Subject:
|
Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:17:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
380 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> > Seriously, if anyone has more info for the Parts Tracker FAQ, I'd be
> > happy to add it to the webpage!
>
> It was pointed out to me, offline, that one key question not addressed in
> the FAQ is this:
>
> "Do you have to be a part author to be a part reviewer?"
>
> What do you all think about this? Yes? No? Have No Idea? LMK.
>
> Steve
My hints to new and more part reviewers
Because it is claimed that reviewers are highly qualified people, some
potential volunteers may be intimidated. I was also at first. I am not a
part author and even less a highly qualified people (in LDraw issues I
mean). What Parts Tracker actually needs is not infaillible technicians but
just more reviewing work to be done. By different people, possibly with more
heterogeneous part interests and reviewing techniques.
IMHO, while current reviewers are competent, the initial goal of attracting
best competences in PT has failed. The reason is these competences are
better used in authoring LDraw parts and LDraw tools. Parts will be mainly
reviewed by users for users. So we must help more avanced users to become
active reviewers.
No matter how good is your reviewing you will have the impostor-complex (I
have it). Do not say to Steve Bliss but I actually do not check parts with
LDraw. I also vote "certify" when sometimes not having the real part.
Because, currently, who would vote if I do not? These hidden practices will
cease only when more reviewers. Then reviewing would be more clear and more
fair.
IMHO here is how to turn a faithful LDraw user into a decent PT reviewer:
0. Ensure you know how to author simple parts like 3001 Brick 2 x 4
You have to know LDraw coord system and the 5 ldraw line statements. Just
read the LDraw FAQ. Your ldraw experience does not need to be beyond that.
1. Download the whole unofficial parts archive file.
Because picking files individually is way too slow.
2. Copy any new primitives in your P and P/48 directory.
If you do not this, you may complain about omissions that are actually
uninstalled primitives.
3. Check your preferred parts using LDView.
You will catch visible defects. Vote "hold" when motivated.
Then you have parts that resist visual check.
4. Apply extra checks to later parts
LDraw: does the part correctly display in oldies but goodies?
L3P: L3P -check -dist0.001
L3Lab: check BFC
MLCAD: check position (Y=0 should be at stud base)
5. Make a second visual test
Carefully check edges and corners.
Vote "certify" when satisfied.
Customize the process to your preferences.
Other personal opinions:
1. Part authors are the greatest persons in the world and will never resent
you for an "hold" vote. They just appreciate the help you give by noticing
mistakes that they hardly detect. They may be (well, they are!) much better
than you, but not at detecting their own errors. So there is no reason that
you refrain an "hold" vote.
2. Do not post "comment" when "hold" is actually appropriate. Authors expect
your vote to be visible. They do not consider your vote as a verdict but as
assistance. May be you have no rights for a verdict. But as a user you are
honored because they accept your assistance.
3. When satisfied, there is also no reason that you refrain a "certify"
vote. Other reviewers will double-check. Also LDraw parts are not really
definitive.
4. Your vote is revisable. So no vote really engages you until part release.
Additionnal checks are ever possible.
5. You may think you are 0 in ldraw authoring. So where do you take the
rights for an "hold" vote on an exceptionnal piece of work? Just from the
lack of more competent reviewers. And more importantly because authors
expect you to do so when justified. Just serve the authors.
I hope it helps to break the ice,
Damien
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers
|
| (...) I wonder. . .would it be helpful, or simply more confusing, to introduce more "levels" of reviewers? Currently a part requires two votes from regular users plus one from an admin user (which is currently just Steve Bliss, yes?). I think things (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
