Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

You guys missed the part about moderators fixing things where democracy gets it wrong.

This shouldn't be necessary, and isn't via the current methods.

And someone should tell the people asking 600k+ questions on Stack Overflow that the method they're using doesn't work; i'm sure they'd be eternally grateful

I never said it doesn't work. I don't think it'll work in this case. Different subjects, different communities, etc.

[Simmura McCrea]

The forums are self correcting.

You make a wild claim for something that is very strange or goes against the conventional wisdom? Okay...prove it. Dwarven science at its finest.

If you can prove your wild claims, like the invention of the magma piston only a few weeks ago, then awesome. If it doesn't pan out then nothing comes of it.

Same thing goes with the wiki. If the wiki is wrong, fix it.

If you can prove your wild claims, like the invention of the magma piston only a few weeks ago, then awesome.

like the invention of the magma piston only a few weeks ago

magma piston

Wait, wait wait. What? Magma piston? MUST FIND.

EDIT: Okay, that's freaking awesome.

[RCIX]

Link? i couldn't find it!

[eugene]

I find this concept of stack exchange interesting. Seems like a good method to organize a FAQ to me, which also could quickly adapt to new versions.

I learned DF from the wiki, but when .31 came out the wiki was not really useful for the new stuff. Of course there is the forums for asking new questions. However, when the number of players and the complexity of the game grows, the amount of information that needs to be conveyed increases.

I do not think a forum is the optimal channel to do this. I have no experience with stack exchange, though.

[RCIX]

You can read about what a stack exchange is basically at http://stackoverflow.com/faq/ . Substitute "programming related" with "DF related" and you're good to go.

[Patchouli]

As i've said, i PMmed Toady, so if he says no then i'll accept that.

If there's enough support for it here, i'll go ahead and propose it, and we can get the ball rolling.

I don't want to seem rude, but it's not very nice to say you'll propose it when you've gathered enough support, then propose it anyways when you haven't gathered such support yet.

I find this concept of stack exchange interesting. Seems like a good method to organize a FAQ to me, which also could quickly adapt to new versions.

I learned DF from the wiki, but when .31 came out the wiki was not really useful for the new stuff. Of course there is the forums for asking new questions. However, when the number of players and the complexity of the game grows, the amount of information that needs to be conveyed increases.

I do not think a forum is the optimal channel to do this. I have no experience with stack exchange, though.

It's a bit expected that the wiki will be a bit useless after such a huge update.

The main problem that I imagine arising from such a system like stack exchange, is that there's a lot of misinformation and unknowns when it comes to Dwarf Fortress. I mean, we don't even seem to be entirely sure how mud entirely works. There's a lot of thing that haven't been tried, and suggestions that need to be experimented with. As far as what you flat-out can or can't do, most of it can be easily edited into the wiki. Stack exchange seems to thrive well when it comes to questions with a clear-cut answer. When things aren't quite as clear, well, it ends up being like a forum. In DF's case, like said, most clear info can be added into the appropriate wiki article, but I think quite a few, I'm guilty as well, just fail to add new findings into there. Additionally, what the wiki lacks in my eyes (besides flat-out missing topics), is the ability to bring all this information together in a manner comprehensible to both new and experienced players. In that sense though, I really think the wiki just needs to be ironed out a bit rather than having a flat-out substitute for the questions forum.

[eugene]

It's a bit expected that the wiki will be a bit useless after such a huge update.

The main problem that I imagine arising from such a system like stack exchange, is that there's a lot of misinformation and unknowns when it comes to Dwarf Fortress.

So the approach for the wiki was to rewrite the wiki, copying old information only then when it is validated. While this seems to be the best approach to me, it not necessarily provides the most sought after information quickly.

If I get stack exchange right it weights questions and answers by votes, this could provide the priority for updating the wiki or even bug corrections.

[Patchouli]

It's a bit expected that the wiki will be a bit useless after such a huge update.

The main problem that I imagine arising from such a system like stack exchange, is that there's a lot of misinformation and unknowns when it comes to Dwarf Fortress.

So the approach for the wiki was to rewrite the wiki, copying old information only then when it is validated. While this seems to be the best approach to me, it not necessarily provides the most sought after information quickly.

If I get stack exchange right it weights questions and answers by votes, this could provide the priority for updating the wiki or even bug corrections.

It might not provide sought-after information too quickly, but that may be because no one has gone to check and verify old methods to see if they still work. For example, the 40d page for ice is fairly extensive in regards to melting it, a common dilemma faced by many players. However, in contrast, the 2010 version is a bit lacking. It could be the methods don't work anymore, or that they just didn't update it. Either way, it can be fixed simply by working on the wiki a bit.

The voting does seem pretty interesting in terms of providing some sort of direction as to where the wiki should prioritize updates. But even then, DF isn't so extensive that new information cannot just be added to the wiki as it pops up in the questions forum, if it isn't already on the wiki. When a big update comes out, having a clear direction as to what to update first is nice, but such large overhauls aren't very common, and typically, most everyone is too unsure to make anything on the wiki 100% sure, leaving everyone in a similar boat.

From what I've seen of the 2010 update, large changes seem to be updated first thing - I recall the military page being built extremely fast. It leaves brand-new players that still don't understand the basics behind, unfortunately, but it allows current players that are confused by new mechanics to jump right in. After that, the basic things are built up - which allows newer players to get a grip on such, but it may not be detailed, as some basics need to be checked if they've changed significantly. After that, though, it's mostly left to the other users to fill in details. By that time though, with all the basics laid out, users should be able to make small updates in accordance with new findings that come up in the forums.

But like mentioned, such large updates aren't too common. The update pacing should now make it much more reasonable to catch up on certain things. A the moment, I personally don't think there's a real need for a direction other than to add new info as we find it would be nice to fix up the token pages. While it's nice to be able to compile a quick FAQ using votes and such, the maintenance and the large amount of redundancy doesn't really seem to be worth it. It also probably isn't going to do much in getting people to read the wiki first.

As for bugs, the bug tracker already rocks very hard at it.

[Knight Otu]

For the record, a DF Stack Exchange was already created and exists here. And, well, it didn't exactly take from the looks of it.

[Protactinium]

For the record, a DF Stack Exchange was already created and exists here. And, well, it didn't exactly take from the looks of it.

However, looking at the setup of the site, its purpose, all of that, StackExchange does look like a good idea suited well for games with complex issues to learn amount. If this was thrown around in the forums more often so that it was easily seen by newbies, I could see it very well taking off if regulars invested in it.

The tone that RCIX has been getting from the first page of responses is unreasonably challenging. There's a huge adhering to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" here, even though this is a scenario where it could potentially be better and won't harm these forums if you try to make it work and it doesn't. I'd say we should try to get it up and running, advertise it around for a little amount of time and encourage people to ask questions there, and if in a couple months it still doesn't go anywhere, let it fall back down into nothingness and don't visit it again.

[C4lv1n]

For the record, a DF Stack Exchange was already created and exists here. And, well, it didn't exactly take from the looks of it.

However, looking at the setup of the site, its purpose, all of that, StackExchange does look like a good idea suited well for games with complex issues to learn amount. If this was thrown around in the forums more often so that it was easily seen by newbies, I could see it very well taking off if regulars invested in it.

The tone that RCIX has been getting from the first page of responses is unreasonably challenging. There's a huge adhering to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" here, even though this is a scenario where it could potentially be better and won't harm these forums if you try to make it work and it doesn't. I'd say we should try to get it up and running, advertise it around for a little amount of time and encourage people to ask questions there, and if in a couple months it still doesn't go anywhere, let it fall back down into nothingness and don't visit it again.

What you're describing we should do has already happened. There was a thread about it, people heard about it, and now it's fallen into nothingness.

EDIT: I just took a second look, and the same 6 entries are in "hot", "weekly", and "monthly" so it hasn't been updated in at least that amount of time, and that is not going to do anything more than the forums, and it it will do it much slower, if at all.
 
The forums and the wiki are perfectly fine for answering questions, one of three things happen:
1. Someone, or several someones know the answer and tell you it.
2. Someone gives the wrong answer, and is corrected.
3. No one knows, and you are told this.

If the question can't be answered by the forums or the wiki, then it's probably not going to get answered in this stack thing, because it will be drawing on the same resources.

If you have bronze, it doesn't matter if you make swords, axes or hammers, you're still not going to be able to do anything against adamant(ium/ine/ide).

Except the bronze is our knowledge, weapons are our ways of displaying it, and adamant(ium/ine/ide) is what we don't know

[Retro]

To those unhappy with how the version move went on the wiki, there is reasoning for it. Search "wiki df2010" in DF General Discussion and you ought to get a few threads about it. You might not agree with it, but it's been laid out in full by the wiki admins several times now, so there's no need to rehash that here.

The tone that RCIX has been getting from the first page of responses is unreasonably challenging. There's a huge adhering to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" here, even though this is a scenario where it could potentially be better and won't harm these forums if you try to make it work and it doesn't.

It's not so much "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" as "if there's not a need, don't fill it." Yes, it's being challenged, but not unreasonably so. For one thing, the OP (who is new to the community) is basically suggesting this because he couldn't find what he wanted on the wiki and somehow doesn't believe that the forums are an appropriate place to ask questions and get answers (wrong). What I am seeing is one guy who doesn't get it proposing we radically change the system from interesting discussions and prompt, factual answers to basically a glorified Yahoo Answers, and is using poor reasoning to back himself up. But if you'd like a more detailed discussion on why this would be a bad choice for the forums, here are my full thoughts on the matter:

- On the forums, you can ask questions. On stack exchange, you can ask questions. No difference.
- On the forums, you can discuss things. On stack exchange, you cannot - you are limited to posting an answer, and as they are sorted by votes rather than by date, having an actual discussion would be impossible anyways. Difference in favour of the forums.
- The forums already exist and are well-populated by intelligent and polite community members. Stack exchange does not. Regardless of what you may expect, the full forum community is never going to entirely move to stack exchange if implemented, so rather than keeping the status quo, a stack exchange would actually thin out the community more by splitting it up. Difference in favour of the forums - strongly in favour, in my opinion.
- On the forums, if someone is wrong, or partially right but missing some facts, you can just quote them and add to their explanation. As mentioned in brief above, with stack exchange it would be very difficult to do this because if you try and directly quote someone you would have to do it in a posted answer, and as answers would move up and down the page, there isn't really any way to make sure answers are appropriate. Difference in favour of the forums.
- On the forums, if someone gives a bad/generic answer (ie. based off long-past-stale jokes), they are ignored in favour of informative responses. This is because someone can chuckle a bit at a bad joke without being able to vote for it, or if they see poor information someone else will correct them and explain what they were missing. On stack exchange, these will be voted up by people who think they are funny, or in the case of rumours, voted up by people who agree with them. When RCIX says that moderators will be able to monitor things easily, I disagree for two reasons: One, it's quite likely that if a reputation system takes effect, the people who propagate rumours and make jokes will be voted up first and thus become the honourary mods. Two, even if the people who answer nicely with straight facts become such honourary moderators, they will have to actively police effectively every question to make sure that the jokers and incorrect answers stop getting voted up, and will likely have to intervene a lot. Currently, in the DF-related forums, there isn't actually a need for moderators. Difference strongly in favour of forums.
- Finally, the forums have and will continue to exist successfully. Stack exchange was tried out - and it didn't happen. Difference strongly in favour of the forums.

Again, trying to impose a stack exchange on the community is trying to fill a need that does not exist with a system that would not be better. As G-Flex pointed out, it's not that stack exchange is 'bad,' it's that it is not an appropriate choice for this community, especially one that already has the working systems of a great, prompt and polite forum community, a wiki chock full of information, and an IRC channel, and we really don't need another system. As C4lv1n has mentioned, stack exchange has also already been demonstrated to have not worked in the past. The need does not exist, and if it hypothetically did, stack exchange would not be a good way to fill it.

[C4lv1n]

I agree with what Retro said, it's a very good way of doing things, but only in certain circumstances. This is not one of them.

[RCIX]

For the record, a DF Stack Exchange was already created and exists here. And, well, it didn't exactly take from the looks of it.

However, looking at the setup of the site, its purpose, all of that, StackExchange does look like a good idea suited well for games with complex issues to learn amount. If this was thrown around in the forums more often so that it was easily seen by newbies, I could see it very well taking off if regulars invested in it.

The tone that RCIX has been getting from the first page of responses is unreasonably challenging. There's a huge adhering to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" here, even though this is a scenario where it could potentially be better and won't harm these forums if you try to make it work and it doesn't. I'd say we should try to get it up and running, advertise it around for a little amount of time and encourage people to ask questions there, and if in a couple months it still doesn't go anywhere, let it fall back down into nothingness and don't visit it again.

What you're describing we should do has already happened. There was a thread about it, people heard about it, and now it's fallen into nothingness.

EDIT: I just took a second look, and the same 6 entries are in "hot", "weekly", and "monthly" so it hasn't been updated in at least that amount of time, and that is not going to do anything more than the forums, and it it will do it much slower, if at all.
 
The forums and the wiki are perfectly fine for answering questions, one of three things happen:
1. Someone, or several someones know the answer and tell you it.
2. Someone gives the wrong answer, and is corrected.
3. No one knows, and you are told this.

If the question can't be answered by the forums or the wiki, then it's probably not going to get answered in this stack thing, because it will be drawing on the same resources.

If you have bronze, it doesn't matter if you make swords, axes or hammers, you're still not going to be able to do anything against adamant(ium/ine/ide).

Except the bronze is our knowledge, weapons are our ways of displaying it, and adamant(ium/ine/ide) is what we don't know

That's the thing. That site was launched back when it was a free-for-all as far as launching stack exchange sites. You actually need enough support to create an active site to get one now.

and somehow doesn't believe that the forums are an appropriate place to ask questions and get answers (wrong).

They're not totally unsuited, but also not ideal. I gave an example, which is that if a discussion crops up around a question then it can devolve into a threadhunt for the answer. Every time someone wants that answer. Which leads to duplicated threads and much yelling of "search the forums" "search the wiki".

- On the forums, you can discuss things. On stack exchange, you cannot - you are limited to posting an answer, and as they are sorted by votes rather than by date, having an actual discussion would be impossible anyways. Difference in favour of the forums.

There are comments, but they're not particularly conducive to a discussion. Perfectly understandable since you kinda want answers to your questions.

- On the forums, if someone is wrong, or partially right but missing some facts, you can just quote them and add to their explanation. As mentioned in brief above, with stack exchange it would be very difficult to do this because if you try and directly quote someone you would have to do it in a posted answer, and as answers would move up and down the page, there isn't really any way to make sure answers are appropriate. Difference in favour of the forums.

No, you directly edit and contribute to their answer.

To those unhappy with how the version move went on the wiki, there is reasoning for it. Search "wiki df2010" in DF General Discussion and you ought to get a few threads about it. You might not agree with it, but it's been laid out in full by the wiki admins several times now, so there's no need to rehash that here.

The tone that RCIX has been getting from the first page of responses is unreasonably challenging. There's a huge adhering to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" here, even though this is a scenario where it could potentially be better and won't harm these forums if you try to make it work and it doesn't.

It's not so much "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" as "if there's not a need, don't fill it." Yes, it's being challenged, but not unreasonably so. For one thing, the OP (who is new to the community) is basically suggesting this because he couldn't find what he wanted on the wiki and somehow doesn't believe that the forums are an appropriate place to ask questions and get answers (wrong). What I am seeing is one guy who doesn't get it proposing we radically change the system from interesting discussions and prompt, factual answers to basically a glorified Yahoo Answers, and is using poor reasoning to back himself up. But if you'd like a more detailed discussion on why this would be a bad choice for the forums, here are my full thoughts on the matter:

- On the forums, if someone gives a bad/generic answer (ie. based off long-past-stale jokes), they are ignored in favour of informative responses. This is because someone can chuckle a bit at a bad joke without being able to vote for it, or if they see poor information someone else will correct them and explain what they were missing. On stack exchange, these will be voted up by people who think they are funny, or in the case of rumours, voted up by people who agree with them. When RCIX says that moderators will be able to monitor things easily, I disagree for two reasons: One, it's quite likely that if a reputation system takes effect, the people who propagate rumours and make jokes will be voted up first and thus become the honourary mods. Two, even if the people who answer nicely with straight facts become such honourary moderators, they will have to actively police effectively every question to make sure that the jokers and incorrect answers stop getting voted up, and will likely have to intervene a lot. Currently, in the DF-related forums, there isn't actually a need for moderators. Difference strongly in favour of forums.

/facepalm If you don't want that sort of thing, then downvote it. You're assuming the vast majority of DF players are idiots who are going to upvote anything they "har-har" at. And the point is that the real mods fix things when they go wrong; not that they just turn the other way when funny but useless things pop up. If you wanted, i could probably even make you a mod; you could swing your mod hammer at abything that displeased you

And the only reason an SE site is not working is because of an attitude exactly like yours: "i don't want it because the solution we have is good enough". If i could actually get support for trying it, then we might get somewhere. And if we on't have enough people to launch the site, then nothing is wasted.

Again, i have to wonder, if the forums are sooooo good for questions and answers, why did anyone even make this kind of site (and it is successful, see stackoverflow.com)?

[Retro]

That site was launched back when it was a free-for-all as far as launching stack exchange sites. You actually need enough support to create an active site to get one now.

How is this a good reason for starting one now? We saw that it didn't work before, and now it's harder to start one.

and somehow doesn't believe that the forums are an appropriate place to ask questions and get answers (wrong).

They're not totally unsuited, but also not ideal. I gave an example, which is that if a discussion crops up around a question then it can devolve into a threadhunt for the answer. Every time someone wants that answer. Which leads to duplicated threads and much yelling of "search the forums" "search the wiki".

