EPTTL Knowhow is Live! - Page 8
| Forum Index > TL Knowhow |
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 17 2012 13:57 MightyAtom wrote: As an obligation to this project I'm reply as directly as I can to your points, I would ask that you respect this effort, whether you agree or disagree, and let the matter lie for a couple of days. 1. If the OP is to first think of their knowhow and from their knowhow think to where there is a book or reference or product which adds to explaining the knowhow. If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum. We are not forcing anyone to write for this section or down grade their content. In my view, it helps me to add accountability and focus it from a AMA FAQ view, but if the addition of such reference material were to get in the way of that for whatever reason, then I would say, not to post in this particular section of TL. 2. Yes, I agree, but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section; your terminology of 'selling in a natural way' is besides the point, if the book is sold or not, it is irrelevant as the use can seek to go to the library and get it or not. What is critical is, if there is book or product to be referenced in the first place, as in point 1. " If they are unable to source such a reference and feel the need to dumb down or bend their content to make it work, and are not please with the outcome, then do not post in the knowhow section, post in general or blogs or the respective sub forum." 3. It depends on what industry, for business you are 100% wrong. For medical journals you could be 100% right. But it depends on what industry/field. 4. Yes, I agree, but I refer to point 2, 'but again, they have the option to post anywhere else, if an OP cannot post an optimal post in these conditions/requirements, then they should not post in this section' and the real crux of the issue is really the mentality. If they do not agree with it, then it is best that they simply post on their own accord wherever they would like to, other than the knowhow section. As it is their own mentality and therefore their own preference and choice, it is choice to participate and contribute or not, if not, then do not visit or post in this sub section. Your right to contribute what you'd like is not being restricted or restrained, but this section has requirements and if the commercial aspect of the requirement you find distasteful, then do not post here. 5. As to your final point. "TL has over time increased ads and started their shop etc, but never compromising content quality. Forcing sponsored links in the OP is compromising quality." No one is forcing you Please understand this. And if someone was forcing you, I'd agree with you. Go post in blogs, much like every sub-forum, there are types of regulations like posting in dota2 should about dota2, but in general about general, and if its personal view, in blogs etc. In my case, the content quality was increased because I agree with the format, but for others like yourself it will not. So in your case, you should never post in this section and no one is forcing you to. The ones that chose to write in this section will have their own responsibility to maintain a standard of quality as well as though me heading this sub section, if they think their writing will be comprised, then just go write in blogs or general, no one is required to share what they know. The ones that write do so with the full knowledge of the conditions in this particular situation and as volunteers obviously do not feel for themselves it is something negative. Thank you for your feedback. Thanks for replying to the points. So you say that no matter how high quality my knowhow article would be, if it is a field where sources are public, then you want them to post in general instead. Did I understand that correctly? Don't you think that excluding all those areas would decrease the quality of the knowhow section? How about keeping the advertisement as an option (and why not add this option all over TL?), add a requirement for sources (pay-to-read or not), and get a knowhow subforum that actually spans all areas? And don't give me the "it ads credibility" argument. If credibility is truly what you would want, you would have added a requirement for credible sources, not for something you can buy. The requirement for ads is to earn money. Everyone knows it, and it is even in the OP, let's not pretend anything else. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
I don't see how a link to amazon ever really fits in there. I think that's my take on it. Otherwise I really love the idea of the sub forum. I think its' great that there's a knowledge base on TL. Edit. Does the amazon link have to be relevant? Could I just post 'And here's a link to the A Song of Ice and Fire from TL-Amazon. Read it, it's awesome!'? As far as I understand it, the only reason this constriction is added is because TL needs more funding, rather than that it would in any way benefit the sub forum. It would seem to me like a second TL vote on the right bar of the forum with say 'game of the month', 'film of the month', 'book of the month' etc with links to amazon would be better ways to actually bring people to buy stuff through TL. Or maybe just let people know how to buy stuff through TL in the first place. The whole 'buy relevant books from amazon' seems like it doesn't have a lot of thought behind it, but what do I know. | ||
MightyAtom
Korea (South)1897 Posts
On July 17 2012 14:44 Cascade wrote: Thanks for replying to the points. So you say that no matter how high quality my knowhow article would be, if it is a field where sources are public, then you want them to post in general instead. Did I understand that correctly? Don't you think that excluding all those areas would decrease the quality of the knowhow section? How about keeping the advertisement as an option (and why not add this option all over TL?), add a requirement for sources (pay-to-read or not), and get a knowhow subforum that actually spans all areas? And don't give me the "it ads credibility" argument. If credibility is truly what you would want, you would have added a requirement for credible sources, not for something you can buy. The requirement for ads is to earn money. Everyone knows it, and it is even in the OP, let's not pretend anything else. 1. No you did not understand that correctly, you can add in all the sources you want, but if you still do not meet the criteria of this section, go post it as your own thread in blogs or wherever else you'd like to share it. I do not understand how you cannot understand that this is a requirement for this section. Meet the requirements that meet the format, if you cannot do so without lowering the quality of your work, do not post in the section. 2. Quality no, scope perhaps. We're not looking to put random adds all over the place either or supervise them in other sections, we're running this as a trial in this section with volunteers. Nothing precludes you from sharing your knowledge with your sources, but not in this section if you don't abide by the criteria which the reader themselves can choose to purchase or not or simply borrow from the library. On the flip side, aside from the commercial criteria, if a writer wanted to write on running a business, but was a 1st year business student with no experience and it was based on a good book he read, unfortunately he would not meet the criteria as well. There has always been 2 aspects of these posts, that the writer understands that they are providing a high level of select knowhow and it is tied to a possible commercial gain for TL via a referral link. Should the writer be fine with it, then they would write the article. For me and others (13 volunteers at this point), the fact that their time and effort can both be used to share their experience and be a possible source of minor financial gain, is appealing to them. To others it is not, so they are free to post without any format or restrictions, but not in this particular section. But in the case of certain industries and professions, tying it to a book or product may be much easier than others, such as business. We will trial this to see how it goes. 3. "And don't give the 'it ad credibility' argument..." I don't see how you think a book that you can have the option to buy is not credible, I buy text books, biographies, etc, they are all credible sources of information; also, they don't need to buy the book, also, of course the requirement for the ad referral is commercial. Of course everyone knows it, of course it is in the OP, who is denying it? But there is a functional reason for it as well which I've explained to say, we have considered the format in its entirety, we just didn't just tack on this requirement, and yes we hope it does keep the thread more focused and not a free for all AMA FAQ thread. But this is secondary and goes hand in hand with the commercial purpose. Which no one has denied or pretended otherwise. | ||
|
Schnake
Germany2819 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 17 2012 15:36 MightyAtom wrote: 1. No you did not understand that correctly, you can add in all the sources you want, but if you still do not meet the criteria of this section, go post it as your own thread in blogs or wherever else you'd like to share it. I do not understand how you cannot understand that this is a requirement for this section. Meet the requirements that meet the format, if you cannot do so without lowering the quality of your work, do not post in the section. 2. Quality no, scope perhaps. We're not looking to put random adds all over the place either or supervise them in other sections, we're running this as a trial in this section with volunteers. Nothing precludes you from sharing your knowledge with your sources, but not in this section if you don't abide by the criteria which the reader themselves can choose to purchase or not or simply borrow from the library. On the flip side, aside from the commercial criteria, if a writer wanted to write on running a business, but was a 1st year business student with no experience and it was based on a good book he read, unfortunately he would not meet the criteria as well. There has always been 2 aspects of these posts, that the writer understands that they are providing a high level of select knowhow and it is tied to a possible commercial gain for TL via a referral link. Should the writer be fine with it, then they would write the article. For me and others (13 volunteers at this point), the fact that their time and effort can both be used to share their experience and be a possible source of minor financial gain, is appealing to them. To others it is not, so they are free to post without any format or restrictions, but not in this particular section. But in the case of certain industries and professions, tying it to a book or product may be much easier than others, such as business. We will trial this to see how it goes. 3. "And don't give the 'it ad credibility' argument..." I don't see how you think a book that you can have the option to buy is not credible, I buy text books, biographies, etc, they are all credible sources of information; also, they don't need to buy the book, also, of course the requirement for the ad referral is commercial. Of course everyone knows it, of course it is in the OP, who is denying it? But there is a functional reason for it as well which I've explained to say, we have considered the format in its entirety, we just didn't just tack on this requirement, and yes we hope it does keep the thread more focused and not a free for all AMA FAQ thread. But this is secondary and goes hand in hand with the commercial purpose. Which no one has denied or pretended otherwise. hi! 1. It seems we agree on this. Not sure where the misunderstanding is. If I write a knowhow OP on a subject with free sources, but do not include a sponsored link (because it wouldn't be relevant), you want me to post in another subforum, such as blogs or general. Isn't that what both of us are saying? 2. Yes, if you keep only the OPs that can keep high quality with the ads, then yes, you will only lose quantity. But isn't the volume of knowhow articles that actually is in this subforum important for this project? ie, the subforum will lose quality, as it will contain only a fraction of the articles it could have. 3. No, reliability is not an argument for requiring ads, because you can reassure reliability much better by requiring sources (which you already do as well). So the requirement of ads do not add anything in terms of reliability. Anyway, now that you replied to my point, I think we are reaching some kind of end to our discussion. Agree? I think we both have said what we wanted? I think I have at least.  Also, I have to leave for today, but I'll be back tomorrow if more comes up I guess. Also want to say that the idea of the subforum isn't a bad one (although it may overlap with wikipedia a bit.  ), and that it is only the ads that bothers me. So well, good luck with the information sharing. | ||
|
NB
Netherlands12045 Posts
Imo its best just to keep a thread that keep the shortcut(archive) to all the highlighted threads/blog and make it a new search category is more than enough. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
 | ||
|
MightyAtom
Korea (South)1897 Posts
On July 17 2012 15:56 Cascade wrote: hi! 1. It seems we agree on this. Not sure where the misunderstanding is. If I write a knowhow OP on a subject with free sources, but do not include a sponsored link (because it wouldn't be relevant), you want me to post in another subforum, such as blogs or general. Isn't that what both of us are saying? 2. Yes, if you keep only the OPs that can keep high quality with the ads, then yes, you will only lose quantity. But isn't the volume of knowhow articles that actually is in this subforum important for this project? ie, the subforum will lose quality, as it will contain only a fraction of the articles it could have. 3. No, reliability is not an argument for requiring ads, because you can reassure reliability much better by requiring sources (which you already do as well). So the requirement of ads do not add anything in terms of reliability. Anyway, now that you replied to my point, I think we are reaching some kind of end to our discussion. Agree? I think we both have said what we wanted? I think I have at least. Also, I have to leave for today, but I'll be back tomorrow if more comes up I guess. Also want to say that the idea of the subforum isn't a bad one (although it may overlap with wikipedia a bit. ), and that it is only the ads that bothers me. So well, good luck with the information sharing.Hi! Thank you for your post, sincerely. I don't have all the answers at this point, but of course, everyone in TL staff knew that anything commercial would be controversial to some degree, but yes, its not that I disagree with fundamentally anything you've said about number of articles, and quality in terms of the context of the sub forum as a whole, but I have a specific objective here and I am testing things out with this project. And yes I fully agree, that we are reaching the end of our discussion, and really, if I could just say, make it optional, I would, but I want to trial the model first and see what does come out. I think if there was no commercial requirement at all, it would be best for growth, but why do we put it in, especially if we knew it was going to 100% bother people? Of course it was my stance on this, but we put it in because there is a commercial object to it. Does that make me evil to want to do so, do I really want to exclude TLers from sharing their knowledge or stunting the potential of this subjection, of course not (well maybe I am evil), but I also want to give this black sheep a chance to see if in TL can we introduce a non-invasive revenue stream that also brings really exceptional content along with it. Maybe this will fail, maybe it will be moderately successful, maybe it won't be until six months later, but I want to give it chance to stand or fail as it really is. Hopefully a great service, but like every hybrid, it won't be the best of both worlds, it won't generate lots of cash, it won't have the broadest scope, but as a trial, it may give me an idea how to best structure and advice TL on how to develop over the coming years. It's not something that normally would be spoken in the open, but I was questioned quite thoroughly when the idea of this project first came together about 5 months ago now by a very senior member of TL. And my response ultimately was one that, I don't know where e-sports is going in the future, it could be great and mainstream or it could hit the dark ages again like between the SCBW period and SC2 (in an international context), but regardless, I have a skill set that this advising companies, - not how to make money- but how to be at their best in any competitive or market situation. My skill set, isn't romantic, at times it is pretty evil cause sometimes you need to crush other competitors, but its what I have to contribute to TL which I do adore, as is. And regardless of what happens in the future, I would like TL to be as TL as it can be, but also if it can be more, then be more and take up whatever role it needs to take up at the forefront of SC2 or just be in the best position it can until the next coming of SC3 or something to that end. I don't know, but I'd like TL to be prepared and for me it is a matter of keeping what is good about TL intact, but also fortifying it on an organizational and financial side. This is my first project is this regards, I haven't contributed much aside from some advice from experience that I have, but I am good at what I do. And I can't see where esports is going, good or bad, but I would like to see that TL is always there as a vibrant part of the scene. For me, there is a strategic component to everything, while this may not be the more relatable section to most now, it may grow over a period of a few years into something a gem of resource that does a double duty, like a pylon (supply & energy) or eg. content/funds. But for me, on a practical level, why make the link required now, because if it can work at a minimal level, then the funds can be reinvested to actually hire full time staff or give the writers some token appreciation (as we've mentioned in the OP). While it may always be basically a volunteer run sub-section in essence (cause of the worth of the writers can't actually be compensated at that level), I can know whether or not this will be a self sufficient operation or when it may be a self sufficient operation and plan accordingly and understand where TL is at as an entity in some level of transition. To that I need to know as soon as I can if the entire basic premise of this approach is acceptable/applicable to TL in practice. If not, there will be changes or the sub section will simply putter out, but I do want to see if this black sheep pylon can work. I'm very thankful to the TL higher ups for allowing me to contribute, it ain't pretty thus far, but I'd like to think that I do know what I'm doing and not to let anyone down in this regard. Cascade thanks for your end of the day post, I appreciate it, i don't know if I stepped over the line in explaining my view point or whether people will buy it as sincere, but this is the way I'm contributing as well. | ||
|
Kareltje
Netherlands14 Posts
Not that it has happened yet via TL but I doubt people are waiting on an article discussing VHDL and satellite payload processing | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On July 17 2012 21:16 Kareltje wrote: I rather just help out people when I can. Not that it has happened yet via TL but I doubt people are waiting on an article discussing VHDL and satellite payload processing Hey, why not? Give it a go if you have the time ^^ | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19030 Posts
On July 17 2012 21:16 Kareltje wrote: I rather just help out people when I can. Not that it has happened yet via TL but I doubt people are waiting on an article discussing VHDL and satellite payload processing I have a book on VHDL that I highly recommend....I just need to find it... | ||
|
scDeluX
Canada1341 Posts
| ||
|
gilden
18 Posts
It may also look nothing like that and instead be a place where you can go to learn about things you were never (but should have been) taught in school. It may be a place where you'll find thoughful, well written pieces by people who share your passion for Starcraft. It may be that when someone with 20 years of automotive experience tells you that buying a used car off a guys lawn without reviewing the carfax report is like 6 pooling on a four player map, you might finally go "Oh! I get it now!" Be patient. Be respectful. Let's see where this thing goes. | ||
|
nRoot
Germany928 Posts
I also like the possibility to support TL.net financially I do NOT like however, that this will be achieved though amazon.com ref-links only I find the requirement of the amazon-links distracting for my reading experience. Since I KNOW a link will be there at the end of the blog/article I always feel like reading a text meant to advertise this product. (I know this will be far from the truth for most articles here, but still. If providing a link would be optional, I would know for sure that the author chose the book solely because it adds to the article and most likely did not alter the way the article is written, which adds a lot of credibility) Also, since most links will be directed to amazon.com (I guess), this feature is actually not very useful for me since I live in Germany and will avoid the shipping costs. Even worse scenario: maybe I want to support TL because of the article but I really don't want to spend 15$+ on a book (maybe because the article was good enough on its own), what am I going to do? I probably wont do anything and just go on to the next topic :/ In my opinion, a better option would be to make the amazon-links optional, but include some kind of donation system to every entry. This will ensure that books etc. posted will add to the experience where necessary, but also offers a way to (directly!) support TL and maybe the author. I am much more willing to donate 1-2$ to TL directly (I could be split 80-20 between TL and the author too) than buying a book for 15$ in most cases Anyway, I'm exited to see where this section of TL is heading and what the first user-contributions look will look like | ||
|
seRapH
United States9756 Posts
| ||
|
Islandsnake
United States679 Posts
| ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On July 17 2012 23:22 gilden wrote: I read this yesterday and immediately thought; "Yes, this is something I can contribute to!". For all those who are who are coming out against this idea, I urge you to hold off on judging this new venture until at least the first handful of user-submitted articles have been posted? It may indeed all come down exactly as you fear, and be a cesspool of poorly written articles shilling products that are useless to you. It may also look nothing like that and instead be a place where you can go to learn about things you were never (but should have been) taught in school. It may be a place where you'll find thoughful, well written pieces by people who share your passion for Starcraft. It may be that when someone with 20 years of automotive experience tells you that buying a used car off a guys lawn without reviewing the carfax report is like 6 pooling on a four player map, you might finally go "Oh! I get it now!" Be patient. Be respectful. Let's see where this thing goes. I don't think anyone has actually said that. You might want to actually, you know, read the posts.. | ||
|
Torpedo.Vegas
United States1890 Posts
Certain people maybe possess a greater capacity to write clearly and eloquently on a subject, but I am sure there are also many knowledgable people who can contribute certain parts or ideas to the concept being explained. For example, a submitter may have years of technical experience in a certain field, but not necessary remember what it is like to learn the subject. Things may appear second nature to them that are in reality complicated concepts. A different poster who may be comparably inexperienced overall, may be able to contribute a book or computer program that has greatly helped them in understanding certain aspect of the issue. In this way, the referral link is less of a barrier and does not appear as forced upon the contribution. And the resulting list of suggested materials would have an organic web of knowledge not only to the core issue being explained, but also to supporting works and alternative selections. I would also think this would lead to more relevant links overall and thus a greater chance of TL obtaining a potential commision. | ||
|
MightyAtom
Korea (South)1897 Posts
Let me break it up to the two sides: Reader: -the criteria here was that something was non invasive, that the reader could click or not but that wouldn't interfere with the actual content. -it was in the North American context to start and with Amazon it was the easiest to trial with, in the future we could expand it, but again, we really have zero expectations for readers to actually click on the links -so why do it,? the model is supposed to be as close to an optional donation as possible, except that should you decide to purchase the book via the link then for no extra cost to the reader, TL would get a small x% of the sale. -the book isn't supposed to be forced on the reader, again, the expectations for referrals is zero except for the fact, the book is being sincerely recommended by those who have used it and endorse it. For the writer: -Ok honestly for myself, I read about a book every 2 weeks and in my profession of business strategy and marketing, books are a key source of learning and keeping up with things -I have made the assumption that this is true for most other professionals or industries -This assumption may not be true for very unique or very academic oriented fields -*BUT* what is clear thus far, that outside of manufacturing and business, the concept of *knowhow* is not something that most people are familiar with and thus lies some additional confusion -The text/book that I had always envisioned that writers would be keen to present would be more along two types: reference / experience -reference being that: if knowhow is a process then a reference text that acts as the framework is always needed -experience being that: knowhow as a process is formed via the act of experiences in different scenarios (eg the ah ha moment), such as a book giving insight and inspiring or understanding things in greater clarity In essence the original concept was more along the lines of a book review club, but it was deemed to be to limiting in a scope, but in practice, it is what we've started with as examples. For me, it is hard to separate anything I do without relating to some book that I've read or been exposed to, in that respect, everyone can do the job, but in my particular field, it is all about the small edges that win the day and it comes via experience but of course a lot of self learning and then applying that to one's experience. I haven't understood having a book as a restrictive element as it is more meant to be a reference book and to put the knowhow presented in the post into context or give it a more indepth background. And so, if you approach the TL Knowhow section as more like a wikipedia entry of knowledge, then having a book doesn't really make sense, but again, knowhow and knowledge are two very different things and this is where additional confusion about this section may lie. I'm going give a very basic but hopefully relateable analogy of what is knowhow opposed to knowledge and note that while they are very very similar, knowhow is the application of knowledge to make something more optimal, efficient or to get there faster. Knowhow Pop Culture Example: In the movie, Harry Potter and the Half Blooded Prince, Mr. Potter is in his new semesters potion making class and everyone is asked to grab a text book to begin the semester. Unfortunately Mr. Potter is unable to grab one of the new shiny text books and is left with a drab old used text book, while everyone is proud of their new shiny ones. As Mr. Potter, is resigned to his crappy old ugly text book, as he opens it up, it says that it was owned by the 'half blooded prince' and in the margins of the recipes of each of the potions there are additional instructions. In fact, sometimes the recipe itself is slightly changed as well, with words like, 'cut' are crossed out and replaced with 'mash', and even the number of drops are changed, every so slightly from 2 to 1 or the speed at which you stir, from regular to very slowly. Mr. Potter thinks really nothing of it until potion making actually begins and as Ms. Hermione Granger dives straight into the process following the text book word for word as well as the other students eager to get as many brownie points as possible, chaos and hilarity ensues as there are explosions and mishaps and failed potions everywhere. Mr. Potter pauses and then instead of following the exact recipes for the potions, he follows the adjusted recipes and instead of cutting, he mashes; instead of just pouring the liquids together, he stirs them in and in the end, he is left with perfect potions. Now this is a basic example of knowhow, whereby the recipes are fundamentally correct, but they aren't optimized or explained to maximize the success rate or quality or to give understanding. Thus, via experience or an acute understanding the process has been made optimized more than the standard of what people normally would do. It is like having gun powder and with the exact same gun powder I can make my rocket go 500 m, but some other guy can make his go 800 m, the materials are the same, but the results are different. In the case of life processes, there is knowhow in everything we do, and it is the difference between learning something from a book or learning from a master, the base knowledge is the same, this does that, but the application of that knowledge (knowhow) is vastly different. When most people start off their careers in research, they have a bitch of time getting materials together. While things are better now, getting different web page texts into a perfectly formated word document was hell 10 years ago. You could get all your material cut and pasted together, but then spend 4 agonizing hours to get it formatted to be presented in a nice document for the senior manager with all the same margins and formatting (say you are putting it together from 20 different sites, it was difficult), but there is a very very simple knowhow which is a single step. Which, I would make interns suffer for a few days of hair splitting before I shared. Simply because if I told them at the beginning the wouldn't think much of it and not appreciate the knowhow I had bestowed upon them and just think that the job was just stupidly easy. But I won't share that here, haha, but my point is, just like in Karate kid (the very first one, and I suppose the latest one), Mr. Miyagi or Mr. Jackie Chan, has some weird training methods, like wax on wax off, or jacket on jacket off, but it comes from knowhow as to what really is important, ie. the natural reflexive movement. I will be working with the writers to flush out the knowhow, but again, the entire section is very ambition for both its content and what is hoping to set as foundation moving forward. Obviously we're not trying to make another wikipedia here, definitely not, not in concept or intent, but again, as a repository of knowhow across a lot of disciplines at an entry level, I would say this is a first. Many large companies have a lot of knowhow that is given via training seminars or held within their company's intra net, etc. But it is a work in progress and for a lot of commenters who are just reading the OP, and have questions, please read maybe a couple of the current TL knowhow posts to get a better idea where things are moving. | ||
| ||
