The Auto-FAQ: does anyone want it to be kept?

Subject says it all, really. Some months ago I put up an experimental
Auto-FAQ for this group, he
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk:8180/urcautofaq/

It doesn't seem to be much used, which implies it isn't needed; and I am
minded to delete it. Before I do, does anyone think it should be kept?
Is it useful, and if not, what would be needed to make it useful?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Do not sail on uphill water.
- Bill Lee

"Simon Brooke" wrote in message
...
Subject says it all, really. Some months ago I put up an experimental
Auto-FAQ for this group, he
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk:8180/urcautofaq/

It doesn't seem to be much used, which implies it isn't needed; and I am
minded to delete it. Before I do, does anyone think it should be kept?
Is it useful, and if not, what would be needed to make it useful?


Please keep it going for a bit Simon, I had been meaning to do a bit on it
(as I'm sure many people on here have) but I keep forgetting it exists.
Perhaps you could publish what has been done as a web page that we can
direct people to, and keep the Wiki running as a method of updating it?

I hereby promise to do my bit (my first resolution for the new year)

Tom (long time lurker)

Simon Brooke wrote:
Subject says it all, really. Some months ago I put up an experimental
Auto-FAQ for this group, he
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk:8180/urcautofaq/

It doesn't seem to be much used, which implies it isn't needed; and I am
minded to delete it. Before I do, does anyone think it should be kept?
Is it useful, and if not, what would be needed to make it useful?

It's the sort of thing that should become more useful with time (assuming
people contribute at least occasionally - I have done a little bit).
If you don't want to continue hosting it I expect someone else could take
it over (I could probably put it on ChiarkWiki if necessary, but I'd have
to ask some other people first).

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:38:34 +0000, Simon Brooke
wrote in message
:

It doesn't seem to be much used, which implies it isn't needed; and I am
minded to delete it. Before I do, does anyone think it should be kept?
Is it useful, and if not, what would be needed to make it useful?

A weekly welcome posting with faq location would probably increase its
use.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Simon Brooke wrote:
Subject says it all, really. Some months ago I put up an experimental
Auto-FAQ for this group, he
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk:8180/urcautofaq/

It doesn't seem to be much used, which implies it isn't needed; and I
am minded to delete it. Before I do, does anyone think it should be
kept? Is it useful, and if not, what would be needed to make it
useful?

I'm not sure about the need for it because this newsgroup acts as a sort
of Auto-FAQ in itself. Still I'm sorry that I haven't contributed to the
website FAQ. If you decide to keep it online, regular reminders should
eventually wake us lazy buggers up to post something there.

~PB

In article , Pete Biggs wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:
Subject says it all, really. Some months ago I put up an experimental
Auto-FAQ for this group, he
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk:8180/urcautofaq/

It doesn't seem to be much used, which implies it isn't needed; and I
am minded to delete it. Before I do, does anyone think it should be
kept? Is it useful, and if not, what would be needed to make it
useful?

I'm not sure about the need for it because this newsgroup acts as a sort
of Auto-FAQ in itself.

The whole point of a FAQ is to cover things that are regularly covered
in the newgroup. These days being able to use Google to review what has
been said before does reduce the need for a FAQ, but I think saying
"do read the FAQ first" is still more effective than "this has been
frequently discussed before, do read past discussions" when attempting
to, for example, cut short a helmet thread (especially where, as with
the Wiki, it is clear all posters have had the chance to contribute
towards a consensus position if they want).

Alan Braggins wrote:
The whole point of a FAQ is to cover things that are regularly covered
in the newgroup. These days being able to use Google to review what
has been said before does reduce the need for a FAQ, but I think
saying "do read the FAQ first" is still more effective than "this has
been frequently discussed before, do read past discussions" when
attempting to, for example, cut short a helmet thread (especially
where, as with the Wiki, it is clear all posters have had the chance
to contribute towards a consensus position if they want).

Real individual answers posted to real individual questions keeps things
alive and lively. Despite the amount of repetition, "answers" do evolve
and I think the evolution works best on the group rather than off on some
website.

~PB

"Pete Biggs" wrote in message
...

Real individual answers posted to real individual questions keeps things
alive and lively. Despite the amount of repetition, "answers" do evolve
and I think the evolution works best on the group rather than off on some
website.


I agree with this.
The first thing I do when I want an answer to a query, is to search Google
Groups. I have never failed yet to find what I want in my searches, but
would probably have failed if this information was hidden on some web page,
listed 197th. on a Google 'webpage' search.

In article ,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

A weekly welcome posting with faq location would

smell of spam. Simon knows better than that.

If you think it deserves a regular mention, put it in your .sig.
Perhaps alongside other references such as cyclehelmets.org?

Regarding the collaborative faq idea, I've grown a certain
level of cynicism. I first tried it in 1995 (the InterFAQ
was one of the features of the *original* WebThing), but
eventually abandoned it when the vast majority of third-party
contributions continued to come in by email rather than web browser.

Back then, the limitation was that it was an unfamiliar concept:
people didn't expect to contribute to a site from within their
browser. Now it's the opposite problem: our use of the web is
saturated. Net effect is the same: communities don't happen
by herding cats^H^H^H^Hnetters.

Actually I would welcome an occasional reminder. My round tuits
on rec.* tend to be very intermittent, but do occasionally happen.

--
Nick Kew

Nick Kew wrote:
: In article ,
: "Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
:
: A weekly welcome posting with faq location would

: smell of spam. Simon knows better than that.

Not it wouldn't. If it's part of the group, edited my members of
the group, why would it. The rec.bicyces.* groups used to (and
may still do since I don't read them) have a FAQ pointer posted
automatically every so often.

I'd suggest once every two weeks.

Reminders are a good thing - I'd forgetten it existed, which
is why I haven't looked at it, and I can't remember the URL even
now.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness