[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: [l/m 10/6/92] FAQ on FAQs n.g.FAQ



In article <1992Nov1.125511.25183@nas.nasa.gov> you write:
>This is a prototype.

Then I presume you want comments....

First, perhaps section headers (Introduction, Guidelines, etc...) would
be useful?

>2) They will come in three basic types:
>	a) netiquette: how to use the net

This is a particular FAQ or two, not really a "genre" of FAQ...

>		always refer to news.announce.newusers
>		why? for procedure for new group creations, etc.
>	b) answers to informational queries.
>	c) Misc.

I'd just say that FAQs contain answers to questions (asked
or unasked :) about various topics, ranging from how to use the net, 
to is homeopathy a valid form of treatment.

>4) Break the FAQ up.  Chain them.  Link them.

But maintain common Subject: lines if you do!

>13) Organization or design:  Several styles are popular.
>The most popular: QAQAQAQA ... down a file.  (e.g., news.announce.newusers).
>The most work is: Q-summary, QAQAQA (many colorful variations).
>I like the "Jeopardy" style: AAAAA... (look the questions are obvious, just
>provide the answers (like references). [Optional: determine the question.])
>
>1.1) Sizes: Several useful message sizes are worth knowing.  200 line is an

1.1 under 13?????  Shouldn't this be 13.1?

>	(do you know how many vt100-equivalent screenfuls 1000 lines is?).
>	It is suggested that ASCII or GIF graphics be avoided.  Especially

Avoid ASCII?  What *should* we use?

(upon closer reading it is ASCII graphics to be avoided, perhaps the
phrasing "GIF or ASCII graphics" would make this a bit clearer...)

>1.2) No every one has an editor which does automatic line wrap.  Limit
>	line lengths to 72-75 characters.  Test the FAQ.
>
>11.1) Header Expires: field:  Some news systems offer a feature to keep

13)
	1.1)
	1.2)
	11.1) ????????????

Definite renumbering called for here!!!

>Indices and table of contents are helpful, but not always useful.
>Because the ability to skip large regions of text is unknown by most readers.
>This is why shorter files are more important than indexed files.

Just because some people DON'T skip, doesn't mean we should 
deprive the ones that can of the information that would be
useful for them.  

At least recommend that indexes be placed in the larger files?

	-Richard Hartman
	hartman@ulogic.COM

From: brown@ncoast.org (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: [l/m 10/6/92] FAQ on FAQs			n.g.FAQ

A suggestion if I may.  I've noticed a couple of your FAQs crossposted
to news.answers, and have been much puzzled by their Subject: lines.
When I saw your post in news.groups I felt I had to write.  I hope what
I have to say will be helpful.

You might want to consider putting the most inportant information
first, and the last-modified date last.  My newsreader -- and I imagine
I'm far from alone in this --  cuts off the end of subject lines.  For
FAQs crossposted to news.answers, that means that I don't get to see the
names of the newsgroups unless I actually select and read the articles.

My suggestion, for what it's worth, is to put the newsgroup name or
other subject at the start of the subject line, and also to avoid
cryptic abbreviations.  I have no reason to think myself more stupid
than other people, but I scratched my head over "l/m" and I have no idea
what "n.g." is supposed to mean.  Obviously you take some time over
preparing your articles, and I assume it's because you want to
communicate.  But the things I mention get in the way.

Regards,

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems,
Cleveland, Ohio, USA                              brown@Ncoast.ORG

From: brown@ncoast.org (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: [l/m 10/6/92] FAQ on FAQs			n.g.FAQ

My suggestions are just that, and are limited by my own situation.  
The abbreviations and such that you are using have the flavor of being
intended for an in-group: are you really sure they are appropriate for
news.answers which is _intended_ for people who do not subscribe to the
groups where the postings originate?  I would think that crossposting to
news.answers is good, but the subject lines should be intelligible to
readers of news.answers.  Such is my _opinion_, FWIW.

Regards,

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems,
Cleveland, Ohio, USA                              brown@Ncoast.ORG

> I take your suggestion into account and will consider how best to
> answer.
> 
> For now let me explain that the syntax of the example subject line is
> made that way for Killfiles.  Most Killfile systems use the
> first 24 characters of the Subject for an initial cut on what to Kill.
> It is the use of Killfiles with FAQs we are seeking.  It's a crude
> mechanism, but it's the one which exists.  We are in the midst of testing
> various FAQ designs with the array of news systems out there
> trying to come up with reasonable designs and VALIDATING them.
> So if you can think of better ways (untried please suggest those, too).
> L/m: last modified: human readable/rememberable version control
> n.g.: news.groups.  Goes with FAQ and does not take up space.  Test
> variables.

From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: [l/m 10/6/92] FAQ on FAQs			n.g.FAQ

In article <1992Dec1.125511.25712@nas.nasa.gov> you write:
>FAQs are the first generation of community memory.

Hello Eugene,

Very good.  As an active FAQ writer myself I have some comments. 
(Mine are the comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted, comp.binaries.ibm.pc.archives
and a more general FAQ garbo.uwasa.fi:/pc/ts/tsfaq30.zip covering
some of the same issues as you do here, and covering Turbo Pascal). 

My own number one rule of FAQs.  There is nothing wrong with asking
a FAQ.  (How else could a FAQ become a FAQ :-). 

>6) Posting charters appears useful but is ultimately silly.  Your call.
>You can't limit speech in an unmoderated group.  No enforcement, so I consider
>this wasted bandwidth (bigger wastes exist).  If you want low noise,
>minimum flaming, to avoid mass cross-posts by broadcasting novices, make
>the group MODERATED, just like editing a Journal.  See comments on
>appropriateness below.

   Here I don't fully agree.  If the noise level is a tolerable
UseNet average, then ok, but there are cases where the newsgroups
have virtually collapsed because of no peer pressure.  In some
groups misposting rates do skyrocket.  (I have recent examples in
mind, but details are beside the point).  Besides one does not just
make a group moderated.  As we know it is a lengthy process. 
   I would suggest taking a still more balanced wording of this
item.  Note that mostly I agree with you, but the way it is now I
feel you are making a bit too much of a blanket statement. 
   (As to anarchy, I have sometimes have the feeling that especially
users from the US sometimes think that free speach is tantamout to
an unlimited ticket to anarchy).

>7) If you can provide anonymous FTP, do so, but remember that not every one
>has this luxury.

Consider mentioning mail servers.

>10) FAQs have other useful functions like pulsing connectivity information
>like a light house.

You lose me here by the show of the high-flying verbal virtuosity :-).

   All the best, Timo

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland

From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: [l/m 10/6/92] FAQ on FAQs

> Rather than accept suggestions, please rewrite a suggested section 6.
> 

> 5) FAQs don't stop flame wars.  They don't limit free speech.
> They should not limit speech.
>
> 6) Posting charters appears useful but is ultimately silly.  Your call.
> You can't limit speech in an unmoderated group.  No enforcement, so I consider
> this wasted bandwidth (bigger wastes exist).  If you want low noise,
> minimum flaming, to avoid mass cross-posts by broadcasting novices, make
> the group MODERATED, just like editing a Journal.  See comments on
> appropriateness below.

Hello Eugene,

As you suggested I have taken a closer look at this.  But I am
having grave difficulties in reformulating this in any way that
would still be compatible with your original.  The reason for this
is that I now note that I clearly disagree with you on this.  I
don't agree that including charters in FAQs is silly.  My feeling on
this is quite the reverse. 

In general, the impression that the items 5 and 6 give me as a
reader is that the US obsession with the first amendment pre-empts
limiting the newsgroups' subjects to the topics of the charters. 
The concept of free speech overrides all organization and giving
such guidance.  According to the above items, discussing anything in
any newsgroup should sanctioned.  (That is anarchy, by definition,
as far as I understand). 

My impressions and interpretation may be totally wrong, but that is
how this comes out to me.  My sincere apologies that I could not be
of any real help to you after all. 

If you are interested, the contents of following FAQs of mine
 garbo.uwasa.fi:/pc/ts/tsfaq30.zip    (general)
 garbo.uwasa.fi:/pc/pd2/cbipafaq.zip  (for a certain newsgroup)
may explain why I have these objections.  I think that they violate
your advice for FAQ writing, perhaps even in several respects.

Yet, all the best for your FAQ advice, and my best compliments on
the work you are doing. 

Take care, Timo

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland