Nerf post quality: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
m (Herbert W moved page Post quality to Nerf post quality: Thi sis specific to /c/nerf) |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
If you aren’t sure whether a post meets this standard, then please consider [https://discuss.online/c/nerfchatter nerf chatter] as an alternative. | If you aren’t sure whether a post meets this standard, then please consider [https://discuss.online/c/nerfchatter nerf chatter] as an alternative. | ||
[[Category:Nerf]] [[Category:Community]] |
Latest revision as of 15:45, 28 June 2023
We have moderate post quality standards here. Someone who sees your post should get something out of it, even if it isn’t much. Posts should inform or impress at least a little.
We need to spell this out like this becasue we have young users.
Examples of low-effort posts that we might remove include:
- A redundant post, i.e. of something that's already been posted.
- A question that could have been easily answered by Google.
- A picture of a single blaster that isn’t modified, very rare, also reviewed in your post, part of thrift Thursday, or part of a question “e.g. what blaster is this?”
- Concept art that’s out of scale and/or doesn’t take into account how the blaster might work internally.
With that being said, we do want to see things like:
- Your modifications and paintjobs, even if it's your first try.
- Questions, even if they sound silly, so long as they aren't better answered on a search engine.
- Anything else that's not off-topic (see sidebar). If there's a tag for it, it's welcome.
If you aren’t sure whether a post meets this standard, then please consider nerf chatter as an alternative.