A Category for BEST TIPS / EXPLANATIONS [edited]

1

Maybe there’s another way to do that - if so, I haven’t figured that out yet.

When I see the quality of some replies/explanations/pieces of advice, I just wish we could copy/paste them into one Category featuring only that type of content.

It could be also voted up by the forums for usefulness.

For example, a certain Michael just explained something here .

I’m also thinking about nearly everything @P1xt can say - lengthy explanations about so many things, complete curriculums, etc.

Or the first answer I’ve had from @ArielLeslie explaining Scope (maybe too basic?).

That category would only be those bits and pieces, not comments on them, not reactions. But a library of the best pieces on FCC forums.

[edit] bits and piece but reorganized to be nicely readable - it would definitely require editing the thread as we add more information to a same “thread” (or rather column).

A category everyone could visit everyday and learn something every time !

What do you think? - Maybe we could also have the possibility to edit so we can add further information when it arises?

PS: I’d be happy to devote some of my time maintaining it or starting it (copy/pasting and setting up the first few topics. Later on we could reorganise the content, make separate threads for books on JS, libraries, the perfect training, exercises, bla. ) Oh, I’ve got it, what I mean is creating some sort of library ! Duh, I’m slow sometimes.

PPS - hmmm. is that what the Wiki section is supposed to be? (blushing blushing blushing).

[EDIT] for maintainability / management reasons, campers who spot those gold nuggets on the forums could flag them / report them to the person in charge of the said Category. If suitable, that person (me if you want) can then accordingly format-paste-bla.

It doesn’t prevent campers from giving their advice but helps them finding the right links and gives “permanent” reading material to campers with insomnia.

Come on, come on, what do you think?

2 Likes
3

I understand the problem there might be with evaluating what is useful or not. One of the solutions would have been to have a rather small team of people doing that - everyone can draw their attention to what they’ve found useful but it’s up to that team to decide whether they should put it in the category.

What I mean by useful are explanations that give context and theory. So (“do div offset by 2”) doesn’t count. Explaining chaining in Jquery the way Michael did does.

But in the end the wiki thing would be very similar to that so I guess there’s no need for a new category. I just have to sit tight until I have access to creating some of them! I I’d like it to be as newbie-friendly as possible: simply written though incorporating the jargon.

5

Damn! It’s funny your post has changed and in the meantime I’ve made an attempt at my first wiki.

Didn’t do any of the little wrench thing. I’ll go back and have a look.

What bothers me though is that sometimes there are questions and comments in the WIKI, I might be a bit rigid but I wish it was just a section for information.

But that’s me.

7

Oh dear. Is there a way I can delete a post? I could wikify my fake wiki and delete the non-editable one?

Wikify. Have to remember that one.

9

Thanks ! There, everything duly wikified and monkeywrenched.