In message <E13uHne-00058G-00@relay20.smtp.psi.net>
"D. Kirkpatrick" <nat@tiac.net> wrote:
> That said, one of the issues that I have seen over and over on this list
> is that fewer and fewer people have knwoledge of Unix or telnet
> procedures or language requirements. We live in an environment that is
> increasingly web-browser oriented - like it or not. This is making the
> handling of FAQs and Usenet related items occult to the next generation
> coming up.
While I agree with you that as a percentage of the net using population
tech-savvy people are a dying breed I don't think this tells the whole
story. The reason the percentages are falling is because the number of
the unwashed masses is increasing at a phenominal rate. I think you will
find that there are, in fact, more people with Unix/Telnet skills on the
net now than there ever has been before. The vast majority of net users
will have no desire to run an FAQ and I don't think it's unreasonable to
expect those that do to learn. After all anyone with one finger and half a
brain can learn enough Unix to navigate a directory structure and edit some
text files.
> IMHO the present methodolgy for handling FAQs is outdated and needs all
> new tools or multiple tools to get the job done. If that is not
> technically possible then we have to consider if the news.moderation
> process, and team, is even relevant anymore. There has been much bandied
> about here with no firm solutions.
I have to admit to being a little confused. I created an FAQ for a news
group some years ago and still post it regularly from my own machine. The
only tools I use are text editor and news client. What else should I be
using? (That's not strictly true, now I also use an HTML->FAQ convertor of
my own devising but that is purely my own choice and is not necesary in the
slightest)
> Had we not had a FAQ posting service (the FAQ auto-posting server at
> mit.edu) I'd not be even posting a FAQ at all simply due to the lack of a
> news posting program that allowed for the necessary data fields,
> secondary headers and all formatting associated with that.
May I sugest you find a better news client?
[snip]
> Now it has been said on this list that the server is a tool that should
> not be overtaxed and is not meant to post every possible FAQ out there.
> But as we are now seeing, the old method simply does not work anymore.
The old method being to post it yourself every so often as I have been
doing for the past umpteen years? The old method seems to be working fine
from where I'm standing.
> I suggest that the autoposting server be expanded if mit.edu can be
> convinced, come up with a posting schedule that will not overtax it, and
> ask people to start using it.
That seems like an excelent idea but what of those who don't want to use
it. Or am I just a complete aboration?
> This then leaves "moderation' chores to "approving" FAQs, some of which
> is already automated, and some maintenance on the server side itself.
This may have changed since my FAQ was approved but only the first pass was
automated then. A script ran through the FAQ to make sure there where no
obvious syntactic errors. It was then passed on to a Person(TM) for final
approval.
--
(\/)atthew Hambley ----------------\ If something's worth doing it's worth
\ doing badly until you can learn to
snowyowl@therealm.freeserve.co.uk \ do it well.
http://www.therealm.freeserve.co.uk/ \-----------------------------------
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here
*************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved