Hi, I have plenty of suggestions so far, most of them grammatical, but I like what I see; it’s high quality. I’ll share my suggestions if you want to hear them.
In this lesson https://www.learn-go.net/lessons/14/, the puzzles at the bottom just seem to show an empty board, with nothing setup. This happens after clicking on both “Endgame” and “Endgame tricks”, which is also an odd label, since the page is about the “Middle game”
Another note: lesson 14 seems to be missing in the main menu, but it is accessible from finishing lesson 13.
1 Like
Ah curses, sorry should be fixed now. It was a not yet finished chapter I accidentally published with other changes.
1 Like
Sure, let me hear them 
Or if there really is a lot shoot me a PM and we can work out maybe a more efficient solution so you do not have to retype everything here. Thank you for taking the time.
3 Likes
Regretting not building the site in GitHub so all these generous bystanders can simply submit PR requests for you yet? 
Well since you asked, It’s on GitLab 
I just don’t bother too much with for simple typos and stuff, often it’s just easier for me to do it as I know the structure.
3 Likes
Pretty sure I said GitHub 
So far I have 16, taking up 32 lines in my Notepad document with word wrap on—and that’s just up to lesson 15. I can just copy-and-paste them into here or wherever you like.
One or two may have been caught already, but I don’t care too much.
Sure, let me hear them
Some questions:
- Do you want people to submit merge requests with content edits and suggestions?
- The repo indicates “No license. All rights reserved”. Are there plans to make things available under some sort of free license?
- What are the contribution guidelines (i.e., for larger content contributions)? How would that interact with copyright and licensing?
- Just out of curiosity, why GitLab instead of GitHub?
- Since you mentioned operating costs at the bottom of the site, are you already using the free hosting provided by GitLab pages? If not, I guess switching to that could reduce operating costs to only the costs of keeping the custom domain name registered.
2 Likes
Some answers:
Yes, anyone feel free to submit a PR, I am trusting you to be reasonable, obviously we won’t agree on every word choice… Please try to keep any PR focused with some decent description. Not a bunch of unrelated edits in many files.
Absolutely. I just wanted to make a tutorial and couldn’t be bothered to read through licensing stuff (boring). I am fine with any non-comercial reuse. If you can tell me off the top of your head what to chose I will change it, otherwise I will get myself to do it some day.
Honestly not sure what you mean by that, can you rephrase for me somehow? 
You would have to ask @lswest he did all the work setting up the initial web structure, I just followed suit and did not care which one.
Yes, currently I am paying only for the domain name, which was more than I expected for a silly .net (since everything .com is taken), but still is a forgetable price. Hence I debated with myself a lot, whether to even put the donate button there or not, but eventually figured that (since it was a lot of work) and if I am honest about it should be fair enough. I might consider switching to something faster than the free hosting one day, but that is a topic for future and I guess a nerdy Go tutorial might not need too much bandwidth 
4 Likes
The first three questions are all kind of related, so let me try to explain why I asked them.
First, I am not a lawyer and nothing that I say should be considered legal advice. The below is just my rough (and potentially flawed) understanding.
I’m happy that you are willing to release the content under some sort of free license. I think that putting the work under “public-ish” domain would be good for longevity of the project and increase the benefit to the go community.
To explain why I believe this is beneficial, we can take the “Interactive Way to Go” (IWTG) website as an example. I think IWTG is a great resource, but I believe its usability and hence relevance has suffered from lack of developer attention in modernizing its interface (even just ensuring compatibility with modern browsers). Since the content and code does not appear to be freely available for others to adapt, the project seems doomed to just fade away. However, had the content been released under some sort of free license, and the project managed as some sort of open collaborative effort, then I believe it would have been possible for others to step up and help modernize it, or at least adapt it’s content (text, figures, examples) into a new modern interface. Instead, since that is not the case, you (@AdamR) and your collaborators have even gone to a great effort in rebuilding a new site from scratch (creating both new code and content).
I would recommend looking at the Creative Commons licenses. Since you want to restrict commercial use, perhaps you may consider one of these:
- CC BY-NC 4.0 Deed | Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International | Creative Commons
- CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Deed | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International | Creative Commons.
I think it is essential to make decisions about licensing and clarify terms for others making contributions sooner rather than later.
I believe the copyright on this work is now just jointly held by you, Lucas, @Kosh, and Joshua. Any decision to release the work under a license (like Creative Commons) would have to be agreed by all of you. Once other people start contributing substantially (e.g., writing or rewriting text, providing figures/examples, etc.), then I believe that they might also have some stake in terms of copyright (unless they agree to explicitly waive those rights). Hence, contributors (at a minimum) also need to agree that their contributions to the work can be released under the same licensing terms (although some licenses, with “Share Alike” provisions, might automatically force them to do this).
