favour of students teaching themselves, rather than being spoon-fed their learning by lecturers. Online tutorial sessions would be the trickiest element to build into the site, (although Adobe has some software which can help here); formal lectures at bricks-and-mortar sites would not be used. In fact, courses could be taken over any period of time the student desires.I suspect most users would be following courses aimed at helping their promotion prospects. Therefore, courses in project and team management, production and similar would be good starting points. My preference would be to make full use of the media available to us, specifically the internet and its interactive elements:1. Learners as co-designers.Learners can effectively design their own courses: you pick the subject areas you want to study and the material is made available. Full courses will often include video and multimedia elements, hence the revenue requirements, but the textual material could be made freely available for people who want to see what each module is about. This is tricky to provide a single, formal qualification for, but not impossible. (Some UK examining boards actively support the concept of fully modular courses. City & Guilds, for example.)2: Emphasis on practical, peer-to-peer learning.This is where the GDNet link comes in. Teaching other people is a good way to ensure you've learned your subject. Forums and other community resources would be a big plus for this. Team-based projects would form a big part of some courses, with the result that many "Help Wanted" ads could end up being for GDNet Learning student projects. This would add a lot more signal to these ads, making the blatant "noise" ads really stick out like sore thumbs. (At present, any newbie looking through the "Help Wanted" forum might think that the "Cloverfield" or "Sonic" threads are representative of a typical project.)3: Multilingual & Multicultural.This is something traditional (and even most online) institutions support poorly. One of the key successes of the Open University is its global approach. They offer courses around the world, localised for different cultures and languages. While this isn't something GDNet L would be able to do from the outset, it would be a key aim over the near-term. We could even cherry-pick elements from each localisation and provide truly cross-cultural course elements.4: Industrial grade peer-review.Industry professionals are, as you rightly point out, not necessarily good teachers. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule. However, one way to achieve good results is to make use of the IGDA, as well as asking professionals to *peer-review* courseware, rather than expect them to write it from scratch. This process would also give the site much-needed credibility within the industry.Teaching requires people who know how to impart information in a way that enthuses their audience. Some pros can do this, as some GDC seminars have shown, but these are in a minority. (That said, there's no reason, other than the obtaining of relevant permissions, why we couldn't use actual conference presentations _as_ course materials.) My preference is for students to learn at their own pace, without the pressure of formal tuition. At most, "tutorial leaders" could be used to moderate forums and peer-to-peer tutorials (going back to point 2, above).These are my current thoughts on the proposal. In hindsight, my original post focused too heavily on issues of funding. I think sponsorship is by far the best way to support this. (One problem is the chicken / egg one of whether we could get sponsorship to fund an initial tranche of material.)Anyway, I'll shut up now.;Quote:Original post by stimarcoIn my view, the solution is education.Although education is undoubtedly very important in life, but I don't think your proposed solution solves any of the problems you have listed.Quote:A debate on the current state of the Help Wanted forum got me to thinking about what the key problems are with it. Some have proposed a new interface for the forums, along the lines of classified ads in newspapers. However, it's hard to see how this would solve the issues related to simple ignorance of how game development works.I'm somewhat confused about what you see as the problem at hand. Is it the ignorant posts in the Help Wanted forum or the lack of understanding of game development in general? For the first issue, I think modifying the design and software behind it should be tried first. Although I have heard the stories about the supposedly horrific code base, making changes in software is trivial compared to setting up courses, finding tutors, attracting students and making it all economically viable at the same time. In case of the latter, if providing information in the form of articles or forum posts doesn't help people to get familiar with the in and outs of game development, I very much doubt that dedicated education will. If someone is not prepared to do some minor research to see what game development involves, I don't think they are willing to spend time and money on an online course either. Uninformed people can be found on every forum, and to be