You didn't give an actual example, you gave a hypothetical example which frankly I rarely see happen. When I look at the Gameplay Questions subforum, as I am now, I see one thread that's more than a page, and it's the Little Questions thread. If you ask something there your answer will likely be on the page you asked it, or possibly the next one. If you ask a question in a different subforum and it turns into a discussion when you were just looking for an answer, you should've asked it in Gameplay Questions anyhow - most of the other subforums are for discussion. I'm not sure why you seem to think that every single question turns into a discussion, either; the few that do (which are practically always because they were posted in the wrong place) have answers within the first 20ish posts while the rest of the thread is the discussion.

Furthermore, going along with your example a stack exchange would not fix the flaws you see. If people can post 'search the wiki' they can answer 'search the wiki' (incidentally, scanning the entire first page of Gameplay Questions I was unable to find answer that just told someone to search the wiki without being helpful, or even post wiki links). If people can make duplicate threads, they can make duplicate questions.

- On the forums, you can discuss things. On stack exchange, you cannot - you are limited to posting an answer, and as they are sorted by votes rather than by date, having an actual discussion would be impossible anyways. Difference in favour of the forums.

There are comments, but they're not particularly conducive to a discussion. Perfectly understandable since you kinda want answers to your questions.

I'm beginning to doubt that you're aware that there's an entire forum for questions in which questions are asked and answered already. You also seem to be under the impression that people don't answer questions at all on the forums.

- On the forums, if someone is wrong, or partially right but missing some facts, you can just quote them and add to their explanation. As mentioned in brief above, with stack exchange it would be very difficult to do this because if you try and directly quote someone you would have to do it in a posted answer, and as answers would move up and down the page, there isn't really any way to make sure answers are appropriate. Difference in favour of the forums.

No, you directly edit and contribute to their answer.

Are you serious? That's how stack exchange works? You edit other people's answers? That is absolutely ridiculous.

- On the forums, if someone gives a bad/generic answer (ie. based off long-past-stale jokes), they are ignored in favour of informative responses. This is because someone can chuckle a bit at a bad joke without being able to vote for it, or if they see poor information someone else will correct them and explain what they were missing. On stack exchange, these will be voted up by people who think they are funny, or in the case of rumours, voted up by people who agree with them. When RCIX says that moderators will be able to monitor things easily, I disagree for two reasons: One, it's quite likely that if a reputation system takes effect, the people who propagate rumours and make jokes will be voted up first and thus become the honourary mods. Two, even if the people who answer nicely with straight facts become such honourary moderators, they will have to actively police effectively every question to make sure that the jokers and incorrect answers stop getting voted up, and will likely have to intervene a lot. Currently, in the DF-related forums, there isn't actually a need for moderators. Difference strongly in favour of forums.

/facepalm If you don't want that sort of thing, then downvote it. You're assuming the vast majority of DF players are idiots who are going to upvote anything they "har-har" at. And the point is that the real mods fix things when they go wrong; not that they just turn the other way when funny but useless things pop up. If you wanted, i could probably even make you a mod; you could swing your mod hammer at abything that displeased you

1. The vast majority of DF players are not idiots, but new forum members tend to try and fit a magma, elf, or Boatmurdered joke into every post. So while I am not insulting the community's intelligence, yes, I am absolutely saying that people (especially new people) will see funny answers and vote them up.

2. You will notice that with our current situation (ie. the forums) we don't have mods outside of the two admins. Speaking only of the DF-related forums, we don't actually need any.

3. You are implying that you would be in charge of who was a moderator or would otherwise have influence/control over it. Strongly opposed.

It's not so much "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" as "if there's not a need, don't fill it." Yes, it's being challenged, but not unreasonably so. For one thing, the OP (who is new to the community) is basically suggesting this because he couldn't find what he wanted on the wiki and somehow doesn't believe that the forums are an appropriate place to ask questions and get answers (wrong). What I am seeing is one guy who doesn't get it proposing we radically change the system from interesting discussions and prompt, factual answers to basically a glorified Yahoo Answers, and is using poor reasoning to back himself up.

the only reason an SE site is not working is because of an attitude exactly like yours: "i don't want it because the solution we have is good enough". If i could actually get support for trying it, then we might get somewhere. And if we on't have enough people to launch the site, then nothing is wasted.

It was tried already. It failed hard. If it failed before, why would you expect it to work now? As mentioned in a previous post, it's less "what we have is good enough" and more "what we have is great, what you are suggesting is poor."

Again, i have to wonder, if the forums are sooooo good for questions and answers, why did anyone even make this kind of site (and it is successful, see stackoverflow.com)?

And now I fail to believe you are actually reading people's responses as it has been mentioned several times that a stack exchange is a fine system for some communities but not this one. Good for one group =/= good for all groups. There's not really anything more I can say here, so I think I'm moving on from this thread.