[beyondinspection] Website Release

[jwfoss]

We are proud to announce the public opening of a new website:
beyondinspection.org

The goal is to provide articles on various topics that may be of interest to our fellow FIRST participants. Currently the website has ~16 articles with plans to continue to post twice a month (or more often, depending on content availability). The site is currently split into the following categories:

[RP] Robot Profiles – Profiles of robots past and present supplied by teams
[HL] History Lessons – Letting the past help us now
[PR] Product Reviews – Candid reviews about products on the market
[EA] Editorial Articles – Catch-all for other articles
[EC] Event Coverage – Some photography and event reviews
[SA] Statistical Analysis – Letting the numbers speak for themselves
[PP] People Profiles – Profiles of mentors and volunteers

Special thanks to A. Schreiber and S. Lipscomb for behind the scenes work and website development. Additional thanks to our initial group of contributors: we appreciate your support of the new project and hope you like what you see (and will continue to support us).

Please take the time to read through the articles and let us know what you think.

We are always looking for new articles and contributors.
If you are interested in supporting the website you can reach us via: Facebook, Twitter or directly via email.

[Nick Lawrence]

Foss, Sam and Schreibs,

The website looks great. Thanks for letting me have an article up for launch day. Congratulations, I look forward to seeing where this goes.

-Nick

[Zach101]

Very nice website guys. Good job guys. I love how the website is set up. Keep it up!

[Francis-134]

This is pretty cool! Great job y'all, and I look forward to what's in the future.

Do you guys have a schedule of when articles are coming out?

-FOR

[jwfoss]

Originally Posted by Francis-134

Do you guys have a schedule of when articles are coming out?

Thanks for the kind words so far.

The tentative schedule is the 15th and 30th of each month based on our current content backlog.
More input will allow us to provide content more often.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by jwfoss

Thanks for the kind words so far.

The tentative schedule is the 15th and 30th of each month based on our current content backlog.
More input will allow us to provide content more often.

Looks like a fantastic resource for any team to use.


If you wanted mean words....
Well
I dunno someone might find the background image distracting I seriously got nothing...

[XaulZan11]

Nice looking site. Although I have an idea of who wrote many of the articles, I think it would be nice to include the author for each article.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Nice looking site. Although I have an idea of who wrote many of the articles, I think it would be nice to include the author for each article.

This. Especially for the editorials.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Nice looking site. Although I have an idea of who wrote many of the articles, I think it would be nice to include the author for each article.

That was an intentional decision. Esp on the editorial ones. One of the things I've had happen in the past is an unpopular opinion resulted in very negative and derogatory comments directed at me. Wanted authors to be able to state opinions without fear of retribution.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

That was an intentional decision. Esp on the editorial ones. One of the things I've had happen in the past is an unpopular opinion resulted in very negative and derogatory comments directed at me. Wanted authors to be able to state opinions without fear of retribution.

Would be nice to have something to help distinguish between articles written by different people, though, especially for things where there's lots of reasonable room to disagree (see: editorials).

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Would be nice to have something to help distinguish between articles written by different people, though, especially for things where there's lots of reasonable room to disagree (see: editorials).

Then disagree with the article. There's comments right there. It is not that hard.

[Joe G.]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Then disagree with the article. There's comments right there. It is not that hard.

I don't think it's so much about personal disagreement, as it is how people perceive the validity of the articles themselves. Knowledge of the experience, knowledge, and authority of the author is important when analyzing sources, to determine their validity and assess any biases that may be present. For example, I am highly inclined to respect and value the information in the MC-ing article because I know who Andy Grady is, and I know that his experiences mean he knows what he's talking about. I don't know who wrote the Ariel Assist retrospective, how their direct experiences with the game may have colored their view of the game (for better or for worse), and I have little reason to take a second look and go "huh, maybe this guy knows more about this than me" on sections of the article that I disagree with.

I think the site has potential as a platform for well thought-out views, even when they conflict or go against the norm. If the articles are anonymous, they inherently carry less power for generating positive change in the FIRST community.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Joe G.

I don't think it's so much about personal disagreement, as it is how people perceive the validity of the articles themselves. Knowledge of the experience, knowledge, and authority of the author is important when analyzing sources, to determine their validity and assess any biases that may be present. For example, I am highly inclined to respect and value the information in the MC-ing article because I know who Andy Grady is, and I know that his experiences mean he knows what he's talking about. I don't know who wrote the Ariel Assist retrospective, how their direct experiences with the game may have colored their view of the game (for better or for worse), and I have little reason to take a second look and go "huh, maybe this guy knows more about this than me" on sections of the article that I disagree with.

I strongly agree. Even if the editors of the site are willing to vouch for the content they publish, that's nothing compared to actually knowing who those authors are. It also allows the authors to build their personal reputation (which is not a worthless thing). Further, while flaming is not nice, there's nothing wrong with maintaining some external accountability for the authors.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Joe G.

I don't think it's so much about personal disagreement, as it is how people perceive the validity of the articles themselves. Knowledge of the experience, knowledge, and authority of the author is important when analyzing sources, to determine their validity and assess any biases that may be present. For example, I am highly inclined to respect and value the information in the MC-ing article because I know who Andy Grady is, and I know that his experiences mean he knows what he's talking about. I don't know who wrote the Ariel Assist retrospective, how their direct experiences with the game may have colored their view of the game (for better or for worse), and I have little reason to take a second look and go "huh, maybe this guy knows more about this than me" on sections of the article that I disagree with.

I think the site has potential as a platform for well thought-out views, even when they conflict or go against the norm. If the articles are anonymous, they inherently carry less power for generating positive change in the FIRST community.

Pretty much this.

[EricH]

A proposal: Allow authors to request anonymity (or publicity). Default is to make the author's name public, but author can request to be anonymous. "Sensitive topic" articles can be flagged as such, maybe, to indicate that it's a topic "about which honest persons can disagree" and hopefully keep the flames down, or even invite a counter-article from someone on the other side.


I like the site layout, and on reading some of the articles, I like the content too. Might have to think about submitting from time to time if I have time.