Hi. Where should I categorize a stand for a tablet? I did it on life hacks but not sure about it. Thank you.
Topic by SalvadorM10 | last reply
The list is massive, i have to keep the down button pressed for like 5 seconds to reach one of the homebrew programs....Just look at the picture. note:I can't add images, i guess i will edit this tomorrow...
Question by ReCreate | last reply
I'm beginning the process of doing some pretty major remodeling projects in my home, and was looking through the Furniture category, in the hopes of finding some ideas. Maddeningly, it's arranged alphabetically by the title of the Instructable! https://www.instructables.com/sitemap/instructable...That makes zero sense, unless you are looking for an 'able whose title you already know. I mean, honestly! -WTF is a "20KRKR", and why would anyone think to click on it to find an 'able for a *rocking chair*?! ( https://www.instructables.com/sitemap/instructables/furniture/ )So I'm wondering how one could go about either re-organizing the category, or providing an alternative browsing structure based upon the actual categorical function of each piece of furniture. Taxonomically, this should not be a problem. Seating is seating, lighting is lighting, work surfaces are work surfaces, etc., and each could logically be subdivided. For example, the Lighting category could be split into Task lighting, Area lighting, multi-function lighting, and Seating could be divided into Group seating (sofas, love seats, etc.), Single seating (arm chairs, side chairs, stools, etc.), and so on. I think that this would be vastly easier to use than the current alphabetical structure. Any opinions pro or con? Any suggestions as to how to make this happen? Is there anyone at Instructables whom I could contact and propose this to?
Topic by Bricology | last reply
You see, I recently bought a pair of boots that I assumed were leather. When I checked the materials list though it said it was "Constructed of All Man-Made Materials. So what gives???
Question by Bardouv | last reply
I think it would be nice if you could categorize ones own favorites.. Personally I've got 179 favorites, all stacked in a pile with no kind of sorting. I'm thinking that a similar system to what pinterest is using, where you create your own boards and add the content as you wish.. Just a thought. Thanks! /D
Topic by DavidFerAndersson | last reply
Hello, I'm a researcher interested in wiki-based problem/solution management (Instructables is exactly an example). I have found a big problem with such sites and how to solve it: Problem base (PB) wikis already exist, such as WikiHow and WikiAnswers. But I think they're not well-organized enough. For example, WikiHow has a category called "Air Conditioning" which collects solutions related to air conditioning: http://www.wikihow.com/Category:Air-Conditioning As you see, there are no subcategories in this category. All solutions are just listed in A-Z order. A person must scan these solutions one by one to find a solution that matches his problem. What's the ideal PB in my mind? Under a topic like "Air Conditioning", the PB should further categorize problems in three ways: 1. By symptom ("What's wrong?") 2. By task ("What do you want to do?") 3. By component ("What component is your problem in?") Each of the above can walk a user down several levels of subcategories until actual problems come into sight. This is what I call "well-organized". "By symptom" and "by task" are actually approaches that categorize objects (here, objects are problems) by function, while "by component" is an approach that categorizes objects by structure. (Visit https://plus.google.com/u/0/102291835965130378165/posts/V6pMGuQcBuJ for my original post on this.) Best Regards, Ziyuan Yao
Topic by yaoziyuan | last reply
I don't know if this can really be categorized as burning question, but it is what it is. This is a topic to post why you love Instructables and enjoy it so much. It is a pretty random topic, so I don't mind if there are random posts. What are you waiting for, tell the world why you love Instructables!
Topic by Ferrite | last reply
I just bought a couple of surprise boxes from www.goldmine-elec-products.com, and they had a lot of these components.. Everything else in the box, I managed to identify and categorize, except these things.. What are they? And what value do they have? they have a color code.. The coloring is: Black, purple, red, gold (or gold, red, purple, black) Thanks - Chr
Topic by chr | last reply
According to a recent comment from Rachel, it should be possible to go to a Group, select the [+ New Topic] link, and have the comment appear both in a forum category and in the Group's own list of topics.This is a test to confirm that the fix is deployed :-) I am creating it within the Instructables Help Group, and categorizing it to the "help : feedback" Forum.
