> Some FAQ Maintainers accumulate enough 'stuff' that the FAQ becomes
> more an encyclopedia than a FAQ. Or the questions grow to such a number that
> it's tough to decide when they are no longer FA and have become IA (infrequently
> asked) or NA (never asked).
I've tried to stick with the criterion that questions don't even
go on my to-do list unless I've seen them asked repeated on the
newsgroup. Of course, this means that I am explicitly
restricting myself to this niche and am not developing a work
which stands alone readily. But the niche is a pretty large one,
as I think people who search the web for answers are probably
asking the same questions as those who ask on the newsgroup.
I do include "implicit" questions -- questions which weren't
actually asked, but were implied by assumptions underlying
statements and discussions.
This cuts out a lot of potential work while still leaving me
with a long to-do list. It tends to keep me from excessively
duplicating the work of others. Basic information on diabetes is
available from innumerable books in any library, and there's no
point in my duplicating them. The situation is obviously
different for FAQs on "new" topics.
Once a question is in the FAQ, you have to wonder how much that
affects the frequency of asking. I've come to the conclusion
that, in misc.health.diabetes, it may not have much affect. We
don't have the traffic level that leads us to emphasize reading
the FAQ first, as many groups do. I think the major effect is on
the response. Regular participants have the FAQ to draw on, and
the followup threads tend to be shorter and cleaner. This is a
purely subjective observation, though. I do see postings that
say "I couldn't find the answer in the FAQ", so some people
obviously look first. As almost everyone here knows, I seldom
hear from those people.
> Another downsize is that it makes possible future publication of the
> collective FAQ more difficult
I recently had the experience of asking five contributors if
they would consent to having their contributions included on a
commercial web site which wanted to use portions of the diabetes
FAQ. Their approvals came back so fast I almost thought I was
hitting autoresponders, even from a couple I hadn't heard from
in a couple of years. Would they say the same for print? I don't
know, but they were clearly not overprotective of their efforts
and willing to follow my lead.
I've never put out a general request for help. This, I think,
makes it a lot easier for me to filter the overwhelming flood of
offers to help down to just the strong team that works together
well. OK, OK, I've received maybe a dozen offers and discouraged
two or three, but the principle is the important thing, you
know, it's the thought that counts. I've also solicited help
from a very few people whose writing on the newsgroup I liked.
Edward Reid
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved