> and Archive-name: lines were, despite my best efforts to follow the
> submission guidelines, not accepted. The moderator who responded
> did a reasonable job of suggesting better subject: and Archive-name:
> lines, but there are a number of uniquenesses to the situation my
> FAQ is in, and I wanted to suggest some modifications to her suggestions
> so that the subject: and Archive-name: lines would better reflect the
> content and structure of the FAQ.
I think the moderator has various considerations in mind beyond what
would be the best archive-name for your purposes. While YOU might know
the subject best, the idea is that the moderator knows what structure
would work best.
[Process of resubmitting for approval deleted.]
> It seems really ridiculous to me that I should have to sit
> down for several hours to repost and retransmit several hundred K worth of
> FAQ, and wait for *another* 2 weeks, just to get someone to advise
> me on whether my new ideas for a few bytes worth of headers are
> now acceptable. I sent email asking if that's what I had to do,
> and haven't had any reply for 4 days...
Give the team a break--they *are* quite busy. My feeling is that this
(albeit long) process of approval is very important. I'm sorry you
have to wait some more, but considering the number of FAQs that are
archived at mit.edu, I would not want to consider settling for headers
that you're not going to be happy with.
> seems to me that it would be a lot more efficient for all involved
> if, once an FAQ wiggles its way to the top of the submission queue,
> further correspondence on the FAQ could be expedited so that the
> overall approval time for an FAQ could remain fairly low.
And how would *YOU* know if any of the other FAQs in the queue aren't
like yours?
> This on a network
> that prides itself on getting articles transmitted worldwide in
> minutes, hours, or at worst days. Meanwhile, the readers
> of the (non-*.answers) groups are wondering where this FAQ is,
> and I can't tell if I should post it to the groups or not, since
> I don't know whether it's about to be approved or not.
Whoa--nothing is holding you from posting your FAQs to the
non*.answers groups. In fact, my Meta-FAQ is posted twice a month on
the relevant newsgroup, but only once a month on *.answers. If you
have people waiting with bated breath in your relevant group, just
post it to that group without include "news.answers" or "sci.answers"
in the Newsgroup: header.
[More complaining delted.]
> ...I really start to question whether it's even worth trying
> to have the FAQ crossposted to sci.answers and news.answers, and that's
> not right. There ought to be a way to improve this system.
"That's not right"? It's also not right that you want to insist on
trying to jump through some hoops to get some shortcuts for some
things the moderators think needs further work on. It is for that very
reason (that your FAQ is important), that you must ensure that the
headers appear properly. Surely, you wouldn't want to make it more
difficult on your many readers to have difficulty retrieving your
files via ftp?
> Sorry for ranting and raving but would someone please provide me
> with some guidance on how to navigate this nightmare more efficiently?
Yes. Take a breath and go read a newspaper on the potty. Then go and
meditate--relax and try to be patient. If you are a scientist, YOU of
all people should know how long it takes to "publish" a peer-reviewed
article. There is nothing holding you back from posting to your group.
And those who want to read about your subject probably read the
newsgroup, I'm sure.
Lani Teshima-Miller (teshima@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.edu) "Sea Hare" o/ /_/_/
UH School of Library & Info Studies. "Whatever the cost of our o|<0_0>------*
libraries, the price is cheap compared to that of an ignorant \=^-| |_| |
nation." -Walter Cronkite [R.a.b.bit--FAQ Maintainer: "Think Ink!"] \_B}\_B}
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved