[Greg Elmassian]

I don't there would be any problem amassing the list of items.

I personally like taking a topic and breaking it into subtopics as Marty suggested, of course that is how my site is organized too. I think it allows people to "find" the topic they want more quickly in general, rather than being overwhelmed with a long single list.

The thought of using the archives or existing threads seems good at first glance, but there's too many threads on the same topic, too many distracting comments, and too many sacred cows for this to be useful to a beginner... a beginner needs it "distilled" to pros and cons of the various choices... actually they really want you to tell them which is best, but that would do them a disservice, they don't know it yet, but it's true.

I would think that the steps would be:

Poll on the topics for FAQS... simple, easy, and there can't be arguing over which need to be done, base it on the ones people put up...

Then "commission" some poor fool to do some of them, many different people can be working on different ones all at the same time....

Now, post that poor fools hard work and let everyone comment on it, take pot shots at him, his lifestyle, his wife, etc....

The poor fool now revises his post and one more round of comments...

Some even tempered person like Dwight gets the lucky job (read poor fool again) to review and approve for publication.

Now you probably have a FAQ that is really good, and the only downside is for that poor fool that wrote it and Dwight getting a lifetime of scorn from the people that still don't agree...

It could work, given enough volunteers...

... my FAQ's - to the best of my ability to be objective - are on my site...

Greg

 

[Greg Elmassian]

I think the tags will still suffer from increasing "clutter" like the "signal to noise ratio" in threads. Also, since people would put the tags on the posts themselves, consistency would still be a problem.

FAQ's should be short, specific, and clear to the beginner.

I think it can be done, and a "team" working together sounds like a good idea.

Regards, Greg

 

[Greg Elmassian]

My point exactly, plus again for Charles, I completely understand the mechanism of tags, I have been using and programming computers since 1969.

The point was that the tags managed by individuals will not be consistent, and for people wanting to put their point over others, it will be a competition.

But, again, backing out to the big picture, it is rare that a thread has a nicely condensed, completely objective discussion of the topic.

And, as evidenced by the reticence of even seasoned members to use the search function (without addressing it's mechanical flaws), I will remain of the opinion that FAQ's cannot be assembled from links or indexes of threads.

Again, a beginner needs a short, concise set of specific information. Our existing threads are not this at all.

Regards, Greg

 

[Greg Elmassian]

The only way it works (and I personally think it works fine) is that when a FAQ is asked, everyone is on the same team, point the person to the FAQ. This is not rude. But until everyone agrees to be on the same team, then you will have divided camps.

I personally think it's giving a newbie a "crap shoot" on whether they get a good answer or not, depending on who is in the mood to answer the question for the 1000th time.

Also use of the search function is along the same route, it's not rude to ask people to research a bit before asking a question. But if we have a divided opinion as a group, then this very rich source of information is underutilized.

I either "own" or moderate a number of forums. This is one of the few that do not have as a "culture" the "policy" to entreat newbies to use the search and read the FAQ's.

That's cool, if it is what the majority "want", then it's fine.

So, my final "take" is exactly what Shad said.

Regards, Greg