Site Scope Event

Henry WH Hack v2.0

Jan 2, 2017 18:00

[Event Status: Opened]

Aurora0001

Let me see if I can dig out what Robert Cartaino said about the Dark Web proposal

Ghanima

@Aurora0001 but in that case I do not get why they would start a beta that way

but then again I am not against "IoT" no matter how broad that current definition might be

Aurora0001

"Sometimes a technology buzzword can be a somewhat uncertain premise on which to build a site. Pop culture sees it as one thing; the actual participants use it for something else... and a fledgling community tries valiantly to tie it all together into something on which to build a site. It was a really good try, but this time it just did not work."

That was what was said about the Dark Web proposal

Do you think we face the same issue or will the tagline be enough?

Ghanima

well this is the point where the alternatives should be brought up

Aurora0001

Anyone got any ideas?

Or would it be better to discuss what's on/off-topic first

Henry WH Hack v2.0

Jan 2, 2017 18:04

I need my answer on Cloud Computing.

Ghanima

@Aurora0001 no, I'd say stick to your well formulated agenda

Aurora0001

Fair enough

OK then - taglines

Ghanima

I don't yet see amazing alternatives for the title coming up even when discussing the topicness

Aurora0001

@HenryWHHackv2.0 We'll get to it in a minute then

Henry WH Hack v2.0

Ok

goldilocks

Jan 2, 2017 18:05

Lemme preface this by apologizing for having signed up but not lived up to the commitment contribution wise. That doesn't mean I don't think the site is a bad idea. Anyway: I like "Q&A site for everyday objects embedded with electronics to be sensed, monitored, and controlled remotely" but I think "everyday" could be ditched. Does that seem like too minor a point?

4

Aurora0001

@goldilocks sounds fine to me

I suppose industrial devices connected to the Internet aren't exactly 'everyday'

But are still IoT

Bence Kaulics

Yep.

goldilocks

Yeah, exactly.

Helmar

I agree

Bence Kaulics

Also we should and somehow that these objects are connected

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 18:07

Also, by the way, if you want to 'vote' for an idea, just star it - that will be helpful for later

Helmar

Well, let's change everyday to interconnected

6

goldilocks

The "networked" aspect does seem integral.

Sean Houlihane

Scope outside everyday seems important in an emerging field...

Aurora0001

@goldilocks indeed, otherwise it's just electrical engineering/embedded devices

However, there is also the home automation aspect which is less connected to the 'networked' aspect

goldilocks

The only other private beta I've been in was the 2nd? 3rd? iteration of Embedded, and it is kind of amazing that failed 2 or 3 times, so that's something to consider. I think they mostly look at numbers.

Ghanima

Jan 2, 2017 18:10

in that case we maybe should distance ourselves from home automation unless it is networked/interconnected

Bence Kaulics

IMO if I set up a switch that opens a window if I push, that counts as home automation, but not IoT.

Aurora0001

@Ghanima that's true, however an awful lot of our questions are based around home automation, and some questions are obviously on-topic

goldilocks

I do think there's a potential tension between something consumer oriented and something developer oriented, although I dunno if it means they have to be mutually exclusive.

3

@Aurora0001 Yeah it would be hard to not include that.

Aurora0001

@BenceKaulics an important question to ask is: does it become IoT if you can control it by smartphone or something similar?

Where should we draw the line, exactly?

→ 1 message moved to Things

goldilocks

@Aurora0001 Well, very broadly you could say anything that's not a general purpose computer that relies on network connectivity to serve its purpose.

Helmar

Jan 2, 2017 18:13

So, "Q&A site for interconnected objects embedded with electronics to be sensed, monitored, and controlled remotely"

4

goldilocks

I'm wondering if we should say something about "for consumers and developers of..."

2

Henry WH Hack v2.0

15

Q: What exactly is an "Internet of Things" device?

So, let's define this part of our scope. What do we call an IoT device? Does it contain non-commercial products (for example hue being allowed but homemade iot devices being not allowed - I think that this is a bad idea)? Does it contain raspberry pi or similar devices? Will we allow other intern...

discussion

Helmar

Good point, do we want our target audience in the tagline? What's our target audience?

Ghanima

@goldilocks should that be in the tagline? or in the opener of the on-topic part of the FAQ

Aurora0001

@Helmar at the moment, "consumers and developers" is the way to go I think

Helmar

Jan 2, 2017 18:15

Q&A site for consumers and developers of interconnected objects embedded with electronics to be sensed, monitored, and controlled remotely

3

Aurora0001

We need to make it clear to visitors that we accept consumer-level questions (that's if we do want to accept them)

goldilocks

@HenryWHHackv2.0 The "proxy device" is an interesting line. I was initially going to say IP based, but a lot of radio based things aren't. Throwing in "proxy device" refines that.

Ghanima

@Helmar right now I don't think we could exclude either group as a targeted audience

Aurora0001

@Helmar I preferred @goldilocks's phrasing

Helmar

consumer or end user?

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 18:18

I can roll with @Helmar's new suggestion

@Helmar Either would work

Helmar

Any further suggestions?

Bence Kaulics

I support your last suggestion @Helmar.

Ghanima

nope, that's fine with me (and it's based on @goldilocks' suggestion, so I cannot say anything against it)

Aurora0001

I'm happy with it

goldilocks

I don't have a major preference("user", "consumer", "developer", "creator" -- well, maybe I like "developer" more), but I do think indicating that distinction explicitly, and that it is open to both, is good.

3

Obviously there's some cross-over between the two as well.

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 18:21

@goldilocks this is absolutely crucial in my opinion

Otherwise the experts think it's a consumer site and don't join

And vice versa

goldilocks

Exactly.

Aurora0001

So, is the tagline pretty much settled then?

Ghanima

aye

goldilocks

Seems pretty decent.

Bence Kaulics

Yep.

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 18:23

Next topic:

kenorb

@Aurora0001 Re above: There was no Dark Web proposal yet (afaik), but Deep Web, it was closed, because it was ambiguous, that's why I've created Dark Web proposal to narrow it down.

Aurora0001

Off-topic questions: which questions seem to be off-topic for the site, and can safely be listed in the Help Center as off-topic?

@kenorb Ah, sorry, I forgot the exact name

Helmar

0

A: Essential questions #4: site elevator pitch / tag line

Internet of Things is a Q&A site for consumers and developers of interconnected objects embedded with electronics to be sensed, monitored, and controlled remotely.

Aurora0001

@kenorb do you think this site has the same problem or it is better in your experience?

goldilocks

@Aurora0001 I think then the focus definition wise has to be on restraining the "user" half of the equation, because that is what is likely to get most out of control.

Helmar

Jan 2, 2017 18:24

- Purchasing recommendations

Gilles

@goldilocks Both numbers and quality. Embedded failed twice due to quantity but there were other private betas that had enough posts and users but failed to produce enough useful content. IIRC AI and sex both failed twice because of this.

kenorb

I think the name of this site is fine.

goldilocks

@Helmar Yeah, perfect. None of that.

Bence Kaulics

Over EE.SE we have askers who think that he can ask other to design a device for them. I think we could have the same here. So this site is not a design service.

Helmar

@BenceKaulics I agree, the site can help if one is stuck, but cannot act as a design service

Gilles

Jan 2, 2017 18:26

@goldilocks I'm wary of insisting of network connectivity. Some IoT devices don't have IP connections except maybe while they're being managed.

Bence Kaulics

Some initial idea, effort, plan is needed, and we should help find the problems with the idea.

kenorb

IoT has a wiki page, official definition, some standard organisations who cares about this name, the proper name is not so important as people. Life hacks site has more challenging definition what is life hack. IoT is still fine I think.

3

Bence Kaulics

Help to move on if someone stuck.

Aurora0001

So, to everyone: purchasing recommendations should go to Hardware Recommendations, would you say?

goldilocks

Yes.

Bence Kaulics

Jan 2, 2017 18:27

Agree or software recommendations.

goldilocks

We won't have ordinary migration paths though, so that's kind of abstract.

kenorb

@Gilles AI failed before, because of huge overlap with several sites at the same time (over 10 of them), so it was too confusing.

Aurora0001

@goldilocks Well, the mods can do that

goldilocks

Yeah, that's what we do...

Aurora0001

Here's an interesting question to think about - is this question on-topic?

Bence Kaulics

Jan 2, 2017 18:28

@goldilocks Also we could offer other sites in the help center where specific topic could be asked.

Gilles

@Helmar I don't think consumers is right. Or at least, that wouldn't be a site that I'm interested in (I'm a software developer, I write firmware for devices, some of which qualify as IoT). I think we should aim for developers and power users, not for anybody and their aunt.

2

Ghanima

@kenorb that could be an issue here too

as there is an very obvious overlap with many other sites

Aurora0001

@Gilles So you're thinking more the "Server Fault" of IoT?

Gilles

@goldilocks It's best to push experts forward. Non-experts will participate on an expert site anyway. Experts have no interest in a site that's inundated with “help my device won't turn on”.

kenorb

@Aurora0001 Services/product/software/libs recommendation should be off-topic (what this question is about). Most of the software recommendation is on-topic at Softwarerecs.SE

Gilles

Jan 2, 2017 18:30

@Aurora0001 The SO+SF of IoT (in this field, there's rather a continuum between development and administration)

Ghanima

@Aurora0001 given our current questions (and the user base) we have now it's a little hard to see how we can make it fly for developers and power users only

Helmar

I have no problem with changing consumers to power users

Bence Kaulics

@Aurora0001 Off-topic IMO.

Aurora0001

My concern about the idea is this: is the audience actually big enough if you exclude consumers altogether?

Gilles

@kenorb I'm worried that in a couple of years IoT will stop being a buzzword and this site will just be a bunch of unrelated topics with no cohesion. But I don't have a better name.

goldilocks

Jan 2, 2017 18:31

@Gilles Yes, part of my worry is the potential for too much consumer level stuff to discourage expert regulars.

2

Gilles

@Aurora0001 I don't want to exclude consumers, but I want to not focus on them.

kenorb

Then people can vote to change the site name.

Gilles

Information Security is a good example for that.

Aurora0001

@Gilles that's something I could support then

goldilocks

Then there's the inverse problem, as Aurora points out, which is why I think welcoming both, but focussing on constraining users/consumers in terms of definition.

Gilles

Jan 2, 2017 18:32

> Information Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for information security professionals.

Aurora0001

That tag line is far shorter than our proposed one

Gilles

> IT Security Stack Exchange is for Information Security professionals to discuss protecting assets from threats and vulnerabilities. Topics include, but are not limited to: (…)

Aurora0001

And much more straightforward

kenorb

google.com/trends/explore?q=IoT going up, a little drop at Christmas.

Gilles

See how the site focuses on professionals, but Information Security (unlike Server Fault) never rejects a question for being too non-professional. End-users can ask question and get useful answers if they're interested in understanding how things work.

3

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 18:34

As @Gilles says, the trouble with the current scope is that it's a combination of EE, consumer-level technology (Gadgets-style questions), Info Security, Cryptography, AI, Super User, Server Fault, Network Engineering, and a load more

kenorb

We can always post a meta post with proposal of the new site names and people can have their vote, if anybody is not after IoT.

Gilles

I think the site needs a barrier of entry if it's to be useful to professionals. Counter-example: Super User has no barrier to entry. Example: Unix & Linux has a barrier to entry, because not everybody thinks of themselves as a Unix user.

goldilocks

@Gilles I agree Isec is pretty good that way but at the risk of upsetting someone -- and this is just a casual vibe thing -- E.E., e.g., seems not so good that way, despite saying they're not just for professionals.

Aurora0001

@Gilles the barrier to entry serves as both a strength and a weakness, though

Ideally speaking, we want experts only

goldilocks

This is the tricky part.

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 18:37

But pragmatically speaking, we need more simple questions to survive

2

Sean Houlihane

There will never be enough experts who want to spend time here, unless we help some to grow to be experts.

2

Aurora0001

I simply don't think there are enough experts to sustain the site without lowering the barrier, at least a little

Gilles

@Aurora0001 No. Recommendations are best handled where the experts are, not ghettoed to their own site. Software Recommendations and Hardware Recommendations are not the way to go: they lack experts. If you want Android software you should ask on Android Enthusiasts, if you want Linux software you should ask on Unix & Linux, etc. The fact that those sites exist is due to a failure of moderation on some sites such as Super User and we should not follow this model.

Aurora0001

@Gilles so you suggest we accept them?

Bence Kaulics

I agree with @Sean. For example I am learning MQTT by the help of this site.

Gilles

Jan 2, 2017 18:38

@Aurora0001 Yes.

Aurora0001

Interesting thought, I haven't really looked around Software/Hardware Recs too much

Ghanima

@Aurora0001 I am afraid so

Aurora0001

So I don't know how well they work

Helmar

Are we re-discussing the tag-line or the on-off-topicness now?

goldilocks

The way we deal with a lot of off-topic and cross over stuff on Rpi is to just say it's a gray area, and we (mods and the community) use that to reserve the right to say no sometimes and okay sometimes.

Gilles

Jan 2, 2017 18:39

@Aurora0001 It's far too early for that. Give it a few months. Wait until we have experience of what off-topic questions people ask naturally, and not just the scope determination attempts of a few early adopters.

