 | | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote: [snip] (...) Hi, Steve! I wonder if the lack of reviewers has anything to do with not knowing what to do or how to do it. This is exactly my case. I would be willing to help out with the parts reviewing process and help get parts (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
(...) I don't think you're alone in feeling this way, Ryan. So, are you ready to sign up as a reviewer now? :) (...) Hmm. I could add a link to my .sig file... Seriously, if anyone has more info for the Parts Tracker FAQ, I'd be happy to add it to (...) (22 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) 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 (22 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think "have to be" is a bit strong, however "highly recommended" would be good if you can squeeze it in there somehow 8?) I know I learnt a lot about reviewing (and authoring!) from the comments I got from other reviewers about parts I've (...) (22 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think no. If it were so, it would stifle input from those who want to help, but have never (yet?) authored a part. I understand that one who is a parts author would possibly have a better eye for detail in reviewing; it would merely need to (...) (22 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) [snip] This is great info/advice! Can this be included in a "reviewer FAQ"? (Is there one already?) (...) Yes, yes! Please remember that, even after a part has been certified & included in the official parts library *it can still be (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think so, too. (...) If it's alright with Damien, I will add it. (...) I just put one together earlier today. (URL). Steve (22 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers
|
|
(...) Maybe. It would be nice to get an initial review of parts as soon as possible after they're submitted. And there are occasionally some (fairly) obvious defects that aren't caught until late in the game. I might have recently posted about the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers
|
|
(...) May be "beginner reviewers" is a name for people like you and me. Then may be "advanced reviewers" is just a new name for acknowledged part authors. These acknowledged part authors just do their best by creating the LDraw parts we love so (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
