>We have only two moderators who are even moderately active, Pam Greene and me.
>Pam has been in thesis mode since last spring, and I hit the wall in September
I am also in waiting for first approval mode but this sounds like you have serious workflow problems.
>We tried adding a third moderator in the summer, but it took so long for MIT
>to set up his account that he apparently gave up. At this point I can't spare
>the time to train someone, anyway.
When anyone says to me "I am too busy to get help" alarm bells ringing all over the shop. Questions that immediately follow on
Are you bogged down in mindless details of the process ? What can be better automated ?
Is it done this way because it *has* to be done this way or because it always was done this way ?
Has the workload exceed the capacity or the enthusiasm or the time available ?
Comming recently to the FAQ seen, though I like most long time netheads have benefited from the "wit and wisdom" of the documents, it looks to me like another area of the net that is a bit overdue for reform. Many areas of the net were run on free help and volunteered dedication but have now outgrown that model. It sounds like you need to get some sponsorship ( may be from one of the bigger internet startups or search engine companies) to provide editorial and secretarial support.
>when I started teaching again. In the last few days I've managed to log in
>and start cleaning things up, but it will be a while before I get to
>everything. I expect to handle the overnight batch job error messages first,
>then the stuff that people submitted to the FAQ checker, then "all the rest".
Another possibility would be to use a distributed "NET" approach for FAQ reviews. Start up a moderated news.answers.faqs4review and news.answers.newfaqsdebate. Faqs awaiting approval can be posted ( subject to passing the structural tests bot ) and world at large can engage the author at an early stage. Once the general consensus in .newfaqdebate approves the posting new FAQ is born. But then again I thought that the thrust of the FAQ review process was the structure and format rather than content approval.
Ask this list if you need some help, because after all we all have a vested interest in keeping the FAQlight burning.
Gannett
Not intending to ruffle too many feathers but a squakfest is good for the community once in a while.
"He did so little work if he han't had a screen saver his cpu would have rusted up."
WARNING address may be munged as a spam prevention device see
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/park/abm64/sig.gif for real address.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved
