text:
Is Lego Mindstorms on-topic?
Lego Mindstorms allows one to write embedded-programing to design robots using Legos. How much of this technology is on-topic?

Yes.
If/when this site goes into public beta, the Mindstorms proposal will be closed. Everyone who followed/committed to it will then get an email inviting them to join this site and the existing Area 51 robotics proposals.

My take on it: this place is for Mindstorms questions related to building.

So this question should be considered off topic then, as it's about programming Mindstorms in non-LegOS languages: http://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/190/can-i-write-programs-for-the-lego-rcx-2-0-in-java-c

And this one too: http://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/168/can-i-check-and-charge-the-nxt-2-0-battery-charge-level-programmatically

I suspect that Mindstorms by itself is not large enough a community, and Lego itself might not be large enough.
I would vote for allowing it.

+1, I would also like to allow Mindstorms. While it may have it's own A51 Proposal I would think it best be merged into this one.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Please, answer like an expert! Upvotes *and* downvotes are critical during this time
I'm already seeing a flood of low-quality and outright wrong answers to my questions get posted within seconds, and worse they are getting voted up. It's worse than the rep rush I'm used to from StackOverflow!
At this point, we should be focused on good questions and the best answers. These are the answers that are going to serve as the standard for the public beta questions. Don't just throw out one line and a Google link or "well, I think X"! You're LEGO experts; give expert-quality answers.
Please do not be afraid to downvote; wrong answers and bad policies now will plague the site forever.

And, askers, please accept answers to your questions too, especially if they have single, high-scoring de facto answers.

Also a problem: accepting an answer that doesn't address the essential question.

Accepting a "bad" answer is not a huge problem, because de facto answers can still be voted up. If the question is good, an answer is good, and people are voting, I'm convinced the better answer will prevail. We just need to make sure at least one of the answers is good, and that people are voting!

Although up-votes are self-explanatory, please add a comment to explain your down-vote.

Keep in mind, all, that other sites very frequently use their meta for statements, and not always for direct questions!

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What are good reference sites and tools for Lego enthusiasts?
What web sites, resources, and tools do enthusiasts use?  It would be helpful to have a list of these available to reference in the future.

I'm curious, why is this on meta? It's not about our site, is it?

@BoltClock: It's quite literally a meta-question - "Where do we find answers to questions?" It's not a question about Lego, but a question to help people better answer questions about Lego.

http://bricks.stackexchange.com

LOL and +1 for the world's most obvious answer. :D

Peeron/PICSL is one of the oldest and most comprehensive databases of parts and sets.
Bricklink is an online marketplace that also maintains a massive parts database.
Brickipedia is less comprehensive than Peeron but has details on more non-toy aspects of Lego, and after years of dealing with MediaWiki and knockoffs, I find it easier to use than Peeron.

Eurobricks news and forums
Lugnet if only for the archive
Classic Castle news and forums
History Bricks my favorite blog, all the mocs I need!
Brickshelf everybody's mocs
MOCpages nicer moc posting environment

Brickset: LEGO set guide
LEGO: the homepage of a company started by a Danish carpenter, has some interesting info
rec.toys.lego roll call: some rec.toys.lego archives
LDraw: one of the most comprehensive parts database and foundation fo numerous CAO tools. Peeron uses it too.

Here are some notable BIONICLE and Hero Factory resources:

http://bzpower.com

A BIONICLE fansite and forum (note there IS a LEGO Discussion forum, and a Hero Factory forum)

http://biosector01.com

A BIONICLE storyline wiki (we do have brief set information on pages that have set forms)

http://hf.biosector01.com

A Hero Factory (operated by the above BIONICLE wiki as well) (set information as well)


text:
Death to the "trivia" tag
I've removed the trivia tag. In my view it veered on the wrong side of meta-tagging to start with. I also always read it as a descriptor meaning something like "this is the kind of question that might be asked during pub quiz", and it was being applied to questions like How are the Lego instruction manuals made? which don't fit that at all. In a broader sense, everything on this site is trivia.
I replaced the ones that actually were trivia with records, all three were about the "biggest" something; otherwise I've just removed the tag.

records seems just as bad as trivia.

@Pubby8: People won't put records on things like "How are the Lego instruction manuals made?" so it's definitely not as bad. It does describe the question's content and not just the type. I don't have a better alternative yet.

Related: http://meta.bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/31/trivia-or-fun-tag

I'm kinda "meh" on both of these... It kinda seems like you couldn't think up any other tags!
What is the largest single LEGO piece?
Only tag is records. That sucks. What about sizes, identification, history? You'd think there'd be something that describes this with a bit more specificity?
What's the largest LEGO construction ever?
Here again, only one tag. I'd think history would be a no-brainer.
What is the largest Lego kit commercially available?
The only one of the three with multiple tags, and yet even here it seems to be missing the most obvious tag: sets.
I guess my point is, you're fixated on the wrong problem: we don't really need a "pub quiz" tag, since just about any other tag will have some amount of trivia associated with it; what we need are specific tags that adequately describe the questions.

I'm not sure why you think history is an appropriate tag. The largest Lego construction could have been built yesterday. It's not a question about the history of Lego or the Lego Group; just that whatever the answer is must (by necessity) have happened in the past. As for sizes, why is that better than records?

identification is for identification of pieces or sets based on incomplete information, I don't see how it applies. The newer piece-information is better for that question; I've added that. I also don't see how records is a "pub quiz" tag; I never claimed to want one of those. Rather the opposite.

@Joe, sorry for the late response. I'm having trouble seeing how [records] is much of an improvement over [trivia] - it's a bit more specific I suppose, but you're still looking at sort of a grabbag tag. Combined with other tags, it's perhaps no big deal... But when the only tag on a question is [records], that question is effectively uncategorized. Surely there's some topic that could be extracted from a question on kits or constructions or pieces and used for a tag...?

I don't see why [tag:records] alone is bad. The question is about a record. What's grab-bag about it? Just because a tag would be a bad categorization on e.g. SO doesn't make it a bad tag here. What else would you say that question is about? Sometimes a question is simple and only needs one tag...

@Joe: what does "record" say about the question? How is "record" related to LEGO bricks, the LEGO community, or the LEGO company? FWIW, [record] is a perfectly appropriate tag on SO, because it has a fairly well-defined (albeit completely different) meaning in that context. So what does it mean here, and what is so special about these questions that no other tags can describe them?

I don't understand your point. The question is about a record. The record is a record involving Lego bricks. [tag:records] says that the question is going to be asking about a Lego-related record. Your rhetorical questions seem like they would apply to any tag on the site. What does "instructions" say about the question? Well, it says the question concerns instructions. There's nothing special about that question, it's just a straightforward one. But again, what other tags would be useful on it? [tag:james-may]? I don't understand why you think it needs more tags.

Maybe, if james-may is a notable builder who one might expect questions to be asked about. I really can't say - that's one reason why it makes me uneasy: [record] here has the same general meaning it would have anywhere else; that's not necessarily a bad thing, but if there are no terms that describe a question here that aren't at some level specific to the topic, then I start to wonder what the question's even doing here.

Well we're not allowed a [tag:lego] (and I don't want one), so I mean, what do you expect? The question is specific to the topic, adding more tags doesn't make it more on-topic. In a global tagging system, I'd give it [tag:lego] and [tag:records] because it's about Lego records. But this site already implies [tag:lego].

You make a good argument. I might be over-thinking this - seeing two out of three questions with no other tags set off alarm bells when I first looked in. But you've re-tagged two of the three. It still concerns me, but if you say there's no other possible tag for that question... I'll take you at your word.


text:
piece-id, part-id, piece-name? No one's going to tag things right
Right now we have piece-id, part-id, and piece-name tags.
I don't think this is a good approach. No new user is ever going to tag these right, and it's not like a question for a piece name is practically different than a question asking for a piece's element ID. And beyond that, identifications of non-pieces like stickers or entire sets should really be sharing a tag - we use the same resources to answer the question.
If no one objects, I'd like to merge all three of those into the single identification tag.

I think @Dori asked a question along the same lines on the chat, but didn't get much answers. I agree on [tag:identification], whether people are after the name, element id or design id is basically irrelevant. The only issue I can see is if we also get a lot of set identification requests also, but I doun't we'll get much, and surely not enough to justify creating two tags.

I think merging set identification and part identification requests is a plus. Set identification always starts with part identification so they'll use the same resources and knowledge.

Agreed, not only is there probably no need to separate both, but there are indeed good reasons to keep them together.

Whatever the choice may be, some tag wikis would help.

@Dori's chat post was: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/2261055#2261055 I also agree we should merge those. Leave [tag:piece-information] separate as that's more about the history/context of pieces than knowing what they are called/referred to.

Need to get @oezi in here as a user with rights to do this ;)

I recall some complaints from another SE about lack of tag merging/renaming - you can set up pre-hoc synonyms, but the only way to really merge is to retag questions by hand. So, I just did that.

As you say, we still need to get the synonyms in place so that they don't creep back.

We now have two separate tags for piece-information and indetification.
Piece Information

Questions asking for information about a known LEGO element/brick. Use
  identification for questions about unknown pieces or sets.

Synonym: parts
Indentification

Use this tag if you are trying to identify a LEGO element or set that
  you possess or have seen somewhere.

Synonym: piece-id

Users are encouraged to add an improve to existing tags, as they would with questions and answers.


text:
Building vs. technique - How or which to choose?
Right now we have building, which says If your question is about building techniques, this is the tag for you.
But we also have technique, which says Tricks and methods used to build models.
So right now, they're exactly the same thing - building techniques vs. techniques for building.
Which of these tags do we want to be the "right" one?
Or if we keep both, what's the difference between them? What's an example of a question that's about building but not technique, and one that's about technique but not building?

Building
"Technique" is a really vague, almost meta word. Technique for what? Techniques for applying stickers? Techniques for sorting? Techniques for cleaning? What question isn't a technique question?
Well, no, we mean exclusively techniques for building. So let's just use that.
I would even push for a more limited definition of building to mean mostly structural elements, perhaps opposed to decoration with color or lighting, or the software aspects of mindstorms programming.

All those questions that were tagged [tag:trivia] aren't [tag:technique] questions ;) but yes, that's why I've proposed we make [tag:technique] a synonym of [tag:building]

I actually proposed that we move technique to a synonym of building on the 8/11 - but the whole issue around voting for synonyms makes it very hard to get these accepted at the moment:
Please vote on synonyms (up if you think they are right, down if not), and you're able to:

Visit the proposed Synonyms page
Click through to the "Master" tag synonym page
Attempt to vote on the synonym.

The most likely result is:

Error: You do not have the required score on this tag to vote for this tag synonym - you need to have at least a score of 5 upvotes in the master tag to vote on that synonym.

The least likely result is:

Success: your vote is counted, and 3 other people also need to vote on it.

I don't think tag synonyms are necessary at this point in the site (I also don't think they're bad, so keep on suggesting them and people should vote on what they can - it's just not much yet). There's only nine questions with the [tag:technique] tag, if we want it gone, let's just make it gone.


text:
How do we judge the credibility of a mod or user?
I've seen/participated in a couple of moderator elections, and indeed have been a candidate in one as well. And I've seen the weak give way to the strong. The new give way to the veterans.
But I've also seen the low-rep pushed out of the way for the high-rep, and I don't like this.
These points are all but arbitrary, a grouping of random people's first impressions of you.
So when the mod election rolls around, what are the standards we should judge by?

Reputation Score, which mostly shows how active you  or other people are?
Time on the site, which indicates when you first found out this page was here?
Number of badges, which already borders on arbitrary as it is?
Questions answered, which could mean just about anything?

Or can we use numerical values to judge a person for their ability at all?
I know, this is pretty early to worry about this, but I believe that we should come up with a good way to identify what we want out of not only a mod, but also a regular user, and how we use that way to decide things.

Typically the raw numbers highlighted in elections are focused around moderator specific actions, so the badge count (for example) focuses on the badges around editing and curating posts, rather than just the total count.
Candidates are also encouraged to provide a personal statement about why they want to be a mod and what they would bring to the site, and I believe there are also a set of questions to answer or a chat-room based hustings type setup too.
Just voting by the numbers is like voting for politicians based on their appearance and doesn't end well.
I've seen candidates on other sites that have been comparatively new to the site, but have been active on meta and suggesting good edits that do well.
Also, each site has it's own community and feel, so what happens on one site may not be indicative of what happens here, but we shall see ;)


text:
Where did the questions go?
Over the last two weeks, there have been very few questions. Where did they go? We haven't asked all the questions about LEGO, we never will!

This may be less of a question (maybe) and more of an announcement, but...
If everyone who sees this sentence asks a good question, the community will come back!

The irony that this question remains unviewed and unanswered is sickening.

It's not just that the Questions are gone (though there was a bit of an influx the last few days), also the upvotes and answer approvals are not what they used to be. I spent some time and effort on a few of them with very little response. Almost feels like @CalebWoodman and I are the only two active members :)

Yep. As much as I'd hate to see this place go, I think we're far into burninatable territory.

Not anymore! Feels good.


text:
How to encourage identification tag users to elaborate in their titles?
I've been editing a lot recently, (I'm the only guy on the editor list,) and titles are bugging me.
What are we supposed to get from "what is this piece", "where this brick from" or "what number is this part"?
I know there has to be a better way to name your question. If it has a good title, people will answer and upvote it. Sometimes I make a title edit, but while I enjoy moderating, I can't do it for you.
How should we go about encouraging a title that explains its subject properly?

Poor quality identification questions and non-descriptive titles often go hand in hand. They have been an ongoing problem for the site.
First of all, we should encourage users to put reasonable effort into researching the parts they're interested in. We can do this by making people more aware of part/set libraries (such as Bricklink, Peeron and Brickset) as well as part/piece numbers that can be found hidden in most bricks.
Last year, I asked for support to have a 'how-to-ask' tips for identification tags, we had support for the idea and I had contacted a Stack Exchange Community Manager to get the featured added. I'm still hoping to hear from him and I've sent a reminder via SE chat to see if it can be implemented.
UPDATE: The 'how-to-ask' tip is now live for the identification tag!

We could probably edit the tag on part-id and id to directly ask them to use a title that describes the question.


text:
When is the next Moderator Election?
I may run, but only if it isn't very soon, I want to get more of a feel for these cold, empty forums.

We don't run moderator elections until a site has graduated. That's not in the cards any time soon.
The good news: we don't have any plans to close up shop.
If you are interested in helping out, some sites have had success building an audience with question challenges.

I have pioneered the challenge tag, but we need more active users to make it work!

There is now a moderator election occurring.  We must have graduated since this post.


text:
Brainstorm for boosting graduation qualifications
As we all know, we have very few questions per day. A lot of users log on, ask a question, and never return. Furthermore, a large number of questions are robotics or basic technology only.
However! We are still in beta. The number of views, users, and questions with answers may be greatly increased if we can reach full site status.

Check it out! We are actually doing well in three categories, fine in another. All we need is for our multiple hundred users to ask more questions and not be afraid to post answers, and we can move to the point where we can be a full site with more people, moderators, and all the other benefits.
Question: How do we get more questions and answers?
(May be rhetorical. Try it!)