honest I don't think GameDev is doing so bad in handling it. Due to a large number of knowledgeable and active members together with sensible moderation, most 'dumb' posts are replied to fairly quickly pointing out the flaws in the original post. Some of them will take that advice on board, others will ignore, that's life.Quote:Because GDNet is set up as a peer-to-peer community forum, not a one-to-many educational resource. Its core interfaces and infrastructure reflect this and the work on replacing this infrastructure is clearly taking a hell of a long time. (Not surprising given that running GDNet itself is generally a part-time job for most of the staff involved.)Like I said before, although rewriting the software is an immense undertaking, setting up a 'university' is much more work and involves much more risk. As a solution it doesn't seem to be the best option. If the current work force is too small to handle it, invite more people to help out, don't create additional projects.Quote:Whether we want to admit it or not, attempts at making the articles and other resources on GDNet a more important element have not proven any more successful than earlier attempts at bringing these resources to the foreground. Pretty much every activity still revolves around the forums. The FAQs are, due to the design of the forum software, not made particularly obvious, and few people want to (or can) write them anyway -- game development is a complex subject to explain.If it's about the visibility or accessibility of the articles, I haven't seen much or any change in the last years. Therefor I don't think you can measure its effectiveness. The links to the FAQ's are pretty much invisible and some posts really lack decent and up-to-date content, it's certainly something that can be improved. Good ones can be written, Jack's DirectX FAQ is a good example, it's just a matter of finding the right people to do it. But to 'explain' game development to the masses, a FAQ isn't and shouldn't be seen as the proper medium to communicate that. In fact, I find FAQ's generally quite useless anyway. If the questions are really so frequently asked, a simple request to Google should yield the proper results must faster than manually going through each and every paragraph in a document that may or may not contain the answer. Site specific FAQ's on rules and etiquette like the one for the Lounge is something different of course. Quote:In fact, if anyone clicks on the "Active Topics" feature -- and many do -- the FAQs and stickies never appear unless someone has recently posted to or added them. This is a major design fault with the existing software: It's quite possible for a complete neophyte to come across this site, register and make his first post without *ever* seeing any obvious "START HERE!" FAQs or forum-rules stickies. Last time I looked, forum etiquette was not a mandatory subject in schools.So again, it sounds like usability of the website should be improved, rather than starting up the lengthy process of educating every new member through means of an online academy.Quote:Clearly, GDNet's UI is designed for the "intermediate" and "expert" levels of game developer, rather than the beginner. GDNet's forums can be somewhat schizophrenic for newcomers, with some posters offering (flagrantly inaccurate) advice or ill-advised encouragement, while experts (who have no way of proving their expertise) are ignored or flamed. There is, at present, no way for a beginner to tell whether a poster is an experienced industry veteran, a neophyte like themselves, or an ignorant troll.A better introduction to game development would be nice indeed, and I think the wiki could help with that. But in my experience, the experts aren't ignored when the comment on bad advice given by others. I think, in general, because of the way they communicate (proper spelling, well structured reply), they are taken seriously, at least by the original poster. It shouldn't be too difficult to pick out the trolls.To summarize, I don't see how your proposal solves the problem you stated. And even it it would and we disregard the business side of things for a moment, it certainly isn't the most obvious and straightforward answer to the issue.Edit: to clarify, I didn't read your last post before I replied, so I only addressed the original post.;Note to self: don't write posts when you're on painkillers. It's not big. It's not clever. It's barely even intelligible.Sorry guys, I'm running on codeine this week.I *think* my original post was going to be about the UI issues, but can't be certain. Either way, perhaps thread deletion may be a good idea. (Perhaps a new thread on the issue of Help Wanted's current faults, and discussions of same, would be worthwhile though.)Abnormal service will be resumed shortly.;  Well, some of the arguments are just about whether or not the proposal would fix the problems you pointed out (Help Wanted).I don't think it would, but I do think it would solve certain other problems on the site (little-read FAQs, little-read intro threads, lack of a comprehensive starting place for beginners, and no compilation of useful stuff).Maybe we could argue the merits of the idea itself a little more? I'm certainly not convinced by it yet, though.   ;  Well, now that we've dismissed the expensive and impractical GDNet University idea, let's take a closer look at elements of it that make sense for GameDev.net Site actuel. I will divide them into three basic categories:User interface redesign;Content reorganization; andNew content and applications.User Interface RedesignIssue: Forums overshadow everything elseSuggestion: Visually boost prominence of other parts of siteSuggestion: Facilitate extraction of forum posts into mini-articles (leverage wiki)Suggestion: Permit annotation of forum posts with wiki links (poster must approve)Comments: The forums legitimately deserve their prominence, as they are the most valuable portion of the site. There's more knowledge and information in them than in three game development sites' articles and references sections. Recognizing this, one of the things we should probably do is make it dead simple to nominate a really good post for inclusion in the wiki. It goes in, and registered users can opt to see such articles while guests won't. The community can then clean it up a little to change stylistically from "discussion" style to "article" style, the poster gets an automatic article credit, and the post gets amended with a "Read more" section including a link that points to the wiki article.Wiki articles link to more wiki articles, naturally, so suddenly you have people being sucked from the forums into the wiki to learn about a variety of background materials.Another thing we could do is allow any user to annotate a post with a link, which he and the poster can see. The poster or a moderator can then accept the annotation, making it visible to all. This link would also go in the "Read more" section.Difficulty: HighSummary: Deep integration features like this require an extensive revision of the posting software, both to add new features and to amend how old features work (what happens when you edit a post with annotations?).Issue: Links to FAQs and Stickies do not appear in Active TopicsSuggestion: None; they don't belong thereComments: What this issue actually highlights is that we're burying useful reference information in the wrong places. With the merging of GDNet and GPWiki, extensive "getting started in <topic>" content should be placed in the wiki, not in forum FAQs and stickies that people don't read. Ever.Forum policies should be indicated at point of posting, or, where appropriate and possible, enforced via software. The various policies for Help Wanted, for instance, indicate that Help Wanted really shouldn't be a forum. I cover instances like this in New Content and Applications below.Difficulty: Easy to MediumSummary: Relocating FAQ content is merely a matter of inclination or effort. Developing new applications is a little more work, but sheds the legacy of most of our codebase, resulting in a medium level of necessary effort. In fact, I have taken up the responsibility of writing the Classifieds system, so give me a few weeks to get familiar and then another couple to bang it out. It's a very simple system, and we should have done this a long time ago.Issue: It is difficult to ascertain the expertise of forum contributorsSuggestion: Community-awarded "technical merit" badgesComments: Our community has demonstrated that it is, in aggregate, both very technically sophisticated and adept at identifying correct and relevant technical information. If you take a look at the recommendations given to beginners, for example, you'll see distinct shifts that lag the most informed expert opinions by a surprisingly short lead time. This means that in addition to recognizing good ideas that are invariably quite controversial when first expressed, these ideas rapidly percolate through the community. Classic examples include the adoption of STL, the deprecation of C++ as a recommended language for beginners, "make games, not engines", and the current trend of realizing that which language you start with is not as important as picking one and sticking to it.Consequently, we should allow the community to allocate technical merit points to individual posts. The aggregate of post points, themselves multiplied by the topic-specific merit points of the awarding user, will provide a useful estimate of the technical expertise of each poster. Like all systems, there is the potential for abuse, but it'll generally prove to be as resilient as ratings have turned out, despite all the protestations otherwise.Difficulty: HighSummary: As with the wiki integration features discussed earlier, this requires significant changes to how the forums work.Content ReorganizationIssue: Valuable information contained in forum FAQs and stickies go unnoticedSuggestion: Eliminate or significantly downsize FAQs, and place such content in an appropriate placeComments: This was basically covered above, but the guiding principle is that instead of all these isolated information silos with minimal cross-pollination, we will use the wiki as a single repository for all types of reference information. Getting Started, How-To, elaborate explanations, NeHe, NeXe, Wotsit, Game Dictionary... they all