-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 895
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update showcases.js #167
Update showcases.js #167
Conversation
Thank you @TurboEgon for starting the discussion with this PR again as I felt that was a bold claim and so I just edited the text to "one of the first" to merge #129. For me personally, this is still a bold statement, as for example, the first "full on-chain NFT" was likely just a token with the quantity one. The project is cool and has my appreciation it's just about the details here. Happy to hear other opinions on this one, also around what does that even mean being a"full on-chain" NFT? |
I think, if the word "interactive" was added to the first sentence as well, the claim might hold true until proven otherwise. |
Hello together, thank you for commenting! |
@TurboEgon I agree with the other claim in the description but it is not relevant for this discussion and btw it was already changed 20 minutes ago. 7e3f967 (however not yet merged) |
@katomm it's difficult to argue here without using of examples. @MarcelKlammer: but why then not to let my claim "first 100% on-chain" -> until proven otherwise? Why is the burden of proof reversed here in comparrison to the other projects on the showcase? |
This is an important discussion, and as I see it, we have two options:
I'd love to hear more opinions on this, maybe even other options - therefore I summon other contributors to weigh in: |
Hello @katomm, thank you for pushing this discussion. |
IMO - showcase should not be a place for advertisement of granular details like which project was first, it's a tribal attribute known to cause rift and conflicts, projects are free to list their wordings on their sites, this probably goes for any existing projects using similar verbiage (whether they exist on the page already or new ones). For this PR as an example, the uniqueness |
I'm happy to share my personal opinion. I think we should remove claims... not because they are false or true but because the description should describe the project and not list claims. Its not always easy to draw a line, I understand, but thats why we are having this discussion. I just read all descriptions to get an overview and I count 1 project with the claim largest and 5 projects with the claim first (including one of the first) I'm on my phone, so i might have messed this up but anyways... not too many bold claims in the other 50ish projects. Generally there are pretty good summaries of what the projects are about. (Not all... but most) I understand that NFTs have a special interest to be first, but to me, a description like that takes away something from the project. It reminds me of these comments on twitch where 5 guys hack first into the chat all at the same time and are forgotten as soon as the chat fills up. @TurboEgon I really like your NFT and I think you under sell it by stating it is the first of its kind... in your description you could talk about gravity coded onto the blockchain, or if you used newtons laws of motion to calculate the orbits write about that awesomeness... coin the term for that next gen tech you used. Maybe it sticks. Its an awesome project and hopefully not your last. |
this is a good opinion and sets a good example on what we can include in the guidelines for listing projects in the future, I definitely agree that anything that claims something should be auto declined. Projects should just describe what the products do and maybe make the claims on their website / GitHub instead. |
My reason for pointing out the "First fully on-chain"-claim for Stellar Hood description was that it was a big effort to develop this technology and convince the right people to support it. It has never been done before and its a massive technical challange to fit a 3d interactive application inside 16kb tx limit. Please understand that after hundreds hours of work on this technology and finaly releasing my project its just a punch in the face to hear "Your NFT is the same as a quantity 1 token without image and thats why we changed your claim to 'one of the first' without asking". Having said that: |
@TurboEgon I have already written to all the projects that this affects and asked for an update, please provide yours if you have a few minutes. Furthermore, I would like to stress that no one said "your NFT is the same as a quantity 1 token without image and thats why we changed your claim to 'one of the first' without asking" - I was nitpicking on the term “on-chain” and in no way meant to belittle your work. Thank you. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As discussed, please provide an updated description without using claims like "the first XY".
This could be our PR template. But I don't know if this is too much... but as I mentioned in the discussion about #167: adding a little resistance to showcase PRs could improve quality... Tell me what you think @katomm @Mercurial @rdlrt
cardano --> Cardano (capital lettered)
Update showcase descriptions without claims of being the first something. See #167
@katomm