On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 rkiesling@mainmatter.com wrote:
> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:2:17 -0000
> From: rkiesling@mainmatter.com
> To: faq-maintainers@rkive.landfield.com
> Subject: Re: [faq-maintainers] Close up shop?
> Sender: owner-faq-maintainers@landfield.com
[ Full quote, I'll clarify my opinion on both points ]
> Vicky Larmour <vicky@jifvik.org> writes:
> >
> > At 01:19 24/04/01 +0200, Henk P. Penning wrote:
> > > -- stop a faq that has not been changed for a year; send warnings
> > > monthly to the maintainer; kill the faq after 18 months, or
> > > something like that.
> >
> > All sounded pretty reasonable apart from the above item, I thought. I'm
> > sure there are FAQs which contain legitimate and still valid information
> > but have not been updated for a year.
-- True. The point however is not 'faq still contains valid info'
but 'faq contains wrong info'. This is to be avoided. Very few faqs
don't age (and rot).
-- even before moderation bcame difficult, the faq archive contained
hundreds of faqs that hadn't been posted for years. Also, many
auto-posted faqs were unchanged for years. In an archive, it is
relatively easy to add stuff, and very very hard to delete stuff.
-- to keep up quality, it is necessary to be able to declare
a faq 'dead'. For this you need a simple rule, otherwise the
discussions will be endless. The rule should NOT involve
contents of the faq (not simple). An ageing rule is the only
one I can think of.
-- I think the explicit goals should be :
-- faqs are easy to start
-- faqs are easy to maintain
-- dead faqs are easy to remove
> Robert Kiesling (rkiesling@mainmatter.com) writes:
> I don't think that's reasonable at all considering that the wait for
> moderator approval is about six months now - it's unrealistic to try
> to define what the waiting period _might_ be after an unspecified
> upgrade.
First I must admit that I am totally ignorant about the moderation
process. I assume that a lot of work goes into technicallities,
lexical stuff, headers, etc. All this can be automated out
Also, 4K summaries, 200 char subjects, 100 part faqs and such.
I wouldn't care if the system is rigid, or even stupid there.
I assume that moderator insight is required when it comes to content.
The system should allow the moderator to focus there, and moderation
should be fun work (again). That is the only way to fight backlog.
> Robert Kiesling
Please note that I have only made a suggestion, based on some
experience and a lot of assumptions. If the (ex) moderators
say it is a stupid idea, that's fine by me. I won't be unhappy.
regards.
Henk Penning
Henk P. Penning, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University \__/ \
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. \__/
Telephone: +31-30-2534106, fax: 2513791, NIC-handle: HPP1 _/ \__/ \
News.answers http://www.cs.uu.nl/cgi-bin/faqwais \__/ \__/ \__/
*************************************************************
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