Thoughts on Forum Sections

[Ian]

As you may be aware, we're planning an upgrade for Electronics Point sometime fairly soon (around Easter). The main part of the upgrade is changing the forum software to something a little more user friendly (and newer), but it also gives us the chance to have a play with forum categories.

Are there any forum categories that you'd like to see here, or any re-arranged? It would be really useful to get some thoughts on this so that I can discuss it with the moderators before we go live with the upgrade.

I'll be posting more on the upgrade itself closer to the time - but rest assured, no data will be lost and it's not going to drastically change anything, we just need to migrate to a newer forum software as this one is running behind the times.

 

[Harald Kapp]

I'm happy with the current layout.

Maybe a separate "LED" section?

 

[(*steve*)]

The issue of "acceptable" spam has kinda come up again with the Farnell advertising. (Incidentally he asked me where he could place an advertisement and I said "kinda nowhere", but you're better off talking to Ian).

I have long been somewhat pained to remove what was genuine spam, but which nevertheless was genuinely interesting to our members.

 

[davenn]

I echo Harald

cant think of anything really specific that needs to be added or changed

( mind you, with my really bad health over recent months, Im really struggling to think clearly
and unfortunately living in "zombie mode most days" )

Dave

 

[jpanhalt]

Let me throw a couple of ideas out based on my experience as a student in chemistry.

There was (maybe still is) a volume of works called "Organic Syntheses." The procedures that were included differed from the usual procedures one finds in experimental sections of published papers. First, the subject compound needed to have some value. Second and most important, the synthetic procedure was independently validated by another research group. We might have something called something like "Proven Circuits." I think it needs to include software too. So, a better name would need to be chosen. As a simple example, someone could propose a TSOP IR oscillator. Another VIP member or moderator would validate it. It would be held in a private discussion until all comments had been addressed, and then it would be released to the public. Public comments could be made, but would not become a permanent part of the post. Thus, the posts would be short and to the point. The circuit would be validated and pretty much guaranteed to work. Finally, there would be an index , which is so often lacking from similar compilations on forums. Search engines are great, but there is no substitute for being able to browse the listings.

A second idea to kick around would be a "new devices" section. This would be a section where members could contribute their opinions for new chips they had found to be useful. Grand multipage threads need to be avoided, and an index would be needed for it to be of any use. Fieser and Fieser's "Reagents for Organic Synthesis" was a similar approach in chemistry (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780471264194 ).

I hope the new software is like the one at ETO. As usual, some people were reluctant at the beginning, but it thoroughly proved its merit after a short time.

John

 

[Harald Kapp]

Some good thoughts, John.

How would we deal with "new devices" once they are not so new anymore? Maybe an automatic timeout of e.g. 1 year for posts in that section?

Another thought on the "proven circuits" section. I like the idea, but: quite a few circuits that have seen the light in this forum are the result of discussions between the op and other forum members. These discussions are part of the circuit, too. They help understanding how the circuit was designed and why it is the way it is. Plus they contain possibly alternative ideas. I think we should not keep the final circuit separate from the thread. So this section would be more than just a collection of circuits.
And: who is going to create the index? If there's a feature in the new forum software that can do that, fine. If it needs manual updating, it's almost guaranteed to be incomplete. While in the beginning some volunteer(s) may be eager to keep the index up to date, typically this eagerness wanes with time, especially lacking a reward (which is not to say that I think we need an incentive system. Heavens no!).

 

[Ian]

Thanks for the feedback (please do keep it coming ), there are some interesting ideas here - and some I'm sure we can do something about. There is a database-type addon to the new software that we are using where it is possible to provide resources in article form (with any required attachments), then have a paired discussion thread in the forum which can be used to comment as normal. I suspect that we may be able to find some uses for this over time.

It may be that we launch the upgrade on a like-for-like basis, then add new sections slowly over time.

 

[shrtrnd]

I'll just resubmit my old request.
I'd like to see a semiconductor cross-reference section.
I sent *steve* a Hewlett Packard and Tektronix cross ref last time, but don't think it made
it to the website. Both of them can be found openly on the web, but you have to
hunt for them.
If we got something like this going, people could add other manufacturers over time.
I for one, am getting tired hearing from people who want to know what surface mount
parts are. I have a couple good mfgr SM cross refs, or have come across ones I ignored,
and then see asked about here a couple months later and can't re-find.
If somebody finds a good cross ref and enters it here, we'll always have it.

edit: Discussion on the missing crosrefrence information is now here: https://www.electronicspoint.com/before-you-ask-thread-t267754.html

 

[Arouse1973]

What about an electronics theory section for formula and calculations. Split up into subcategories like Oscillators, filter design, amplifier design, transistor circuits and a component section including formula for simple voltage dividers, inductor, diode and capacitors etc. I see a lot of threads on here asking how do I calculate this.........
Adam