Instructables: Quality Standards

I was thinking..... as I do.
Quite a few of instructables, on.... instructables, havn't meet the quality standards of a good instructable, let alone get featured.
Why do people bother make instructables 2 steps long? Wouldn't they like to be in the newsletter and get nice feedback? If you put all you effort in to an instructable you will get repaid with nice comments (normally).

I wouldn't like to see instructables as a website with few featured instructables lots of quick put to gether nonsense. I would like to see quality, and a archive of fun things to do and make for all the family.

A while back a published an instructable called 'professional water rocket guide'. I spend along time on it and was pleased with my self when it got featured, and it was in the newsletter. This it was gives me motivation to do good instructables.

What do you think about poor informative an qualitive instructables?

Thanks

sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 32Next »
lemonie7 years ago
Look at the comments on this one (comments) this is a good case in point on non-instructable content. (Poor guy has had a hard time already, so nothing on the posting).
www.instructables.com/id/Megaman-Saves-DRLight/

L
 Strongly agree.  I am starting to agree with your idea more and more.
If this hadn't reached the public-stage the author wouldn't have received such a harsh response. Say to someone, "no, this isn't it" without a free-for-all on the public view and it's different.

L
 Totally agree.
Kiteman7 years ago
In some ways, I agree.

It would be great if every project was newsletter-worthy or featurable.

On the other hand, not everybody gets it right first time.  These days, most of my projects get featured, but only because I have learned to post projects that people will be interested in, or in a style that will appeal to people.

My first project didn't even have pictures!

Bad projects get few views, and a critical response.  Members either learn to produce better projects, or stop posting them.

A good example is K'NEX - many projects used to be blurred shots of a couple of pieces in the middle of a huge expanse of carpet, with the instruction "bild to of these".  But the K'NEXers have grown up, learned how to take better pictures, give better instructions, and create more than just guns.

If we isolate projects before they see the light of day, criticise them in secret, then I do not think the site would benefit.  How many prominent members would be here today if their first postings had been thrown out?  Probably not me.

Instead, give the community the chance to constructively criticise.  Offer advice, give hints.  There's a lot more of that going on than is at first obvious, thanks to the PM system.  I know of projects that have been completely re-written by certain members because a project's creator was a good, imaginative maker, but not so good at writing.

What I'm building up to is, rather than pre-moderate projects as Lemonie suggests, why not add an extra "flag" button; critique.

If a project is not quite "up to scratch" for some reason, but could be with some work, members can hit the button.

When "enough" members hit the button, the project is automatically unpublished until it is tidied up.

However, every member who hits that button gets his or her user name passed on to the author, as volunteers to help bring it up to scratch.

Anyhoo, that's my two penn'th of blue sky on the subject.


lemonie Kiteman7 years ago
I can agree with your position, but it is to some extent idealistic. You are being kind in assuming that sub-standard content is the product of persons that need a bit of guidance. Quite a lot of content is from children who understand how to publish something, but don't get what the site is about.
Your critique idea is nice, it's the "pending" area I am thinking of.

L
>>Quite a lot of content is from children who understand how to publish something, but don't get what the site is about.

Quite so - this was very true in my case.

Which is why they are, as you put it:

>>the product of persons that need a bit of guidance.

That is, guidance to get what the site is about, and how to better document, and in some cases execute or even come up with, a project.

"Guidance" is being stretched a bit too far is you're looking at saying "this is completely wrong", rather than "this could be improved". There are persons around here that have posted a series of total-junk, and no doubt there'll be more to come.

L
Firstly, "this is completely wrong" would still be guidance.

Secondly, I don't think it is proper to say "this is completely wrong". I think just about *any* project could be improved. Granted not every instructable can be improved to the point of being newsletter-worthy - some are old and tired, or just very simple/juvenile, etc - but with good pictures, good writing, and the like, *any* instructable can be improved to a level of quality that is worthy of being published.

The fact that some users have posted "a series of total-junk" is rather irrelevant - it actually supports my point, which is that people often start off with lower quality instructables and work their way up.
Yes, but some people throw tantrums if you ask them to stop and listen to guidance. There you're looking at an education, much like you wouldn't say that your received guidance on mathematics whilst going to school.

L
1-10 of 32Next »