Topic by kelseymh
Is it possible for members to categorize their favorites? for an example...i have many interest...woodworking, cake making and sewing etc. It would be great if i can make separate folders and put each in their specific folder...easier to find stuff! perhaps you could make it a pro feature?? please let me know what you think?
Topic by shazni
We seem to have a giant collection of some very 'tasty' recipes on here. Wouldn't it be great to have them in a cookbook-like form, categorized. Even a quick cookbook vs traditional cook-time book. The instructables format even gives the novice cook an almost foolproof set of instructions which would make it soooo easy for someone to impress their guests.
Question by Pazzerz | last reply
Hey! I just posted an instructable on red foods, and I had a little trouble figuring out how to categorize it. I think that the cooking section could use a techniques category. If someone wanted to post an instructable about how to descale a fish or cut an onion, right now they'd have to decide if that was a main course, salad or sandwich. General cooking techniques are what I get the most requests for when I teach cooking. I think that more technique-based instructables would be a huge asset to the community! Cheers, Renee
Topic by kitchentablescraps | last reply
Hi I have a closet which was used to be for clothes but now it is full of books and junkI was wondering if i can turn it into a good book closet .It's depth is 56 cm which is very deep so i'm afraid i can't support the books from behind.Here r some pix to explain .Also i wanted a good way of categorizing the books , like i have alot of school books , tons of self improving books , etc .Any idea would be appreciated .Thanks in advance .
Topic by FOOOFEI | last reply
Have you ever made candy so good, that you want the whole world to know about it? Well, now's your chance! Hello, i'm Megaliciouz here with my first ever, non-official challenge! I bet you could already guess what the challenge was about. CANDY! HOW TO ENTER: Just make an instructable with a recipe for candy on it, and make one of the keywords "Megacandy". WHAT ARE THE PRIZES?: Shh...it's a surprise! WHAT'S THE DEADLINE?: December 24, 2011 at 11:59 EST Remember, you can make any kind of candy! Peanut, chocolate, fruit, gum, lollipop, anything you can think off that can be categorized as CANDY! GOod Luck to you all, and have a merry christmas!
Topic by GummiBear | last reply
I thought in the past, I could update tags for the pictures and add tags when I hadn't put one in at upload time. Now I am unable to find a way to do this anymore. Is this a planned thing, or did something need to be dropped in order to do the update you all did? It would be nice, now that my library is over 600 pics, to be able to go directly to some of the early ones without having to spend a good 5+ minutes scrolling back to the start of the pack. And for those that are similarly tagged but not exactly the same, it would be nice to be able to update them so I could categorize them better under single tags. Thanks.
Topic by Goodhart | last reply
Preferably Via usb...since my serial ports are all occupied, and they're almost a dead tech. I was looking around, I don't even know how to go about searching it because the only keywords I can think of to search for any kind of project near this would be "cpu monitor", And then google lists the next X results trying to sell me CPUs and LCD screens. Any help would be appreciated, please avoid leaving me with the only alternative buying an arduino or bread board. I'm categorizing this in microcontrollers because I have no clue how else to go about doing this, if anyone else has a simpler idea, or a diferent method, please mention it. Thanks -Spence
Question by mr monoply33 | last reply
I'm relatively new to Instructables, (8 months), but when I posted my first Instructable, Steampunk Lamp - Lanterna Antiga, I found it frustrating that I could only include it in one category, so I chose "Steampunk." I inquired about this limitation, and was told by one of the fine folks at Instructables that there was a time when you could chose multiple categories for an Instrucatble, but that people were taking advantage of this feature for exposure, so it has been limited to only one category per Instructable. I would like to get some feedback from other members of the Instructables community about this policy, as I feel being limited to selecting only one category doesn't do justice to many of the fine projects posted here. I know personally I tend to check recent posts in the "Steampunk" category, but may overlook a cool steampunk project if it's posted under "Workshop" or somewhere else. A few months back, I posted a Steampunk Incandescent USB Lamp, and it would seem perfectly logical that such a project should be categorized under "Steampunk", "Lamps", and "USB," but I was forced to chose only one category, so I went with "Steampunk" again. I'm sure there are people who only check "Lamps," or "USB," who would be interested in this project, but don't check "Steampunk," so they haven't seen this project. I think it would be reasonable to be able to select up to three categories to post Instructables, instead of the current "only one category" policy, and hope the fine folks at Instructables will consider adjusting this policy. I'd also like to know what other regular contributors to Instructables think. Best regards, Winged Fist
Topic by Winged Fist | last reply