have a place in the wiki, as articles or categories.Difficulty: EasySummary: Merely a matter of effort, with appropriate oversight to establish conventions and principles. One important facet is to ensure that the landing page for the wiki is easily located from any page on GDNet, and is itself informative, providing clear indications of how to locate specific types of further information.New Content and ApplicationsIssue: Help Wanted sucks!Suggestion: Replace it with a classifieds systemComments: The fundamental problem with help wanted is that it is entirely freeform, and the absence of forced restrictions allows for an endless stream of wholly impractical postings from people who don't know the first thing about how to get a game built. No system can be free from misuse, but if the classifieds system required the user to check boxes marking whether the game involved original IP (with a link to a short IP/copyright primer), etc, it would probably help raise the quality of ads.Further, by removing the ability to post replies, instead requiring users to contact the poster via the form system (probably tied into the PM system), it would virtually erase all flame wars in HW. Yes, some users will respond directly to ad posters and engage in flame wars via PM, but the rest of us won't care, and flame wars fizzle out quick without spectators to fan their flames.Difficulty: MediumSummary: The classifieds system itself is easy to write. The challenges are registration/login/membership integration, and routing responses to the private messaging system.Issue: New users often need a more guided introduction than articles and forums provideSuggestion: Develop "e-Learning Modules"Comments: We can do a much better job of getting people started. For each major content/skill area - visual arts, sound and music, programming, artificial intelligence, design and production (which I choose to conflate, to disabuse the n00bs who think they'll just get to "come up with the idea") - we can develop an e-Learning platform that introduces topics with the aid of multimedia, tracks user progress, presents tests and quizzes and reiterates material with a particular emphasis on areas where the user has tested poorly so far. Ideally, such a system would let the user enter little bits of code or make small drawings, devise schedules or edit audio samples to impart a general sense of what the actual work entails, and provide links to further information for required skills. All modules would provide an overview of how the particular skill fits into the overall game development process, at different scale levels (AAA, indie, mobile, startup studio... or whatever appropriate designations are).Difficulty: HardSummary: This requires development of accessible instruction content, development of a curriculum, and development/procurement of a software platform for their delivery, and may need to integrate with the rest of the site to some extent (at least membership/registration).   ;Quote:Original post by OluseyiIssue: Forums overshadow everything elseSuggestion: Facilitate extraction of forum posts into mini-articles (leverage wiki)The occasions where a single post can be promoted to a wiki article are very rare (although I think ToohrVyk pulled it off more than once), so i don't think this has to be explicitly facilitated through the forum software. I feel that copy and pasting the post and add a reference to the original thread to credit the author and provide some additional context should do just fine. You always need to add some introduction or clean up the formatting anyway. Quote:Issue: Links to FAQs and Stickies do not appear in Active TopicsSuggestion: None; they don't belong thereI agree that FAQs not be part of the forum. As for the 'main' FAQ, I think it should be split into two sections: the first being the forum rules, that could be displayed in the new thread or post page (at least for new members), the second being the site's feature reference (smileys, tags etc.) that could pretty much stay the way it is, but perhaps deserves a bit more visibility.Quote:Further, by removing the ability to post replies, instead requiring users to contact the poster via the form system (probably tied into the PM system), it would virtually erase all flame wars in HW.Most flame wars are caused by the lack of quality (and sometimes quantity) of the original post. I would hope the enforcement of the template through software would improve the overall quality and minimize the chance of a flame war. One of the great things of a community is the chance to receive feedback, even if it's a simple heads up. By only allowing private messages as a method of communication, I feel that the forum (or whatever form will be chosen) would be less 'alive', because I have no way of telling what other people might think of it. But I admit it's nothing more than a feeling...   ;  On a slightly tangential note, I just discovered this site hosts the game dev wiki now.  When did this come about?  I don't see anything on the main page about it.  Perhaps we should be giving this more exposure.  