Pluralsight

pluralsight is a useless site. I've abandoned midway probably 7 videos on topics that I was actually really interested in. Word to the wise, dumb it down, way way down. use graphs and shit

>>1742150
Not trying to meme you but can you explain how exactly it was the fault of Pluralsight in itself? Or did you just have bad luck and the 7 authors were really shitty? What subjects were they? How did the difficulty manifest itself?

I know someone who has vids on Pluralsight and Udemy. Udemy pays $300/mo. for one course, Pluralsight is about the same but growing.

It takes a lot of work to produce the videos, so it might be worth it to try it out yourself. You'll hear your speech tics and various other things no one else cares about. Get it done, iterate to clean it up, ship it.

>>1742785
One of the prime reasons I want to go for Pluralsight, like I mentioned, is because it feels much more professional. I read Troy Hunt's article ( https://www.troyhunt.com/the-piracy-paradox-at-udemy/ ) about how Udemy is basically YouTube-tier; anyone can upload videos and cash in + there's little to no quality control.

Regarding the amount of work to produce, I'm ready to go balls deep. I'm already a creative professional so I'm confident I can produce high-quality videos.

>>1742777

There is some great shit on pluralsight. Scott Allen's C# stuff is famous.

But in honesty, Udemy and Udacity have amazing shit too. Udacity is where Georgia Tech's Online Masters of CS material is hosted (their class on OS concepts for example).


>>1742792
Doesn't matter how it "feels". What matters is the quality of teaching material. I've had free access to pluralsight for many years (before it took over DigitalTutors) and there is a lot of trash on there too.

The signal to noise ratio is high, like all MOOC platforms. So if you were just expecting a ton of gold you're going to be disappointed.

>>1742777
Not him but once I was beyond a complete beginner in the software I used (all the 3d stuff basically), it struck me how fucking TERRIBLE most of the content was. Poor structure, walkthrough rather than teaching any principles, and the content creators were below industry standard.

File: pluralsight.png (183KB, 934x948px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 934x948px

>>1742777
Its not about the blame.
The difficulty was that programming is hard to teach. There's a lot of abstract terms that nobody takes the time to teach you, you just learn after hearing it in context for many years. Also, the dudes add pronouns instead of being specific. They don't use images, and if they do, it's some distracting stock picture. they start really slow and bore you and then jump into an insane concept. Even khan academy is meticulous about visualizing the concepts, and being specific.

p.s. I guess it was more than 7 courses I had given up on.