Would it be possible to have a set of 'tags' that can be assigned to comments on Instructables so that things that are just trying to stir up trouble or are otherwise just attaching to the top comment to get theirs seen noticed? Right now, all you have is "Flag" which is not what I want. I want people to be able to say whatever they want, but I want a way to be able to categorize a comment better... You could tag a comment 'Troll' if all they are trying to do is get people angry. Or 'dangerous' if the comment has obvious dangerous things to it. The point is to get the comments to have a more user-moderated feel to them, rather than what they are now which is anybody can say anything and it's going to be there forever unless it's a really blatant disregard for the rules. Slashdot has a very wonderful system where they let you actually ignore comments from certain people who are clearly trolls and never bring anything useful to the conversation. They also allow you to moderate comments with basic things like, "Insightful" or "Funny" with points that you get semi-regularly by commenting and having your comments moderated positively. Maybe we could have a system like that in place? There are a few people on this site which I never would want to hear from again, due to the very nature of every single comment they have ever said has been--in my eyes--useless and just completely not worth my time to even see. I would also like people who I find as friends to have a different color frame so that I know those are the ones I should read first.
Topic by Spokehedz
What's new Over the past few months, one of our big projects has been building new categories and channels for Instructables. We're doing this to make it easier for users to find content and to make more compelling products for advertisers. Much of the existing content has been recategorized by algorithm or by someone here at the lab, but we'll need your help both in making sure we (or the robot) got it right. So, I wanted to give you a heads-up before the new scheme goes live, explain why we think it's important, and ask for your help! Why we're updating categories The existing categorization scheme with its 18 channels has served us well, but we've outgrown it. First, the channels are too broad to meaningfully help a new user find more of the content they are excited about. Should a new user arrive to a knitting Instructable from a Google search, they often have trouble finding other knitting Instructables within the Craft channel. Related Instructables are helpful, but aren't clicked as often as we'd like, and don't give an immediate sense of the variety and number of knitting Instructables we have available. The primary and secondary channels associated with an Instructable put yet another stumbling point in this new user finding more great content. To new users, it's not immediately obvious that we allow multiple channels per Instructable, so when they are browsing through the Craft Instructables, it can be confusing to see a project with LEDs or a home repair project that happen to have Craft as their secondary channel. This has been a similar point of confusion for our advertisers, who don't understand our current channel system. I'll be sad to see our two-channel categorization scheme go, but it's a necessary change to improve the way the site functions. It feels a little bit like we're growing up! How the new categories and channels work To address these issues, we've created five new top-level categories and, within each category, lots of new channels. Each Instructable will be placed in a single category and a single channel within that category. The new categories are Living, Outside, Play, Technology, and Workshop. • Living has all things related to crafting, decorating, cooking, parenting, and organizing. • Play has all things related to fun and games. • Workshop is everything one might do in a workshop or shed: home improvement, woodworking, and working on cars or bikes. • Technology and Outside are very similar to the existing Outdoors and Tech channels. Only five top-level categories might seem like too few, but remember that the vast majority of new visitors come directly to an Instructable via search - these folks will see other channels related to the Instructable they're viewing. For example, someone first coming to Instructables via a search for a sewing project will see that the project is in a sewing channel, that we have a knitting channel, and that both are in our Living category. Someone who has an account on Instructables is smarter than the average internet-searcher (in my opinion), so our community will quickly learn how to navigate the new structure. Hopefully we'll all discover lots of new Instructables in the process! How to recategorize your Instructables Log in, and go to your Instructable. Click the "Change Keywords, Category(s), License" text in the Author Options box, and you'll see a section called "New Categories." Pick a top-level category from the upper drop-down menu, then select a channel from the second menu. Hit Update, and you're done! When the new organization scheme is visible on the site in a few weeks, this is the category and channel your Instructable will appear in. We're still working out the kinks in this new system, and expect to be creating and combining channels as needed to make finding things on the site easier. While you must pick a category, if you don't see a channel that matches your project, you may choose to leave it unsorted. We'll keep an eye on unsorted projects, and will either sort it or update the channels as needed. Thanks for your help! We hope this new scheme makes it easier to find the projects you want to see on Instructables.
Topic by canida | last reply
I just read one of the recent Answers, and it was asking about how to get ratings. That got me to thinking. I like to think that Instructables is a more useful sight than many others. Given its "usefulness," it follows that each aspect should be scrutinized for said usefulness.The usefulness of the Rating system, to me, is unapparent. On a website, I usually measure usefulness as how much something affects a decision I make. Following the mentality of the day, I need to be able to make such a decision in a millisecond, or else I just opt out of making the decision at all. I see a picture and read a title -- I click the link if I like it or move on if I don't. The problem with a single rating system that applies to the entire Instructable is that if I really like one aspect of an I'ble, yet don't like another, I'm more likely NOT to rate it at all. This saves me the internal struggle about what rating to actually give the I'ble. When I internally rate an I'ble whilst viewing it, I look at two major categories: Presentation and Concept. Is the concept amazing? Is the concept old hat? Is the I'ble written well? Is the I'ble unintelligible? If the Ratings were split into these two categories, I think authors would feel more empowered and would be able to focus their energies more effectively in their quest to submit better I'bles. The Rating system may get more use, too. I see a great idea written poorly, I know EXACTLY what to rate it -- I don't have a lengthy decision in front of me. High on Concept, low on Presentation. Rated. Done. Bam. The author can then easily take this feedback and do what they need to do to improve their contributions. Given the current system, I have to debate in my head whether or not I want to rate high, or middle, or low, because I like the Concept, yet dislike the Presentation. Oops, decision took too long. I've moved on. Didn't rate.The current one-size-fits-all rating system may be simpler to implement, but provides much less function than a slightly-categorized rating system. Readers will be more inclined to use the tool, and authors will be provided with much more valuable information.Ok. I'm done.
Topic by BeanGolem | last reply
Tl;dr: Check out this pie chart that shows the distribution of projects published in 2014 by category. The outer ring shows the channel within the category that had the highest volume of entries, along with the year to date project count. Do you ever wonder how the projects on Instructables are distributed across categories? I did, too. In a tenuous-at-best connection to the Pi Day Pie Contest, we made a pie chart showing where all the newly-published projects have been categorized since the start of 2014. That outside ring shows the most popular channels within the category, along with a project count for each. Some quick observations: (1) There isn’t as much food as I would have thought. It seems like people are posting food ALL THE TIME, but apparently the overall project volume is coming in via other channels. I guess we’re just getting a lot of good food entries that are being featured more often. The quality of authors’ food photography is getting very good, and the featuring team may be featuring projects under the influence of hunger. (2) Contests drive some (but not all) project builds. Since the start of the year, we’ve run paracord, organization, electronics, and crafting contests. And, wouldn’t you know it, those are the channels receiving the bulk of new projects. Even without a special contest, the Toys channel received an outsized number of projects, so we’ll see what happens later this year when we run a few contests around toys. (Pro-tip: Start stockpiling LEGO and KNEX pieces.) (3) Technology and Living make up just over half of the site’s new content. Sure, the robot has a strong preference for electronics projects, but we’re seeing a lot of great craft projects coming in as well. Either way, an army of hot-tool wielding* makers are creating some really cool stuff. (4) This community may be a little paranoid, but we’re prepared. Paracord and survival projects account for almost all of the outdoor projects we’ve seen so far this year. If I’m stuck in a rural farmhouse surrounded by zombies, I want some of you all right there with me. If you’re worried about the imminent collapse of civilization and are concerned that Instructables won't be around to help with the power out, you can buy a book of some of our best homesteading projects. You’ll be sitting pretty with a chicken coop and some rain barrels while everyone else gets punched over a can of soup. (Don't get punched over a can of soup.) (5) Did you notice anything interesting? Sound off in the comments. I've got some 3 month pro memberships to give away to insightful commenters. :D *or hot, tool-wielding authors.
