Author Options:

[HELP] Teardown wiki, preferably associated with instructables? Answered

Looking for a resource. I do a lot of teardowns of broken equipment for my projects. Things like Instructables is a great resource for me but I thought there could be something better... I would just like to know if it maybe already exists out there.

My only problem with the instructables;

* Author edited; if an author does not know what something is in the teardown, it's a long process to have a reader identify it, and then the author themselves has to edit the instructable.

* No examples of how the item may be used by the DIYer.

It would be nice if pages could be immediately edited linking to related projects, or a faq on a particular part

Anyone know of a resource wiki like that? If not, then I'll start the ball rolling with one, but I just don't want to go around doubling some work...



6 years ago

there was a site , that i saw mentioned in here, instructables, that had what i think you want, and i am still trying to find it.
It told you what type of parts you could salvage from a vcr, dvd, washing machine etc. Plus is was always looking for input, it was listed in the forums, maybe under resources? i found that instructables search feature is not always that good, as with lifehacker. good. I haven't tried the google search script for instructables that lifehacker had explained awhile back, for any site, including lifehacker. I am not sure if there still is a link to resources sites.
lo and behold i found the search syntex from lifehacker,you can use any site this way
How to Search Lifehacker.com Using Google
Due to the recent security issues, certain features of the site have been disabled. Among them? Search. But let's be honest: search didn't really work that well anyway. Here's a better way to search for your favorite posts.
The easiest way to search is to make use of Google's site-specific search. Rather than just searching for your query in Google, you prepend it with site:lifehacker.com. If you were searching for security, for example, it would look like this:
site:lifehacker.com security
Still, that isn't exactly the simplest way to search. What works a lot better is if you add this site-specific search to your saved search engines. In Chrome, this will let you search directly from the omnibar. In Chrome, just right click the omnibar and choose Edit Search Engines. Click the + to add a new one and enter the following:

* Name: Lifehacker
* Keyword: lh
* URL: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=site:lifehacker.com+%s

Save it, and now you'll be able to type lh in the address bar and then type in what you want to search for. The results you'll get will be much better than what you'd get with the currently disabled search on Lifehacker, so if you find yourself commonly searching Lifehacker it's a good search to set up.
This isn't limited to Chrome, of course. Here are instructions for adding keyword searches (and bookmarks) in Firefox, and you can do it in pretty much any good browser.
Contact Adam Dachis:
* Email the author
* Comment
* Facebook

URL: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=site:instructables.com+%s


i did find a cool site i forgot about , i had used springpad to save it, and i am sure that is where i saved the salvage site.
However i have 2 log ins and am having trouble getting into my original one
this looks pretty great!


6 years ago

Making things a wiki would, IMO, take ownership away from the original author, as well letting in the sort of argument and vandalism that occurs on other wikis that do not have the staff to constantly monitor them.

Having said that, I see nothing to stop you creating your own takedown wiki, and linking to it from your profile, and maybe publishing regular updates in the forums to let people know what's on the wiki. If you ask nicely, I bet HQ would even let you use Instructables graphics on your wiki, as long as you weren't running it for profit.


Reply 6 years ago

I was hoping that a generalized reference would allay some of the need for ownership...

Oh well, caitlinsdad brought up a very important failing that I can't address just yet on the issue of spam so I'm going to shelve this idea for a bit till I can work out some better details.

I would however like to thank you for your input, so... Thank you.


6 years ago

Could you give us an example of a teardown of something that you would be interested in? From an author's viewpoint, I don't see it is my job or responsiblity to explain everything that I took apart nor the need to link you to other resources. If I want to show off a project on using LEDs do I need to explain how little cylindrical objects with wires coming out of it and some color bands on it works? I just want to show you my finished product. Even some of the things I use are wires connected to a magic black box. There are sites like ifixya that do teardowns of stuff like iphones, etc but for the general audience, that detailed technical explanation is not warranted. The sidebars do show related instructables, maybe not specific to the relevant part but interesting nonetheless. If you don't know what something is, all you have to do is ask.


Reply 6 years ago

I certainly agree that the author has no responsibility to embellish a teardown in any way, and I hope I didn't sound like this was a demand of any sort.

I'm just a bit of an information junkie, and I was thinking that a wiki structure offers some great advantages for the DIYer. Say for example you need a particular part for a project, wouldn't it be nice to be able to look up that part, or general part category, and come up with a listing of several household items that have that part?

One of the most pleasant surprises I've had on this site is when an author brings up an expensive / hard to find part and offhandedly mentions that they got it by taking apart some inexpensive, easy to find commercial product that I may already have in my extensive junk collection. By the same token, one of the biggest disappointments (though rare) is when there is an author with a truly ingenious build, and all the parts listed come from a dozen different companies, with a dozen different shipping costs.

In addition, I take apart a lot of things and find stuff that I have no clue about. Not too big of a problem, you can find the answers here but that can be time consuming, and hit or miss. If I fail at properly describing the part, the person who may know what it is might never actually see my question. With a wiki approach, if someone happens upon an interesting teardown where an author finds an unidentifiable part, rather than leaving a comment for the author (who again has no actual responsibility to do this) to edit their instructable, a simple wiki edit updates the information right away. Neither approach will get me the information quickly, but I already have a lot of unidentified parts that I keep, but would be too time consuming to ask someone to figure out one-by one. Instead I could check back on my wiki entry at a later date and maybe find that I've got some hidden gem.

So basically, low impact reference material. Say I need an ac motor, check the wiki and look at a list of devices. Find out that "hand mixers" have an ac motor, and my wife just threw our hand mixer out. It's still up to me to tear it down and adjust my design to incorporate whatever I find, but I just saved a bit of time and money. Maybe I need a stepper motor, I can check and see that these things come up a lot in DVD players. It doesn't have to be a model by model teardown, but at least I know that DVD players should have them, what they look like, and possible areas they would be in my broken DVD player.

Finally, I'd love to have it work with Instructables because I do love this site and have a lot of respect for the authors and their projects.


Reply 6 years ago

I see what you're getting at but in some cases, this gets into the realm of spamming something which we all revile against. In one situation, a recipe breakdown had links back to mundane things like mixing bowls and where to shop for them. Granted, some obscure parts or even a link to a preferred vendor or a mention of where the part was easily sourced is acceptable. I think you are looking at an all-in-one reference that catalogues each and every item. It would be a daunting task to maintain or even fill. That's what search engines are for and for someone bettering their skills at using that as a tool.

If you feel the desire to add to any instructable, you can always place a comment to add any info. But here is my take on wiki style instructional/tutorials. I have posted two projects over on the "other guys". Their wiki-like approach of edits, although moderated, kinda cramped my style, my creative expression which is what we are all about. There is always someone more righter or wants to shape the tutorial in their view. I think it all comes down to this, if you want to find out about something, do your research. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes not. If you want it done right, do it yourself. But hey, it makes for good discussion. Thanks for asking.


Reply 6 years ago

Hmm, I had not considered spamming, which on the internet I suppose should be the first thing to consider. I was hoping to avoid problems like style and such by leaving out the instructional part and just using it for a very generalized reference...

Unfortunately the spam part kinda burns...

Okay, thank you very much for helping me out there. I do get a bit idealistic and I'm glad there are people who can pop that bubble very gently for me. I'll keep that idea on the backburner until such problems can be addressed. Thank you again!