Advertise at conventions.  I will be adding a QR code for bricks.SE to all my GBC modules.  Even though it says our numbers of users are "Excellent", I think adding more users will be the biggest help in boosting the other stats.

Having a 'core' community helps - I've been a mod 'pro tem' on SR.SE, and have involvement in a few other sites, and I've found some degree of activity in chat is pretty nice for this. Something like this would come up in chat, people talk about it (and other things!) and bounce ideas off each other in realtime. I for one, will try to pop into the chat for the next month or so, so there's at least someone on when people come in.
There's a few advantages to this - sometimes we share questions we come across where someone on chat is a subject matter expert, and you get pretty good retention if you get the right sense of community on.
That said, lego is a strange topic , since you either freestyle the hell out of things (Moocs!) or use the usually very clear instructions to build as per designs. A lot of existing questions are "identification type" questions (which are an oddity - and a generic question is what many sites do).
I suppose a 'related' question might be 'what sort of questions do I want to see here?' I'd love to see more questions over advanced techniques like building large curved structures. Would questions to do with the use of whatever's the design software people use these days (in my day it was lcad and various wrappers for that) be on topic, and would they be handy ?
My one question here so far involved a step I was stuck in - and I got an answer fast, things are good there.


text:
Should we add a "bag-identification" tag?
We have at least 50 questions about bags and what set they come from nowadays. But the skills required to determine the identity of an unmarked bag are not necessarily the same as those needed for piece-ID. I think that this is a big enough of a gap to constitute a new classification. Thoughts?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how it ended up on overflow on accident.

Personally I think set-identification would be better than "bag identification" - it would cover both "what set do these random pieces come from" and "what set did this unopened bag" come from - the skills required for both of those are the same.


text:
Is it time to phase out the identification tag?
Let's self-evaluate, guys. We have model-identification, piece-identification, and may soon have bag-identification. I know we've asked about merging stuff into basic identification, but I personally propose that we remove this tag, because there is no generic ID question that doesn't fall under the aforementioned three that I know of. Ideas? Anything blindingly obvious I'm missing?

This is a good call. There are currently 163 questions tagged as identification questions.
I will be going through the list to ensure any identification tagged questions are either tagged as piece-identification or set-identification as is the case per question.
I'm sure there will be a few identification questions that neither fall under 'pieces' or 'sets' but they appear to be very few and they can be addressed individually.
This may take some time, but I encourage everyone who is capable of doing so to re-tag, edit or suggest edits for these questions.
P.S. I think we also need to clearly distinguish the difference between piece-information and part-identification
UPDATE: The identification has been replaced.
New tags include minifigure-identificaiton and set-identification.

I have contacted a moderator to make sure the new identification tags include the 'how-to-ask' tooltips.


text:
Time to kill some tags!
We have a lot of leftover clutter from early beta, but what I notice primarily is the incredible number of unused tags. Can I get a few people to view the tag list and nominate a couple dozen unused tags here? Once we all agree on what should go, we'll burn 'em. Make sure to look at tags with only one question attached.

Tags not associated with any question are automatically destroyed at
  03:00 UTC every day.

A: "How can we get rid of misspelled and unused (or “zombie”) tags?"
I believe most of the unused tags in the end of the tag list are actually just tag synonyms for existing tags.

Thanks, Ambo! In that case, I'll just go ahead and de-tag some stuff. (I'll make sure to document it and post here, and I encourage others to do the same.)

I have some ideas lined up, but I want to make sure everyone agrees first.

Harry potter?

Hero Factory?

All these?

Tracked vehicle and tracks?

All these except patent and sensor?

I'd leave almost all of those - We should probably merge [tag:model-identification] into [tag:identification] although I think it was used for MOCs rather than official sets, the others may drop off over time (i.e. Brickowl has gone) but many of the others are related to specific themes or topics.