I definitely agree the LAMMPS doc pages could be improved. There is a lot of redundant info and info buried down deep in there. But I would also say that the LAMMPS documentation is far better than most research codes 
Stan
Don’t forget that « better » is the enemy of « good ».
As using LAMMPS since almost ten years, I always learned a lot from the current documentation. Especially when reading carefully. And from the previous list. This only require to carefully ask a relevant question to google or ...
So I find the lammps doc very useful
Pascal
I definitely agree the LAMMPS doc pages could be improved. There is a lot of redundant info and info buried down deep in there. But I would also say that the LAMMPS documentation is far better than most research codes
Stan
I definitely agree the LAMMPS doc pages could be improved. There is a lot
of redundant info and info buried down deep in there. But I would also say
that the LAMMPS documentation is far better than most research codes
Second that.
In codes that are less complex than LAMMPS (which I'm familiar with, thus
throwing my two cents) the difficulty to find out "how to do X" is also a
problem.
But pages like this:
http://lammps.sandia.gov/doc/Section_errors.html#err-3
are quite useful, yet users of many other codes don't have them.
Unfortunately a reference manual will never be useful to *everyone*, as it
will be read by very few. Axel already pointed out in good detail the
changes in the user community.
Given that, the most useful critique of the documentation can come from
those who spent a lot of time reading it.
Giacomo