Re: FAQs - to spam or not to spam

Wolfram v.Kiparski (wolf@NetHeaven.com)
Wed, 5 Jun 1996 19:16:17 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Charles R. MacDonald: "Re: FAQs - to spam or not to spam"
Previous message: Stephen W. Thompson: "Re: FAQs - to spam or not to spam"
Maybe in reply to: Mitchell McCann: "FAQs - to spam or not to spam"
Next in thread: Larry W. Virden, x2487: "Re: FAQs - to spam or not to spam"

>Hi Fellow FAQers
>
>I recently wrote the Formula One Motor Racing FAQ which I post monthly to
>rec.autos.sport.f1 and rec.autos.spot.info (a moderated group). I have
>received a couple of complaints from people who say that although they
>appreciate the FAQ they do not appreciate having to download it twice a
>month as it is quite long. One person actually likened it, in a polite and
>reasoned way, to spam. Even though it is long (about 100k), I thought
>correct netiquette was to post it to the groups concerned.

Do these complainers represent a consensus? Or are they a vocal minority?
Suggest to these people to set up "kill files."
Do the frequently-asked questions on rec.autos.sport.f1 amount to more than
100k of traffic a month?

I recently took over as the FAQ editor for rec.models.rockets. While no
one complained about our humongous FAQ (>500k), I've been taking steps to
chop it down some. These are my suggestions:

1. Remember that a FAQ is supposed to be a FAQ. If you start to write a
book about the subject, it is no longer a FAQ. If your FAQ is getting too
large, consider what parts of it are getting away from being purely FAQ
material. Remember that you aren't writing a FAQ that will cover every
conceivable questions that can ever come up.

2. Break your FAQ into "byte-sized" pieces. Each section should be no
larger than 30k.

3. If your FAQ is very large, and you don't have the heart to chop out
some of the good stuff, then consider posting only the most
frequently-asked portions of the FAQ. For rec.models.rockets, the first
three sections of the FAQ are all that is routinely posted. These sections
contain an introduction, an index, a description of our hobby, a list of
suppliers, and a section on other net resources. These sections cover
about 90% of the frequently-asked questions. These sections also have
frequent references to where the rest of the FAQ can be found.

4. Make sure your entire FAQ is available by anonymous FTP. Post pointers
to it frequently.

5. Create web pages out of the entire FAQ. Post pointers to it frequently.

6. If your news group's postings are archived, suggest ways in which the
archive can be used find information.

7. IMHO, the some form of the FAQ should be posted directly to the news
group. This works for us, but maybe not for other news groups.

>It is available
>on a Web page and I've had it approved so if I can ever figure out what it
>is I'm doing wrong, it'll also be posted to the 'answers' groups.
>
>What do you think? Should I continue to post it in its entirety to rasf1 and
>rasi, or should I just post monthly pointers.

Some news groups just post pointers. Remember that not everyone has access
to the WWW. Anonymous FTP is the way to go. Even people with very limited
resources can get the FAQ by email if need be.

Hope this helps,

Wolf

Next message: Charles R. MacDonald: "Re: FAQs - to spam or not to spam"
Previous message: Stephen W. Thompson: "Re: FAQs - to spam or not to spam"
Maybe in reply to: Mitchell McCann: "FAQs - to spam or not to spam"
Next in thread: Larry W. Virden, x2487: "Re: FAQs - to spam or not to spam"

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