In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 23:34:04 +0100, Doesnotcompute
wrote:

Would you like me to create an HTML version once you have completed the
plain text? It is essential to offer both standards.

snip

I think, according to the definitoin of FAQ, I have answered the most
frequent questions, but even there I might well be missing some.

'What's the best lights?'...?

I missed out on the first FAQ thread so I'll post my tuppence worth here
now.

Firstly yes I think it's worth having FAQ, in response to those who
suggested that having a FAQ means that you get less discussion on the
group. IME that isn't the case, I participate in other groups, a few
that spring to mind all have FAQs with a fair amount of stuff in them,
it certainly does not reduce the group down to a lot of read the FAQ
responses - there are those, and I think if the stuff is in FAQ and
well written then that's correct, but the nature of discussions is that
often the FAQ is just a starting point for someone who then comes back
to the group.

Secondly - format.

I'm not really in favour of long single FAQ documents posted to groups -
for one I don't think anyone actually really reads them , and sooner or
later they get unwieldy as people find things to add.

Personally I prefer a shorter ' Welcome' type posting posted regularly,
with maybe a bit of blurb about the group, some posting guidelines
whatever. with FAQ's themselves on the web and pointed to from the
posting.

I know that historically there was a good reason for FAQ's to be posted
to a group, but nowadays I can't imagine that there are many people
reading urc who don't have web access as well.

The FAQ itself might be a 'centrally' maintained more coherent sort of
document (the uk.d-i-y FAq is a good example) or it might be a more ad
hoc collection of FAQs produced separately, but then brought together
under a general umbrella (either hosted on the same site or on other
sites as is appropriate)
--
Chris French, Leeds