He Saw The World In A Way No One Could Have Imagined

[soares junior]

Content removed...

[CyanBlue]

Howdy and Welcome... :)

Um... I don't really understand... What is this one supposed to be???

[CyanBlue]

Ah... I think this is a new form of a spam, itsn't it???

What sort of protection do we have for the resources page, Jesse???

[Cota]

definetly spam...denied the article.

[Jesse]

Thanks team.

Users cannot post on these forums until we manually authorize them to do so. We gave this guy access when we registered for an Author account, though I was suspicious at the time. I've deleted the article, and the Author account, banned the forum account, and removed all special privileges.

[Cota]

Is there a way to pre-screen authors. Not to take any personal shots at anyone, but some of the articles being posted are, subpar at best.

[Jesse]

I'm open to suggestions.

We used to simply screen content as it was submitted, and if it didn't make the grade, it didn't go live. I think the same still applies nowadays.

[Cota]

Oh, so we can reject articles if we feel they are of low quality or useless?

[Flash Gordon]

I'm open to suggestions.

We used to simply screen content as it was submitted, and if it didn't make the grade, it didn't go live. I think the same still applies nowadays.

I understand and I don't want to be a downer, but there are articles posted in the last week that teaches the use if set/getProperty() and eval(), not to mention clipEvents. I applaud the effort of anyone who writes a tutorial, but the fact that someone spends their time to write something does not make it automatically publish-able. Also, posting code with telling someone how to set up the stage is not a tutorial.

And this is not a 1 time authors, several people have now posted the use of eval() and getProperty(). If someone is going to write an article to teach others, it should be held to the highest of standards.

Sorry for being a drag....
:confused:

[CyanBlue]

Jesse and I have asked him to use dot syntax for those old syntax... and I don't know recall hearing from him since...

The bottom line is that we would not want to post something that is outdated and we have to actively advocate that... That's my 2 cents... ;)

[Flash Gordon]

I don't want to be insulting to the author, but I'm kind of refering to this one:
link removed.

[Jesse]

There's a big gap sometimes between practical and best practice, but items such as ClipEvents aren't really a big issue in my mind. I mean, sure there are other ways to achieve the same, but some of them are a little convoluted and don't offer any practical benefit.

The eval() and similar topics are valid points though.

It's always going to be difficult advising people that, despite having put in a good amount of effort, their tutorials are not worthy of being published for one reason or another. I agree we have to do it on some occasions though. There is actually a caveat about this in the sign-up process, explaining that we pride ourselves on the quality of our content and won't necessarily publish everything.

Perhaps what we need is a set of high level guidelines which state our requirements for publishing content. Then at lease Authors have something to refer to prior to creating their content, and we can reference it also.

[Cota]

I would definetly have to say that stating that "depreciated code could be reason for your acrticle not being published" or something along those lines. The use of depreciated code violates best practice and isnt practicle.

[Jesse]

OK let's make a list then:

Formatting errors. E.g.

Code not encapsulated in appropriate code tags
Articles posted as one massively long page, instead of broken down into multiple pages.
Broken links, etc.

Use of depreciated code. E.g.

Slash syntax instead of dot syntax
eval() in place of array methods (especially in paths)

Grammar or spelling issues.
Lack of clear structure. E.g.

Lack of "steps" where steps may be useful
Large blocks of code without information on the code's purpose, etc.

[Flash Gordon]

I would add use of un-optimal or poor code as well.

[Jesse]

Can you be a bit more specific? I'd like people to be able to make qualitative judgments based on the list.

[Flash Gordon]

Example of bad code:

var decimal:Array = (".1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .0").split(" ");
var myNum:Number = Math.floor(Math.random() * 5) + Number(decimal[Math.floor(Math.random() * decimal.length)]);
trace(myNum);

Better code

var myNum:Number = Math.floor(Math.random() * 5 * 10)/10;
trace(myNum);


Both work, however the first is not good code. That is about as specific as I know how to get. The idea itself is a bit abstract.