Re: To split or not to split

Henry van Cleef (vancleef@bga.com)
Sat, 25 Feb 1995 01:42:06 -0600 (CST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Monee C. Kidd: "Changes while waiting for approval"
Previous message: Joe Moss: "Re: To split or not to split"
In reply to: Sibit: "To split or not to split"

As Sibit said
>
>
> Hi gang,
>
> I maintain several FAQs on microcontrollers that have sort of gotten out
> of hand size-wise. I've been planning on splitting them up into more
> manageable chunks, but I can never seem to find the time.
>
> What's the latest low down on multi-part FAQs. None of my readers have
> complained (at least not about the size of the FAQs ;-), and I really
> like keeping it all in one file. BUT - what about the poor person that
> has a newsreader that burps on large articles.
>
I set up the FAQ for rec.antiques.radio+phono as a multipart faq from
the beginning because the group covers acoustical phonographs on the
one hand, and electronics in old tube radios on the other. It seemed
fairly logical right from the beginning to have the first part discuss
the charter and the purpose of the group, and use subsequent sections
to discuss specifics about each type of device.

Our newsgroup has a broad range of interests among its participants.
In particular is the distinction between the "collectors" and the
hard-core technological historians. One of the driving forces behind
the creation of the group was the need to provide a place where people
who needed help getting their antiques working properly could get
together with people who understand the technology and how to work with
it, and one section of the FAQ is completely devoted to hands-on
technological questions.

Our group may be peculiarly low-tech, but the reports I get are in
terms of printing out sections of the FAQ rather than attempting to
read them on-line. We also have one blind reader, so the FAQ is very
text-oriented.

As things stand, we are pushing 200K of text in five sections. I
received approval to post the FAQ to news.answers within minutes of
posting my query about the approval cycle the other day (thanks,
folks---my readers are now giving me some "attaboys"), and consensus is
to post the FAQ to all the *.answers groups, etc. once a month, and
repost the first section, which contains the charter and pointers to
other information, on the alternate two weeks, to the newsgroup alone.
This section is fairly short. More than half the length of the whole
FAQ is in specific discussions of technology and how to work with it,
and I am sure that half the readers don't bother reading it.

The actual volume of input I get from others for inclusion in the FAQ
is fairly low, beyond what the three section editors actually write
themselves. We haven't gotten all the bases covered by any means, but
there are only about five people posting who have the answers for many
of the questions, and I pick up their material for inclusion "next
month."

-- 
***********************************************************
Hank van Cleef  vancleef@bga.com  vancleef@tmn.com
***********************************************************

Next message: Monee C. Kidd: "Changes while waiting for approval"
Previous message: Joe Moss: "Re: To split or not to split"
In reply to: Sibit: "To split or not to split"

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]