Contributor guidelines would cover both these legal (related to copyright and licensing) and logistical requirements. The legal requirements might state something along the lines of “if you want to contribute to this project (e.g., submitting content changes via pull requests), you agree to release your work under the same licensing terms as the project”. A more stringent contributor rule would be to require all contributors to relinquish and transfer copyright to you. That might give you more flexibility to relicense the work later on (without having to track down all of the contributors to get their approval).
Contributor guidelines on the logistical side of things would be explaining what you might expect or not want in pull requests. Asking for smaller, focused pull requests that address only one issue at a time is a typical logistical guideline.
3 Likes
for the pro game review:
a little confusing:
- comment on …
- move 9: “This one space approach is complete classic” -> “…completly classic.”
- move 13: “And what follows will be a great example of calm play.” -> “…is a great example…”
- move 26: “A bit of territory, a base for…the lone stone a nice potential to develop…” -> “the lone stone, a nice potential…” (run-on sentance)
- move 35: “A move I am sure my SDK friends would be saying:…” -> “A move I’m sure would have my SDK friends saying,…”
typos:
- comment on …
- move 26: “…should black fail to safe that lone stone.” -> “…to save that lone stone.”
- move 53: “…take away the eyes pace…” -> “…the eye space…”
- move 73: “From here in ot starts to get…” -> “From here in it starts to get…”
3 Likes
Thank you, should be fixed
3 Likes
The web app crashes Firefox, but works fine on Chrome. I use Android.
Hello @aulavik and thank you for the info. I am a bit confused though. You have linked an old test version of the tutorial @climu tried on OSR months back and I completely forgot about. Not even sure how you found it 
. The official release (www.learn-go.net) should work fine on Firefox - it does for me at least - or indeed any major mobile or PC browser. Could you try that one and let me know if it does?
Meanwhile I will see if climu can update or take down the olden link.
Thanks!
3 Likes
Apologies. I am so out of date. Yes the new link works.
5 Likes
Hi @AdamR,
I just wanted to offer some more feedback about the site.
I find it a bit awkward to navigate through the lessons under the “Basic Strategies” section. There are buttons to press to show each part, then one has to click through the SGF via the WGo widget, but then the text is show in a small box, with small font, that one has to scroll through. It feels particularly difficult on mobile, since after looking at each sub-part of the lesson, I need to scroll back up to click on another button. Perhaps it would be better to expand out the content vertically in the page, so one just needs to scroll down to read more, rather than having to go back and forth with a bunch of clicking.
In lesson 13, one of the sub-lessons shows a diagram of the smallest groups with two eyes, however, some shapes are missing. See: https://senseis.xmp.net/?SmallestGroupWithTwoEyes
In lesson 14, when the knight’s move is mentioned. it is explained that an attempt at cutting could be countered by a ladder. However, a ladder might not always work. Another point to make is that black could always just extend (from the lone cut-off stone), and although black is cut, white is also cut, which may or may not be favorable for white.
I really want to second the other suggestions about changing some of the wording/language that implies that the concepts are easy. Words like “obvious” and interjections like “duh” really serve no positive purpose and could be off-putting to some beginners. Some readers may immediately grasp new concepts, but others might struggle.
Are there any plans to finish the hidden 14th lesson on the middle game?
4 Likes
Hello, @yebellz, thanks for taking the time to put all the ideas down. To be perfectly honest, right now the whole project is lower on my priorities, it took a lot of my time already and now I need to attend other things. But I am certainly planning to get back to it, and will try to work in all the feedback, then
Yeah, I completely agree unfortunately it was the best I could come up with at the time. I am well aware it is a bit of a compromise, and am still hoping to come up with something better eventually. Having all the “sub-lectures” one beneeth the other is something I considered as well, but having too many of the interactive boards in one page proved quite difficult and crashed my mobile browsers, sadly.
Huh, I don’t think I ever said these are all of them, but I thought so. this should be an easy one to fix, might do it later today even, thanks.
Not sure I understand, I thought my explanation “Those stones can be cut apart though (if ladder favours the other player)” is already suggesting the ladder does not always work and the rest of the variation even shows the failed ladder… Is it not clear like that? I will be sure to work in the extend option.
I really thought I eliminated most of those… There is one “duh” left I know about (I also need to have some fun). Though I pride myself in being a decent speaker, English is still a second language, hence I am happy to oblige to any concrete suggestions where my text may sound deragatory (or something like that), but am currently otherwise occupied (lazy) to go trough all of the pages on my own and try to figure it out.
Absolutely! plans are there.
Thanks again
3 Likes
I guess you may be referring to the “duh” on this page: Alive Groups | Learn to Play Go
There’s also wording like “although it may sound obvious” and “It is simple” on that page.
2 Likes