[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFOR: Is LGDC really crap?
On Thursday 03 January 2002 15:37, Chris wrote:
> Internet Survival Rule #56: Online polls are about as accurate as a one
> eyed, drunk archer. I know from harsh experience that they are far too
> easily skewed by people with an axe to grind or a motive to throw the
*g* I know - I just needed a good subject for the initial mail :)
> - visibility. How many people are there on the mailing list, compared
> to the number of authors and teams/team members on happypenguin? And is
> happypenguin a good indicator of how many linux games there are? I'm
> working on two and neither of them are on happypenguin and won't be
> until I'm good and ready to release demos.
I'm not sure, but I think happypenguin can serve as a (very rough)
indicator. As long as you keep in mind that many of the listed games are
dead while some prospering games are not listed.
> - content scope. The list description is ambiguous about this "Helping
> people new to Linux game programming.", "Generally discussing game
> development problems / ideas etc" do not really help define the
> subjects that are permitted. For example, yesterday I was having a load
> of gdk related problems but I didn't ask for help here because the
> problems were in one of the game support programs (a texture file
> editor) rather than in a game itself. I wasn't at all sure how the list
> members would react to me asking questions about texture formats, Imlib
> and GdkRGB widgets. I doubt I'm the only person here who has run into a
> problem but not asked here because I wasn't sure if it would be taken
> as too off-topic. Perhaps a document describing in more detail just how
> far from pure "game developmet" the subject can get would encourage
> people to post about such problems.
Hmm, good point. That description *is* ancient :)
I'll replace it with something more fitting (along the lines of "if in
doubt, post it" - vetos to me)
> - poor integration with the website. For example, there was no mention
> of Steve posting the keyboard issue document on the site (although
> that's probably as much my fault as anyone's :/) Important "problem
> fixes" like that need to appear on the site and make it plain that they
> came from the mailing list - that's the only way to get osme people to
'nother good point.
but like "normal content" this either requires someone actively posting
stuff or people used to submitting things they find interesting.
> > * I have some plans to allow everyone (well, everyone with a valid
> > site account) to post, edit and delete news and resources. Of course
> > all changes only take effect after someone trusted has reviewed them,
> > but it allows everyone spotting an error, a missing thing etc to
> > simply "fix it on the spot" (using the nice web forms that are
> > currently reserved for maintainers) and it simplifies the
> > maintainer(s'|'s) job of handling such changes.
> Hmm.. I would suggest something closer to Freshmeat. As Steve said,
> most of freshmeat is useless to a game developer BUT the way they do
> things - each project has a page where all the details, comments and
> links to the homepage and files are collected in one place and users
> can "subscribe" to projects they are interested in - would be a very
> valuable way to handle developer resources. Of course, this would mean
> getting authors to actually add their projects to the system, or have
> someone do it for them, but from then on it would be a "developer's
> freshmeat": and with the subscribe option developers with little time
> on their hands could flag specific libraries or tools they are
> interested in and only hear about updates to them.
That's not quite easy - just have a look at what's currently in the
resources section. Only a part of that is projects/software. What *would*
be easy though is to have the possibility to specify a second link (e.g.
to the respective freshmeat page) for each resource. That should have
basically the same benefits
> This will mean that all submissions would need to be moderated - we
> don't want to have games themselves listed, just the tools and
> librarires needed to make them.
Sure. That's what I described above - a better moderation system :)
> > * I think it would be useful to have (optional) "verbose"
> > descriptions for news items and resources - just have a look at these
> > CrystalSpace announcements :)
> This is a bit redundant IMO - the short description can link to the
> full text anyway, which avoids the text storage/maintenance problem
Hmm, perhaps. Having a detailed description would lead to a "generic"
Slashdotesque thing though: overview pages linking to pages with the
detailed views of single items, together with their forum...
LGDC Webmaster (http://lgdc.sunsite.dk/)
"use the source, luke." (obi-wan gnuobi)