There are a lot of minds here that have written on a whole lot of material in the forums, but most of the wiki articles seem fairly pedestrian by comparison.Quote:Comments: The forums legitimately deserve their prominence, as they are the most valuable portion of the site. There's more knowledge and information in them than in three game development sites' articles and references sections. Recognizing this, one of the things we should probably do is make it dead simple to nominate a really good post for inclusion in the wiki. It goes in, and registered users can opt to see such articles while guests won't. The community can then clean it up a little to change stylistically from "discussion" style to "article" style, the poster gets an automatic article credit, and the post gets amended with a "Read more" section including a link that points to the wiki article.I really like the idea, though I don't see why this has to start out so complex with deep integration.  Wan's idea of just copying/pasting and then allowing the community to clean up the discussion would be a reasonable first pass.Quote:Most flame wars are caused by the lack of quality (and sometimes quantity) of the original post. I would hope the enforcement of the template through software would improve the overall quality and minimize the chance of a flame war. One of the great things of a community is the chance to receive feedback, even if it's a simple heads up. By only allowing private messages as a method of communication, I feel that the forum (or whatever form will be chosen) would be less 'alive', because I have no way of telling what other people might think of it. But I admit it's nothing more than a feeling...I agree that perhaps a forum is not the best platform for Help Wanted, but I think we've seen some quality discussions (and a lot of not-so-quality discussions) on the forum that we'd lose by nixing it altogether.  Perhaps link each posting to an optional forum discussion (OP's could choose not to enable this) similar to how it's done with articles, so feedback can still be delivered, but it's fairly easy to ignore?Cheers,--Brian;Quote:Original post by WanMasterI agree that FAQs not be part of the forum. As for the 'main' FAQ, I think it should be split into two sections: the first being the forum rules, that could be displayed in the new thread or post page (at least for new members), the second being the site's feature reference (smileys, tags etc.) that could pretty much stay the way it is, but perhaps deserves a bit more visibility.I agree. I think the site's feature reference should be distributed to the various "interaction points" in the site interface. For instance, simply placing help text on how to make text bold, italic, a link or a code block beside the post textarea would do a lot. Making the textarea a WYSIWYG control, or at least adding JavaScript buttons, would be even better.Quote:One of the great things of a community is the chance to receive feedback, even if it's a simple heads up. By only allowing private messages as a method of communication, I feel that the forum (or whatever form will be chosen) would be less 'alive', because I have no way of telling what other people might think of it. But I admit it's nothing more than a feeling...Well, there should be other ways to present an idea or project for general community feedback - the showcase for finished games (IOTD belongs as the image section of the showcase, which should expand to cover art, music and even code libraries in addition to complete games); and the game design forum for "game ideas."Quote:Original post by NairbOn a slightly tangential note, I just discovered this site hosts the game dev wiki now.  When did this come about?Couple weeks back. There has been no news yet because we're still smoothing out the integration and working it all the way into the site - we have pretty ambitious plans to encourage people to contribute to and read the wiki. "Watch this space."Quote:I really like the idea, though I don't see why this has to start out so complex with deep integration.  Wan's idea of just copying/pasting and then allowing the community to clean up the discussion would be a reasonable first pass.That's great... but who's going to do the job of copying and pasting? Nomenclature formulation and classification? Cleanup and notifying the rest of the community? Don't say staff or mods, because they've got a lot of stuff they do already. The upside to this integration is that it handles a lot of tedious aspects, and it inserts the link into the original post - something regular users can't do to others' posts.Starting out with just copy-paste is feasible and a great idea, but deep integration is necessary to have this really take off.Quote:I agree that perhaps a forum is not the best platform for Help Wanted, but I think we've seen some quality discussions (and a lot of not-so-quality discussions) on the forum that we'd lose by nixing it altogether.  Perhaps link each posting to an optional forum discussion (OP's could choose not to enable this) similar to how it's done with articles, so feedback can still be delivered, but it's fairly easy to ignore?That's an alternative that's been considered before. Maybe we'll give that a shot and see how things shape up.   