Hey everyone!
I have an idea that I've been rolling around in my head a bit, and that idea is to really build out and flesh out our tutorials that we have on the forum. We have an EPIC amount of information on this site, and much of it is pure gold when it comes to growing, but admittedly some of it is... well... hard to find.
SO, I have been working on collating and building out cultivation guides based on information posted in threads by members, personal research, other sites, etc.
What I hope to make this different then the ol' "copy and paste" that EVERY site has done (everyone rips everyone off it feels like,) is that we'd have the AFN community give their feedback on each guide/tutorial that is presented, and that we'd work towards finding that common ground on information that we generally all agree with, or at the very least if there is nothing scientific to back it up, that we can agree to keep an open mind to.
Further, I want to have a system in place that allows any/all members to tactfully challenge, question, update, revise, rescind, etc etc information that is presented within the guides.
The goal is to have a set of tutorials and guides that is
A) generally accepted to be true based on known and present information and valid by the community,
B) as much as possible, backed by scientific evidence and proof, and
C) to have the ability to be challenged if we got something wrong, not enough information present to claim it factual or scientific, etc.
That way when we direct growers both on and off site to our tutorials, we can confidently do so knowing that a large group of credible growers gave a positive nod to the information.
We have an epic amount of resources available to us, and I think we could even get breeders, lighting companies, and other vendors to give our information a look and a positive endorsement.
That puts less emphasis on "one guy on this forum said this," and more emphasis "a shit ton of growers all said this, and here's the science to back it up the anecdote, and if you disagree and can prove it, here's the path to correcting the information.
I have an idea that I've been rolling around in my head a bit, and that idea is to really build out and flesh out our tutorials that we have on the forum. We have an EPIC amount of information on this site, and much of it is pure gold when it comes to growing, but admittedly some of it is... well... hard to find.
SO, I have been working on collating and building out cultivation guides based on information posted in threads by members, personal research, other sites, etc.
What I hope to make this different then the ol' "copy and paste" that EVERY site has done (everyone rips everyone off it feels like,) is that we'd have the AFN community give their feedback on each guide/tutorial that is presented, and that we'd work towards finding that common ground on information that we generally all agree with, or at the very least if there is nothing scientific to back it up, that we can agree to keep an open mind to.
Further, I want to have a system in place that allows any/all members to tactfully challenge, question, update, revise, rescind, etc etc information that is presented within the guides.
The goal is to have a set of tutorials and guides that is
A) generally accepted to be true based on known and present information and valid by the community,
B) as much as possible, backed by scientific evidence and proof, and
C) to have the ability to be challenged if we got something wrong, not enough information present to claim it factual or scientific, etc.
That way when we direct growers both on and off site to our tutorials, we can confidently do so knowing that a large group of credible growers gave a positive nod to the information.
We have an epic amount of resources available to us, and I think we could even get breeders, lighting companies, and other vendors to give our information a look and a positive endorsement.
That puts less emphasis on "one guy on this forum said this," and more emphasis "a shit ton of growers all said this, and here's the science to back it up the anecdote, and if you disagree and can prove it, here's the path to correcting the information.
