* * *
...we can distinguish between two distinct sub-genres
of FAQ list: (1) the "traditional" FAQ list, which
answers a set of questions which have been derived
empirically by observing the sorts of questions which
are in fact Frequently Asked in an open forum such as
a Usenet discussion newsgroup, and (2) an overview or
introduction or precis on some topic, written in
"Q&A" format.
The "traditional" approach, if it can be successfully
accomplished in a given instance, has a distinct
advantage: the questions it covers have some real chance
of matching the questions which a reader is trying to
answer, even if the reader has tried and failed to find
an answer using more traditional references. In fact,
the process of identifying questions to be answered in an
FAQ list by noticing which questions are asked in an open
forum automatically discovers those questions which the
traditional references, for whatever reason, do *not*
answer. The other approach, in which the author decides
which topics to address based on some presumably logical
compartmentalization of the subject, and then covers
those topics in Q&A format, runs the same risk as does
any traditional reference, namely that its presentation
might be more logical to its author than its reader,
thus leaving the reader with unanswered questions.
I bring up this distinction not to characterize either of
the two approaches as "right" or "wrong," but simply as a
departure point for analyzing the successes (or excusing
the weaknesses) of a particular FAQ list. A traditional
FAQ list is successful if its questions are truly
realistic and match those which its readers are looking
for answers to. A traditional FAQ list can be excused if
its organization is somewhat haphazard and its coverage
somewhat uneven, because real-life questions do not
always lend themselves to orderly categorization. When
working on an FAQ list which uses the other approach, on
the other hand, more care must be taken to ensure that
its coverage is complete and organized in a way most
likely to be useful to the reader, because the list's
treatment of the subject matter is predictive and
anticipatory, and does not have the built-in feedback
mechanism that a traditional list has.
* * *
Though I was being diplomatic in that review, I will say here
that the "traditional" approach, if not Right, is certainly
better or at least more deserving of the name "FAQ list."
(In particular, the questions in the "contrived" form of
FAQ list are often lacking in verisimilitude or a convincing
feel of Frequency.)
Steve Summit
scs@eskimo.com