Ghanima

@Gilles shopping rec don't need to be referred to anywhere else, they could simply be off-topic

Aurora0001

@Gilles well, I'm not saying make everything except what we list off-topic

Gilles

@Ghanima Shopping recommendations are generally on-topic but not suitable. But most recommendation questions are not shopping recommendations, that's just a bogeyman pushed by some of the SU crowd.

goldilocks

@Ghanima I'm thinking of "closed as off-topic" with a comment recommending HR, and mods at their discretion always have the option to migrate.

Bence Kaulics

So we should accept if someone seeks open source resources?

Gilles

Jan 2, 2017 18:42

@BenceKaulics open- vs close-source is unrelated

Helmar

0

A: Essential questions #4: site elevator pitch / tag line

Another one from the chat event: Internet of Things is a Q&A site for power users and developers of interconnected objects embedded with electronics to be sensed, monitored, and controlled remotely.

Gilles

Browse Software Recommendations to get a feeling. Most questions there are not shopping recommendations. They're asking how to do something, with the expectation that there's some pre-made tool that will do most of the job. That's the definition of a recommendation question. It's not “what should I buy” but “how do I do my thing”.

Aurora0001

I suppose if we get beyond the stigma of recommendation questions, they can be useful

But they suffer the issue of becoming outdated quickly

Ghanima

@Gilles in that case it is just as you've said before, such questions should be where the experts are and not sent to HR SR

Aurora0001

Also, I think we might run into the issue of running out of stars soon

So, in that case, just say if you oppose instead :P

Ghanima

Jan 2, 2017 18:44

which then brings us back to the overlap with other sites infosec, unix, EE, whatnot

goldilocks

@Gilles No doubt, but I do think literal "What foo control hub should I get to do foo?" should be closeable that way. There are variations on it that are okay, and it is good to encourage people to make that kinds of distinctions -- i.e., how to ask a good and not a bad question.

Helmar

Ok, so we do not seem to have a consensus on making recommendations off-topic per se, right?

Maybe we should focus on on-topic first

goldilocks

@Ghanima No worries remember ;) In all seriousness I think (sort of like Gilles is saying) there's a feel for this which will evolve.

Aurora0001

It seems not, @Helmar

Gilles

@goldilocks No, that question is fine if it has precise enough requirements and some way to rate answers.

It's no different from “why won't my device turn on”, which is obviously not a suitable question if the question gives nothing else to go on but can be perfectly fine with e.g. a wiring diagram

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 18:49

I much prefer the solution here:

Q&A is Hard, Let's Go Shopping!

Jeff Atwood on November 23, 2010

Over the last 2.5 years, we've identified a few problematic classes of questions that tend to get asked on our sites. Many of these are documented in our standard set of close reasons: exact duplicate, off-topic, subjective and argumentative, not a real question, and too localized.

goldilocks

Have I dropped the "gray areas" concept enough yet?

Ghanima

@goldilocks sure, the feel will evolve... but until then where would you ask given the overlap, at the established site or at IoT

Gilles

@Aurora0001 That post is bad and Jeff should be ashamed.

Aurora0001

Why would you say that?

Gilles

I recommend what I wrote on SR:

27

A: What is required for a question to contain "enough information"?

A software recommendation question has two essential components: a goal to accomplish, and a set of requirements. The goal establishes the setting and explains in broad terms what you want to do with that software. The requirements put specific constraints that the software must satisfy. Think o...

goldilocks

Jan 2, 2017 18:50

@Gilles Yeah I'm a little confused -- at a glance he seems to be saying what you're saying, which is a very well written shopping recommendation is okay.

Whoops never mind.

Aurora0001

Still, the solution Jeff proposes makes question/answer pairs that are valid for years

Shopping questions just asking for a product are valid for a year, maybe two

Bence Kaulics

So going back to this question:

12

Q: Is there a fully open source platform for IoT presentation and visualization?

I had decided to use the AWS IoT communications platform in order to talk with our sensors. However, when it comes to visualization, I was hoping it wouldn't be necessary to reinvent the wheel. As you can see in the above picture, the IoT framework connects to an application server. My previo...

web-services

Aurora0001

Maybe less in a rapidly evolving market like IoT

Bence Kaulics

@Gilles is it OK?

goldilocks

I agree with the Jeff thing too, you should be able to spin your question such that it is not a literal shopping request. If you can't, then you probably don't have a worthwhile question.

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 18:52

I'm torn about that question personally though - answers may not be useful for very long but the question itself is very useful

As shown by all the voting

Gilles

@Aurora0001 Length of validity is a bit of a red herring. For example SO has plenty of “how do I communicate with this online API?” which have historical interest only when the server API changes. Whereas some hardware doesn't change all that much on the scale of how long SO has existed, and some old software lasts even longer.

