So, for a while now we’ve had the
science tag, and it’s brought some interesting things our way:
At the same time, it’s had quite a few less than stellar submission recently:
Now, I love science as much as the next lobster, but there are already some rumblings about getting rid of it.
For what it’s worth, my observations about the sort of articles we like on lobsters are:
- They are useful as references for best practices or techniques (primarily engineering or practical material,
- They provide deeper insight into fundamentals of the engineering in our field (
- They are very simply delightful and edifying (the dispensation for the
- They cover how to build something (
hardware) or new hardware releases
- They help elaborate on one of the above by showing better visualizations (
- Grudgingly, they talk about new software releases (
- They talk about relevant legal and employment practices for developers (
science article submissions tend to:
- frequently be press releases or news
- lack useful technical detail.
haskell articles aren’t my jam, but the submissions are usually useful as a reference.
- rely on pretty pictures and handwaving
- focus on topics that are almost entirely non-practical–the overwhelming majority of current users will never build a rocket or leave the planet (unfortunately)
- be covered well by other sources (Reddit, HN, Wired, Ars Technica)
All of that said, I think we should open the floor and talk about this. Some guiding questions:
- What do we like about the
science tag, if anything?
- What did @jcs envision for the tag originally? Has it strayed?
- Would we want to retire the
science tag, or replace it with something a bit tighter?