Topic by wilgubeast | last reply
We live and survive on oil today. That dependence won’t go away for at least a few more generations. Today’s technology allows us to drill oil just about anywhere in the world, and then move it to anywhere we want using behemoth water vessels. Unfortunately, there’s a dark side to all this and it happens when our technology fails us, as periodically demonstrated by mankind’s great oil spill disasters. The most recent being the Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. The amount of oil actually dumped upon our ecosphere and contaminating the environment was mind boggling. The numbing numbers are so large that we can’t even get our minds around it. And we all know that the responsible drilling company won’t fess up to how much was really spilled because even they don’t know, don’t want to know and furthermore want to forget about it. Is there some way to tackle this oil spill problem through the use of the very culprit that created it, namely technology? Of course there is, but it will cost the billions they used to clean up the mess they created in the first place. We want to develop a technological process to be used worldwide that borrows from what we currently know, and clean up these oil spills almost as quickly as they happen upon our seascape. Did we finally clean up the Gulf oil spill? Yes, maybe? But it took too long and we either didn’t use the right equipment or not enough prepared and available equipment to check the problem. Time is probably the most critical factor involved in mitigating oil spill disasters. While Nature obviously works to clean up ecological disasters, she takes perhaps a decade or more to make a region whole again. We need to help nature accelerate her time schedule to a few weeks not decades! Oil cleanup equipment exists that is too painstakingly slow and inefficient to get the job done quickly and effectively, and to recapture ~99% of the oil spilled. Today’s processes are makeshift, disjointed, and not organized nor designed to tackle today’s mega-proportion oil spill problems. We need a cohesive mega-solution to handle mega-problem oil spills. A virtual army of specialists with proper equipment to attack, gather up and capture, then deliver the spilled oil to vessel staging platforms. These huge platforms will separate 99.9% of the captured oil/water, dumping the water back. Oil tankers on standby then take this recaptured crude oil to refineries. This process must be set up with the proper equipment to dynamically proceed in real time. Only high sea states should be capable of halting its operation. The process of oil/water cleanup requires the serial use of various sequential operations where each performs a key stage of the operatic procedure. The orchestration starts with techniques that initially yield the biggest volumetric punch first, then refines this processing by using less volumetric cleaning ability but greater oil separation capability. All the while we have deployed an improved form of today’s containment apron, capable of hundreds of miles of coverage to prevent spreading the spilled oil slick to shore. Having researched today’s available oil spill removal systems, their usefulness has been categorized according to volumetric processing capability per time. Fast surface skimming techniques plus “huge”, constant flowing centrifugal separators clearly win, but are not 100% effective. Sponge-type, oil absorbent techniques then come to play as they are useful in nearly recapturing the remaining 0.1% oil from the water, but are slow and will be used solely on the remaining 99.99% pure water expelled from our centrifugal oil separators. Today we literally use these absorbers like sponges, dunking them into the oil slick, waiting awhile and pulling them out after they’ve absorbed some oil. Such prolonged processing times are unacceptable. Absorbers are to be used differently than today, their performance is vastly accelerated as they now act as 0.1% oil filters to process the pressurized water expelled from the centrifugal separators. The final residuals of perhaps 0.01% that the high pressure absorber filtration misses will require oil break down chemistry whose end products are environmentally friendly and allows Nature to restore balance. So the actual water dumped back will be better than 99.99% pure. Now let’s break this process down a bit and address the pieces of equipment involved. Our attack vessels are special, high speed catamarans that ferry cars between different ports today. They use water-jet propulsion, are extremely fast, maneuverable, and will be equipped with a special front-end water scoop to pick up the oil/water slick in real time while propelled forward. Their scoop or nozzle articulates, performing real time adjustments responding to oil slick depths thereby avoiding too much water pickup. Once their holding tanks are full, they reconnoiter with waiting intermediate-sized tankers to quickly dump their oil/water cargo. When these tankers are full, they deposit their load to one of the huge vessel platforms. These staging platforms use centrifugal systems to quickly and efficiently separate huge quantities of the oil and water, and dump the 99.9% cleaned water overboard (Nature effectively handles the remaining 0.1% of oil). When their tanks are full of oil, they start emptying themselves into the large standby oil tankers for delivery to refineries. QED. For you science fiction/fact fans, this concept requires enormous equipment, is on a huge scale and if viewed as one harmonious system may be the first Oil-Terra-Forming machine to be used on our planet.
Topic by RT-101 | last reply