re _The FAQ Manual of Style_
Pamela Greene:
#># seen its cover and table of contents. From what I can tell from
#># those, it's a pretty good manual for creating FAQs, although it seems
#># to emphasize "corporate" FAQs more than run-of-the-mill volunteer
#># informational FAQs. (Section titles include "FAQs can be good for
#># business," "Leading site visitors to your FAQ," and "Using your FAQ to
#># sell advertising," and examples are mainly from FAQs such as Kodak's
#># and SPRYNET's.)
this is what I was previously characterizing as the 'nontheoretical
corporate creep' of FAQ development. it makes some sense that technical
organizations would take off from the "FAQ as information file" and
use their expertise in the field to produce a reference guide. note
that this does vary from forum-centered 'orientation guide', designed
to answer questions succinctly and with some thoroughness in areas that
are more easily defined or consolidated, or the 'noise-reduction tool',
used to dissuade redundant conversation to the exclusive of dedicated
and continuing research.
as long as the organization makes their production of the text known,
I think this is a positive development. the danger is when 'generic
FAQs' begin to appear produced by corporate sponsors which
surreptitiously market a product in the guise of a 'FAQ'. this would
be the final desecration of FAQ into 'media propaganda device',
something which does already occur within theoretical fields (oriented
to a particular perspective which the editor/author considers to be
'more correct' or 'authoritative' for whatever reason without so
identifying their bias, if they are even aware of it themselves).
#># There are other, more general topics covered as well, such as
#># attributes of good FAQs and how to keep FAQs up to date; I don't
#># know the "spin" on those.
it would be great to get a thumbnail sketch of the main attributes
so outlined. I think there is a 'FAQ on FAQs' in Usenet, but several
of these files should be compared and contrasted (at least referenced!)
in this forum so as to assist FAQ-makers who subscribe.
Danny R. Faught:
#> ...it actually seems to be a good treatment on the subject.
have you seen many such treatments? could you compare/contrast?
#> he was able to make the venture financially viable because he also covers
#> "Web FAQs", which most often means commercial web sites that have a
#> FAQ of their own. So I tolerate the web diversions because he does
#> also do a good job of covering each topic from a Usenet point of view.
it is logical to presume that Usenet is not the only forum or channel
of communication within which questions might become frequently asked.
web sites, especially corporate, which present a subject for public
reference and provide a channel (eddress) for feedback/query could
generate a 'FAQ' in the technical sense of 'questions frequently asked
about this product in the field'. they could also produce a FAQ in
the more degenerated sense of 'reference information about our product'.
#> it's been a worthwhile read. He obviously did a lot of research....
if you'd like to say what you found valuable about his advice to
FAQ-makers (design, style tips, etc.), I would appreciate it.
Russell Shaw <russellshaw@delphi.com> (the author the book):
#...The FAQ Manual of Style came out last year. I'm a veteran journalist
#who has covered the Internet from more of a commercial than a
#participatory perspective.
#I've gotten some heat from Usenet "purists" for the commercial tone of
#this book. The publisher felt that there was already a communal,
#information-sharing culture about how to write FAQs in the Usenet
#community, but no institutional body of knowledge about these tools
#existed in the ".com" Web world.
there is a 'FAQ on FAQs' of which I am aware. did you utilize this in
preparation for your book? were there more than one of them in the
Internet which we may somehow access? the more varied advice we can
come by as regards structure and content the better as I see it. that
kind of information is particularly valuable within this forum.
#...some Usenet folks have criticized it for being too Web-centric.
#I suppose that could be expected; many folks on this side of cyberspace
#feel that the "commercial" Web folks have usurped what was theirs
#(the FAQ format) and via cynically motivated means, taken this tool
#of community knowledge and adapted it for their own purposes.
not only that, but the Internet is notoriously feudish, and there exists
some great deal of anguish over the diversity which it makes possible
(as regards data and source as well as perspective and slant). that one
eventually finds it impossible to be everywhere at once or absorbing all
the information on a topic from substantive sources makes rivalry and
infighting an inevitability.
your paragraph above is why I have entered into this conversation. does
*anyone* know the historical original of the term 'FAQ' and its initial
usage as compared to what it has come to mean? I figured that this could
have been a basic question covered in your book, for example, and was
curious.
#The feeling seems to be that Usenet FAQs are the only "real" FAQs, and
#Web "FAQs," -- especially if they are designed to help sell a product --
#aren't really FAQs because any altruistic intent is of secondary
#importance at best.
to be expected, as you said above, but I think it is illogical to claim
that Usenet has any 'control' or 'authority' in this area. the logical
argument is that only FORUMS have authority here inasmuchas they have a
TIMESCALE by which 'frequently' could be meaningful. as I said above,
however, this bears little on whether an organization has created or
been exposed to corporate channels wherein discussion about its product
may have occurred (in which case 'frequent' again becomes meaningful).
#...These Web FAQs -- although they are written by people on the
#payroll of the company the FAQs are posted on -- perform a valuable
#service. If I have a problem with a product, I'd be likely to
#chec both the Web and Usenet FAQs. These commercial FAQs perform a
#service.
yes, they are REFERENCE files on their products. more often than not
the term 'FAQ' is utilized solely on the basis of its resemblance to
the descriptor 'FACTS', attempting to persuade (often legitimately,
but not always so) the reader to think that the source is reliable
and is not attempting to sway hir to a particular point of view as
regards the subject matter (be that product or rational paradigm).
#My function was to tell these FAQ writers how to perform this
#service -- i.e., write and maintain FAQ lists -- in a way that's more
#beneficial to their customers and their clients.
this is a valuable reference as it provides design and content advice
which enables clear, honest communication about the subject matter
or forum of its reference. I hope that more attention will be paid
to the clarification of the term 'FAQ' and the criteria of its usage,
such that it can stand for something more than 'advertizement' or
'propaganda file', however.
#Not dismissing the import of Usenet FAQs, I used input from this
#community, and specificaly, from many FAQ-maintainers members. I found
#this to be a vital part of the book, but you may notice I devoted little
#if any attention to the WAY in which the lists should be maintained, or
~~~~~~~~~
#the tools used in maintaining them. That's because thhere already are
#resources on the subject. I suppose the book Pam is assembling will be
#of great benefit in this area.; I'll want to read it.
I'm unsure to what this refers. if you mean the FAQs themselves,
typically they are called 'files' even while they MAY contain lists
of questions and responses (they don't always do this -- some are
really reference files attempting to cover a specific subject like
an overview, similar to what might appear in a book and not in any
way a question-answer format).
#Rather than bring up tools or structure, I thought it would be more
#useful to discuss the specific points the FAQ (Usenet or Web) deals
#with, and how to write and organize them in a cogent, flowing manner of
#benefit to the outside world (customers or otherwise)....
then it sounds like your aim was quite specific. sounds great.
#...a chapter is devoted to Usenet groups that deal with the subject.
then perhaps you can provide some idea of the history of FAQs with
respect to Usenet, inclusive of whether the term developed therein,
if it migrated there, and what it originally meant. thanks.
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
nagasiva
--------
editor, alt.satanism FAQ, alt.magick FAQ; contributor to a few other
esoteric FAQs and REFs, cyberlibrarian of esoteric materials