Aurora0001

So perhaps it's best to allow well-formed ones after all, and just curate the answers to keep them valid

Gilles

@Aurora0001 yes, that

Aurora0001

I admit I've gone in a full circle with my opinions

But I take your point on the validity issue

Gilles

@Aurora0001 so you're reinventing the wheel?

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 18:54

@Gilles improving the wheel

I say keep the good shopping questions and bin the rest as 'too broad'/'unclear what you're asking'

Opinions?

goldilocks

Part of the reason I like the plain jane "no recommendations" thing is it spares a lot of tedious moderation work. Tweaking things that are already well formed to make it fair is less work.

2

Gilles

@goldilocks We can shorten that to “no questions” and we'll have even less moderation work

goldilocks

True.

Aurora0001

@goldilocks Might need to be re-evaluated as the site grows, but in a small community it hardly matters

Helmar

I can work with too broad/unclear or on-topic

goldilocks

Jan 2, 2017 18:56

Also true.

Aurora0001

There probably won't be an awful lot of moderation work at the minute, with 2 or 3 questions per day

Gilles

@BenceKaulics That's a good example of a good recommendation question

goldilocks

So maybe we should not explicitly ban recommendations...as long as people are aware of the quality pitfalls, which it seems we are, it should all work out.

Helmar

Ok, I tried to make a basis for an on-topic list: docs.google.com/document/d/…

Henry WH Hack v2.0

I'm still waiting to put my questions on cloud computing.

Helmar

Jan 2, 2017 18:57

I made off-topic a bit vague

goldilocks

@Aurora0001 Give it six months or so ;) Twenty questions a day doesn't sound like a lot either, but...

Aurora0001

@goldilocks it'll be 1 question a day in 6 months :P

Helmar

List is based on: meta.iot.stackexchange.com/a/164/78

Bence Kaulics

So then accept recommendations in general and make closure decisions based on the quality of the specifications provided by the OP?

2

Helmar

@BenceKaulics Looks like it

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 18:59

Anyone against this?

Henry WH Hack v2.0

[Event Status: Closed]

Aurora0001

I take it that's a no

Alright then, @HenryWHHackv2.0's question now:

Is cloud computing on-topic?

goldilocks

I think it needs to very clearly involve IoT devices.

Helmar

If that cloud controls something physical, sure

Aurora0001

So cloud computing to analyse data from sensors is on-topic then, would you say?

goldilocks

Jan 2, 2017 19:03

Of course.

Bence Kaulics

Yes.

Gilles

More generally, how specific does a question have to be to IoT to be on-topic?

Is a general Linux question on-topic if Linux is being used on an IoT device? (Assume that there's no ambiguity that the device qualifies as IoT)

Aurora0001

I would say no, but the community seems to tolerate them anyway

goldilocks

With so much potential cross over, we are bound to have questions that would be better on S.O. or E.E. or whatever, but that's fine. I've joked Rpi.SE is a gateway drug, and I know not everyone on S.E. is a fan of that perspective (the interconnectedness), but it is also inevitable.

Bence Kaulics

Do general Linux questions are on-topic on Raspbery Pi.SE?

Ghanima

Jan 2, 2017 19:05

@Aurora0001 I wouldn't go for a generally yes

Helmar

No, they aren't

Gilles

Example of a site scope that's inclusive: on Unix & Linux, as long as you're running a suitable OS, the question is on-topic. Even if it's about a cross-platform application and doesn't involve any OS-specific aspect. Because the asker isn't supposed to know what is OS-specific and what isn't.

Helmar

"We have an unusual amount of "off-topic" questions because of the extensive overlap with our sibling sites at Unix & Linux, Stack Overflow, and Electrical Engineering. When in doubt, ask there first. Questions where the Raspberry Pi is not a significant factor will likely be closed."

Gilles

If I use Linux and I have a question about Firefox, I don't care that it also happens to run under Windows.

Ghanima

@BenceKaulics nope

Gilles

Jan 2, 2017 19:06

Raspberry Pi is much more exclusive.

Aurora0001

@Gilles that's a good point, so perhaps we should just accept any question that runs on a connected device as long as it's not blatantly about something else

Would we be spread too thinly though?

goldilocks

@BenceKaulics That was/has been a big issue for me. Technically, as Helmar points out, our off-topic page says they are off topic -- but a huge volume of our questions are U&L appropriate. This is a prime example of what I meant by "discretionary gray area". My thinking on this evolved a lot (i.e. I switched sides after a long struggle).

Aurora0001

Yeah, loads of RPi.SE questions would be on-topic at U&L, but there wouldn't be much left if they were excluded

goldilocks

Put another way, there's a point where people should not be led down too far down a garden path, but that doesn't mean we build a wall either.

Aurora0001

About 25% of questions on RPi are tagged Raspbian

Hence they might be on-topic elsewhere

goldilocks

Jan 2, 2017 19:08

Exactly. I thought that was a big mistake intially, but...

Henry WH Hack v2.0

Does IOT means any device that is internet connected or any device that can connect to any network other that the internet?

goldilocks

I dunno how well it will apply here: A lot of our users are brand new to linux and don't have any intention of using it anywhere else, so it does make sense for us to deal with it. Which has evolved, and works, but we still reserve the right to say off topic.

Aurora0001

I suggest we try that policy out and see how it goes

goldilocks

@HenryWHHackv2.0 That's where I thought the "proxy device" (an IP connected hub is involved) a useful, objective concept.

Ghanima

@Aurora0001 hey!

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 19:11

As @Gilles has said, it is very early to decide

Helmar

@goldilocks Doesn't have to be IP

Bence Kaulics

@HenryWHHackv2.0 Not generally, my laptop is internet connected but not necessarly IoT. Also excluding the internet from the possible networks is not the way either IMO.

Ghanima

@Aurora0001 and I second that

Helmar

Ok, next topic?

goldilocks

@Helmar Well, Internet of things...

Sean Houlihane

Jan 2, 2017 19:14

@HenryWHHackv2.0 The device needs to be connected to other devices (or in parallel with other devices) in some way, this is the primary point rather than having an IP address. The connection could be by periodic wi-fi drive-by collection in a sufficiently rural scenario, but the devices would still be operating as a network of sensors.

goldilocks

Yeah -- like ham radio is off-topic.

But baby monitors, okay.

This distinction makes that work.

Actually I guess it doesn't :/

But it would rule out certain types of basic radio baby monitors that should be off-topic.

Aurora0001

Annoyingly, it's easy to say if it's on/off-topic by looking

But putting it into words is a lot harder

Helmar

Well, which of the following on-topic points would you want to change? docs.google.com/document/d/…

goldilocks

@Aurora0001 A legalistic way around that would be to stress the (inter)networked stuff, but again not explicitly say "Anything which doesn't eventually connect to something with an IP address is off-topic".

Aurora0001

@Helmar I feel like it would be better to try and avoid referencing 'IoT' where possible

If we can, it'd be nice to make it clearer by providing concrete definitions

@goldilocks sounds OK to me

Helmar

Jan 2, 2017 19:22

I guess we could replace IoT always with interconnected

goldilocks

@Helmar I think that's all fine. Very possibly this is a distinction which isn't that important except to the extent that we should be able to define "IoT" clearly and succinctly.

Ghanima

it would be less recursive that way

Aurora0001

The first point could be something like "Questions about networked consumer devices and their features" instead of "How to get IoT product X to do Y"

Bence Kaulics

Sounds good.

goldilocks

"Interconnected" and "dedicated purpose" is I think the crux of it. Oh and maybe "non-military" ;)

Sean Houlihane

Jan 2, 2017 19:26

Maybe 'interconnected or managed/processed remotely'

goldilocks

@BenceKaulics Ditto.

Aurora0001

"Cloud services that interact with remote input/output devices" perhaps?

Helmar

I'll leave the original suggestion in brackets to not confuse anyone

Gilles

@goldilocks so you're excluding devices in industrial installations, in cars, in space, etc.?

Helmar

They can have tons of local IPs

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 19:30

"The security of IoT solutions, professionally or at home." could become "Securing networked devices and their data" or something similar?

Gilles

@Aurora0001 I would not list “Networked consumer devices and their features” as on-topic. That includes “how do I descale my [connected] coffee maker?”, which I think should be off-topic.

Aurora0001

Well, at the moment, those questions are on-topic

And there are an awful lot of them

We could try and change that though, if there is consensus

Helmar

Well we hadn't really an it doesn't turn on question

Gilles

Turn on could be on-topic, I think. I amended my counterexample to descaling.

Helmar

Our questions mostly have more substance, ranging from a bit to a lot.

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 19:32

Ah, right, I see your point now

I would agree that those are off-topic @Gilles

goldilocks

@Aurora0001 I think that got qualified with an edit re: "descaling", which should and would be off-topic.

Helmar

I added remote control to the line

Gilles

but it's subtle, because a question related to a scale measurement sensor could be on-topic

goldilocks

Is that subtle?

Aurora0001

I think we should just exercise common sense and close obviously off-topic questions @Gilles, rather than carefully wording it so that the line is drawn

Ghanima

Jan 2, 2017 19:34

@Gilles tbh I guess the community and the moderators will figure out and closevote appropriately if it is about descaling and not IoT

Aurora0001

Anyone who would ask that question probably didn't read the Help Center anyway :P

I'm not sure how I feel about 'remote control' though

goldilocks

@Aurora0001 Yes, "legalistic" it may be but still does not have to stand up in court, etc. "My question is fair your honor!" -> No, it isn't. Sorry. Probably I am a hanging judge ;)

Aurora0001

I don't think it quite captures what we want it to be

goldilocks

No, RC vehicles and such are not IoT.

Aurora0001

@goldilocks I prefer to think of the mods as benevolent dictators in deciding the scope

Ghanima

Jan 2, 2017 19:37

@goldilocks He is! He is!

Aurora0001

Are the on-topic reasons perhaps a little bit too specific?

A lot of other SE sites are far more broad with their suggestions

Helmar

If it's a networked remote control vehicle it may be

Aurora0001

E.g. Super User just say this:

"Super User is for computer enthusiasts and power users. If you have a question about …

computer hardware,
computer software, or
personal and home computer networking"

And then list a lot of off-topic things

Should we do that rather than create a "whitelist" of on-topic questions?

kenorb

IoT refers to the infrastructure, not device it-self (device can't be IoT, but part of it), so any device that can be used as sensor connected to any network, is part of IoT

3

Bence Kaulics

@kenorb I agree and I have no more stars.

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 19:42

I'll cheat and use a pin to star it

@Helmar perhaps change the first point in your alternative to 'interconnected devices and their infrastructure'?

Point #2 then becomes a bit redundant

Overall though I'm very happy with the alternative proposal

Helmar

Merged #1 and #2

Not sure about that et cetera though :D

Ghanima

@Aurora0001 agreed

Aurora0001

Perhaps avoid listing all that at all @Helmar?

Just leave it as implied by the first point

Helmar

I think we should keep security and privacy

Aurora0001

Perhaps so

Ghanima

Jan 2, 2017 19:47

@Helmar as those should be prime concerns with IoT: yes

Aurora0001

@Helmar maybe fold "protocols and networking" into "interfacing"?

Put them both into one point?

Helmar

Concrete wording suggestions?

Sean Houlihane

Security, yes. Privacy could be implicit if you wanted to make it a bit more brief, but I'm not sure.

Gilles

I suggest on holding off on any bullet list until a few months down the road, after we've seen what kind of questions people naturally ask. For the moment, focus on a one-sentence and a two-three sentence description.

Aurora0001

I think it would be helpful to have a short bullet list

Perhaps no more than 3 points

Just enough guidance to give people a bit of an idea what we want

We probably need a bit more guidance than other SE sites since the scope is a little less clear

Helmar

Jan 2, 2017 19:53

@Gilles What would be the content of those sentences?

goldilocks

Isn't that our "users and developers of networked special? purpose devices" thing?

The elevator pitch. Or is topicality a separate spin on same?

Sans bullet list I mean.

Helmar

So, just make a good elevator pitch and let the rest come in the next months?

Aurora0001

@Helmar That could work, and how we are shaped will depend on which experts and users come

If we share mainly with home automation communities, expect home automation to be a bigger topic

goldilocks

OTOH, as Aurora implies, bullet lists work. Just we don't need to fuss too much now.

Like the elevator pitch should be the priority.

Aurora0001

Honestly, the thing is a lot of people won't find the help center anyway

A lot of people don't even read the tour, never mind anything else

The elevator pitch will be a great help though

Helmar

Jan 2, 2017 19:59

True enough

So this was the last tagline we had: meta.iot.stackexchange.com/a/167/78

Ghanima

so, we keep the list to us for now?

goldilocks

@Aurora0001 Very common pattern: New user, first question, no informed badge (= did not take tour), inappropriate question. Most people unfamiliar with S.E. are coming from forums, which is of course a different paradigm, and the paradigm shift can be confusing.

Aurora0001

@Ghanima Perhaps so, the community team don't seem keen on having a big list yet

@goldilocks A more sceptical person might say they don't really care - they just want an answer

Although I do think the Help Center isn't exactly easy to find

Doesn't the tour automatically load though when you join?

Ghanima

@Aurora0001 but the list is going to be a tool for the community too not just the new users

Sean Houlihane

Should we at least record the issues in meta, so people who come along with strong ideas can be given a quick-start on where we think we're headed?

kenorb

Jan 2, 2017 20:02

You can publish list as wiki on meta as guidance what's on topic at the scope thread.

And people can comment what they like or not.

Aurora0001

@SeanHoulihane I think so, it would be useful to have a couple of questions based on the outcomes of this

goldilocks

@Aurora0001 For sure that is often true. But a lot of time it is pure innocence. I can empathise with seeing the gimpy looking tour and figuring I need not bother right now, I just have this one question.

kenorb

E.g. in here meta.iot.stackexchange.com/q/79/271

Aurora0001

@goldilocks That's very true, the learning curve of SE is quite steep

kenorb

Re site tag, I like mine (users of the "smart devices" connected into the physical world computer-based systems), because it's not re-inventing the definition, and "smart devices" is another name for IoT and it needs to be connected.

E.g. Internet of Things is ... a place for all questions IoT. - is circular in its scope

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 20:06

@kenorb are you talking about this one? Essential questions #4: site elevator pitch / tag line

kenorb

Yes.

Aurora0001

That's not a bad suggestion - perhaps 'creators' should be included too?

kenorb

and 'enthusiasts and users' is the similar approach taken from SU, creators are enthusiasts as well

Aurora0001

Perhaps so, that could work

Helmar

All the tag lines are just barely voted on

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 20:10

Yeah, seems like not a lot of people really care much

goldilocks

Personally I still think "developers" has more appeal than "creators" if you want to indicate the broadest possible spectrum. "Creator" and "enthusiast" would fall somewhere in the middle -- but maybe that's idiosyncratic of me.

Aurora0001

@goldilocks I like that idea really. After all, with experience from SO, I can tell you there are a lot of developers who are not enthusiasts by any means.

Ghanima

@Helmar there's now so many of them

Aurora0001

10 different suggestions

Ranging from +2 to -7

goldilocks

@Aurora0001 That makes a certain kind of sense, the thrill of playing with computers 16 hours a day probably wears off most people.

Aurora0001

Jan 2, 2017 20:15

Still, we don't care if you're avoiding your job by asking us questions as long as they're a good standard!

goldilocks

@kenorb 's take is an interesting contrast to me in the sense that I read that and see "blah blah buzzword blah marketing colloquialism etc." -- but I think I have am prejudicial that way and some kind of mind melding may be appropriate. "Smart device" is a significant, useful term.

Aurora0001

@goldilocks personally I'd like to avoid buzzwords if possible - those buzzwords might fall out of popularity in future, leaving the site without a real definition

Helmar

I guess we just have to feature that question and get some votes in

goldilocks

@Aurora0001 The flip side, which is why that made me think about my own prejudices, is that buzzwords are like bullet lists -- they work. I'm very stickly about things, I like them nailed down, dissected, etc., but I'm aware many or most people may find it a bit much. I would make a horrible salesman, and we are talking about selling something (an "elevator pitch").

Aurora0001

Better ask at Startups.SE in that case ;)

They might have some business-minded people

kenorb

Jan 2, 2017 20:29

Re: "smart devices" appears in Internet of things wiki page in the first sentence. If you go to Smart device wiki page, the IoT is in See also section.

goldilocks

Yeah, people know what it means. This saves us a bit the more stickly awkward networked/physical/etc. language.

Aurora0001

Yeah, thinking about it and what @goldilocks said, it might be best to use terms people recognise rather than a clunky definition that doesn't really help a lot

goldilocks

Although I still really, really think "networked" is a critical qualifier.

Even if it borders on redundant ("IoT").

Aurora0001

Perhaps it might be best to just try something that seems nearly right, and see how that goes

We can always iterate if the first suggestion doesn't work well

Ghanima

@Aurora0001 we can

Gilles

Jan 2, 2017 20:33

@goldilocks designers? builders?

Ghanima

and we need to make ourselves understand that there will be no "perfect" here

Aurora0001

@Ghanima 'Good enough' is perhaps the best we can get

And it'll be hard to tell exactly how much impact the tag line has

Ghanima

but it kept you kids off the streets for a few hours and that's already a good thing

goldilocks

Jan 2, 2017 20:46

@Gilles To me "developer" captures people who may not be involved in design, or at least not the most abstract, higher levels of design. As in, I see my value to others as primarily solving implementation problems. WRT the name of the rose: S.O.'s "developer story". It's a "just so" kind of word.

I'd put "designer" or "creator" in the middle, closer to the consumer, because there's an "enthusiast" there with them.

We could make our spectrum line the silhouette of a pyramid with "creator" at the top and "user" and "developer" facing away from one another at either end. ;)

2

Ghanima

@goldilocks and this is where it gets philosophical

goldilocks

See I intentionally did not use the P word.

Chat of Things

Participants