> The domain `faqlib.com' was owned by the guy who set it up. I don't
> know if that is still the case, but note that `www.faqlib.com' is no
> longer in the DNS.
More important, the domain name is no longer reserved. Go
to http://internic.net, search, reserve it if you want it.
> There is quite a bit to think about. There are some who feel that Usenet
> itself is on the way out,
I see no evidence to support that view. On the contrary,
the number of people participating continues to grow
rapidly. In misc.health.diabetes, the question is no longer
whether the group needs to split but how. Three years ago
there was no need.
> so the first re-definition may be the nature of
> what is an FAQ? At the moment to be approved an information posting must
> be on topic for at least one Usenet Group.
Indeed, even when an FAQ is specifically tailored to a
newsgroup, Usenet isn't a very good distribution mechanism.
Ideally, news servers keep articles for 30 days (at least
those crossposted to news.answers), new users know to look
for FAQs, and newsreaders present FAQ articles
preferentially. It ain't so. FAQs need to be continuously
available, and today that means the web.
The problem is directing the person who needs the
information (wherever he/she enters the net) to appropriate
information (wherever it is, on the net or otherwise). This
is not an easy problem. (and I'm choking on that mouthful)
> The fly in this scheme is in deciding what is an FAQ? Once removed from
> the Usenet matrix, will we have the "Chevrolet FAQ" from
> http://www.chevrolet.com? Do we want this? (perhaps we do)
Yes, of course we do. Or more accurately, we want *A*
Chevrolet FAQ from chevrolet.com. We also want an
independent Chevrolet FAQ, perhaps several. We might want
semi-independent Chevy FAQs, perhaps from dealers or
mechanics. Ideally they'd cover different things, and we'd
read them differently.
To talk about something I know a little better: the FAQs for
the Macintosh newsgroups, though a bit out of date, cover a
lot that you'll never find from Apple. On the other hand, I
often want specs for older Macs; Apple has all their old
spec sheets online and also has a Filemaker database with
the same info available for download. You could look at
these resources as being an extensive FAQ on Mac specs.
Many FAQs (Usenet and WEB) are written by people who are
professionals in the field. They all have some financial
interest in the result. Where's the line? You can't really
divide information into sponsored and independent. There's
a full continuum in between.
How do we direct people in need to appropriate information?
> ??? I'm a bit confused here. One of the main reasons I foot the bill here
> is because I have been lamblasted for even suggesting the addition of "ads"
> on faq.org index pages. (I'm not talking about the FAQ pages themselves,
> I'm talking about just the index pages.)
Not everyone objects, so you'll get very different
directions depending on who you listen to. Yes, it's
confusing.
Journalists have developed principles and procedures for
dealing with the duality of editorial content and
advertising. For an example on the web, see the TidBITS
mailing list, also on the web at www.tidbits.com. Yes, some
people will still object. There's a link from Yahoo's
diabetes page to the misc.health.diabetes FAQ, and I'm
pleased. (Someone else submitted it and it points to OSU;
I've submitted a change to point to faqs.org.)
> Yahoo and other search engines do a good job of raking in the bucks
> doing just that. And why target just one search engine ? Many people don't
> yahoo. ;)
It seems more useful to target the hierarchical catalogs
such as Yahoo. Any other similar catalogs should be treated
the same. It's a bit more dicey trying to do anything with
the shotgun indexers.
Edward Reid
/
/
Chivalry is dead? And I always thought the chivalry was a
good car.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved