Printable View
You don't have to refer to any number - that's crazy. All that's needed for someone is to where should he/she look for and that could be Category/SubCategory - that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
Something like "we have this covered under ..." and if you want to provide link to that sub category it's upto you - we do that with forums all the time: "In case you don't know, there is a VB.Net Forum ..." or something.
Well, there was a deployment question today, and i had to find the post that i had read dealing with deployment. I couldn't remember if it was deployment or installation, so I had to find it and provide a link. I think it was more helpful then saying look for the deployment or installation thread in the FAQ section.
David, it's upto you to provide additional info but FAQ speaks for itself: it is for people to find answers to some very commonly asked questions. I don't get what so difficult about it? Almost every site you go that has more or less reliable on-line service has FAQ page: just like this one from Verizon. Nicely done and if you don't find what you're looking for then you would probably call to speak to someone personally, wouldn't you.
The same thing here: if you don't find answer then what you do next - you open a new thread ... As simple as that.
ps, I'm sure a lot of guys will have links to some categories in their signatures. ;)
Why on earth would you want to download it when its on the same website as your on? So you can post it back to other members as your own code? Seems that would be round in circles. Its the same logic as the way VBF is structured. You know how to link to other posts that contain a code solution when your helping someone? Its the same thing, just a new forum to group the most commonly asked questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
David,
That could potentially be a useful idea (as you could say "see the FAQ, item 3.7"), but only if the page was in a "fixed" state. However, as it is still very new this is certainly not the case. As already stated by others, it isn't too much effort to find the relevant page (or even just link to the main FAQ page).
Rhinobull,
I agree entirely with your sentiment of not allowing additional threads simply asking for help on the items in the FAQ, these will not be shown in the FAQ section (they will usually be moved to the appropriate forums).
As already stated, the format of the previous link is almost the same as ours, and I haven't seen anything significant in the others that would be relevant.
We do (to a degree) have "top level sections" leading to "sub sections", each of which contains links to the actual question & answer. At this time (due to the limited quantity of posts) we do not have a separate list of "top level sections", but this will be added later if it seems useful.
Couple of suggestions one related to the FAQ and one not.
- Can we set the default cutoff age for threads in the FAQ to Beginning, so all threads are shown instead of just the last few?
- Re: the Moved links, I suggested a long time ago that they be auto-pruned after a certain period like 3 days or so, from the Codebank forum, but no-one replied :)
I'm sorry again _the_geek, but you have created nothing more than JUST ANOTHER FORUM. Instead you should simply have a link to a FAQ page where all you need are list of categories that would link you to subcategories and those last in the hierarchy would finally have Q and A. That's how it works but what we have at the moment could be called VB.Classic #2 or something but certainly not "VB FAQ".
Whould you call these a forum also? (reposting links)
http://www.vbcity.com/forums/faq.asp
http://www22.verizon.com/CustomerSupport/online_help/
When you attempt to create something new it's not a bad idea to look at what the others are doing (when imagination isn't getting anywhere, with all do respect of course) and then try not to replicate but at least follow and perhaps improve the idea.
But we just got another forum ...
The FAQ's aren't code snippets, they are answers that we could post again and again. If we kept referring people to the FAQ's, eventually they'd start looking there on their own (we would hope)
I just wanted to have a text document that I could scan, and refer to the exact title of the thread that I want to refer to. Doesn't have to even be a link.
If you number them as they are "approved" then the numbers would be static.
Uh Rhino, I don't quite get your drift. It's not a real forum in the sense that you can't actually post questions and have discussions. All you can post are frequently asked answers to questions and they have to be moderator approved before they even appear.
Look at this: http://www.codeguru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=72
That's probably a safe bet as to how ours will eventually turn out, just VB oriented instead of C++. Remember, it's only been live for a day or two.
It doesn't really matter how old it is - I don't like design, layout or whatever you may call it but the point is it's NOT how FAQ pages are usually get done. Also, they could've just ask for an opinion ...
Current design if it is here to stay will end up having many many pages that would be very difficult to navigate - just like any other forum - so you would have to user search engine ... Instead, as I mentioned multiple times they could just create ONE page with list of categories (or sections), each category would link you to subcategories and so on - easy enough to navigate for practically anyone.
Hmm :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull's signature
Anyway, basically this whole website is built on vBulletin forum software... I don't know anything about what goes on on the server behind the scenes but if it's like most forums, it will be pretty hard to add simple HTML pages. It is easier to create a forum and use the software options like post moderation. That's why I think it was done this way.
I agree it's probably not the most ideal format, but it's good that it's being done :)
Right then, a few things to go through!!
This is already the case, however I think this may be a bad thing, as I suspect that it is the cause of confusion for RhinoBull (and probably for others too).Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I think it may be better to have the cutoff very recent instead, so that only the sticky (Index) threads are displayed.
What do you all think?
Not really I'm afraid, as we are likely to have some items that should be placed further up the list than current items. We may well get to that stage later, but for now it only takes at most one click from the main FAQ's: Classic VB thread to find any items.Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
No we haven't, as it is fully moderated. It is an FAQ which people can submit to, but their posts must be allowed by us - so far only one has got through (by penagate). All threads are indexed in the sticky threads, with everything in categories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhinobull
That is what we have done, and several of us decided that the format we have is the best for us, given the restrictions of the forum software. Extensions to the Index threads are likely to happen in the future, and I suspect that our format will get closer to the CodeGuru style, as linked to by penagate.Quote:
When you attempt to create something new it's not a bad idea to look at what the others are doing...
I reckon Codeguru's new FAQ structure, showing only the sub-forums, looks good. Still under construction I see, but it's better than showing all the threads I agree. And better than looking through stickys. When ours gets big enough maybe we should aim for that sort of structure, so sub forums for API FAQs, Database, Networking, etc. All the biggest topics.
I don't recall any discussions on the subject, though. Also, why do we have to mimic CodeGuru at all and not some best I don't know. And you did create another forum any way you look at it. But, whatever - I won't be using it anyway - it's just for those guys that will be struggle looking for somethig I feel sorry ...Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
Technically we did create another forum, it is however not intended to be used as one.
We are not aiming to mimic CodeGuru, however due to the limitations imposed by the forum software there are bound to be similarities, and as such CodeGuru is one of the places we have got ideas from.
Do you think that it would be more useful if we changed the cutoff period, so that only the sticky threads (like Classic VB FAQ) are displayed?
That's more like it but I still say that we don't even need stikys at all - create simple navigation page instead and I don't believe forum's software is limited to not to allow that simplicity. However, if it does limit then that would be the way to go, I'm afraid. Also, each stiky should be locked.
Thanks for you comments everyone, they are appreciated. :)
I will try to get just the stickies to be the only visible items. (which are effectively locked, but are accepting "hidden" comments for us).
I understand that we want newbies to go through the FAQ first, but I don't think it's the first place a person is going to go to. Currently, the Classic VB forum is the most popular, so I think the order should be
Classic VB
VB.NET
VB FAQ
because you may want the newbies to do something, but it's not necessary that they'll do that. Instead, they'll either perform a search, or directly post in Classic VB/VB.NET.
I see what you mean, but if the FAQ is further down then they are less likely to notice it. I think it is better to drop the hint heavily ;)
On CG their FAQ is at the bottom of the site. ;)
Erm... ok? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
Apparently new comers are getting confused and post their questions in the VB FAQ's since it's the first forum section in VBForums. Saw that Si_The_Geek removed a couple already. Should it really be first? Since it's new, there really isn't a whole lot in there for people to look into first before posting their questions in the Classic VB section.
So far about 6 posts have been moved from there, and nobody has posted in there "accidentally" twice.
We'll see how this goes on, as I suspect that at the moment it is mainly people not realising that the new section has been added.
That is one of the reasons why I said that FAQ shall never be a forum. Make it just like "regular" FAQ or at least get rid of New Thread button ...
Also, "forum layout" takes more space than "normal" list of menus (links). You may only fit somewhat 20-30 stikys in oppse to 50-60.
We want people to be able to submit to it (as Penagate, Harsh Gupta, and Jacob Roman have), so the "New Thread" button is staying.
The number of stickies hasn't increased from the original 4, and I suspect that at most we will only have a few more (assuming that more categories are required).
I understand where you are coming from RhinoBull, but things are how they are. I cannot create or modify pages like the forum usage FAQ, and we see no reason to have it like that anyway as it restricts people from posting. I'm afraid we are not going to change everything around completely, based on essentially one persons views.
I will be making a few minor changes (such as only displaying the stickies if possible), but the general format is staying.
I don't know how to explain any better but I'm afraid you are completely off the pace with this FAQ design.
You don't need any forums to submit new ideas - you do that to some special repository if you will (via some button click or so) where few people are responsible for checking every submision out and adding it to existing FAQ or rejecting it for some obvious reason(s). Or you have a dedicated personal @JM or volunteers from our community to analyze entire forum so they can come up with list of FAQ. But the way you have designed isn't going to work.
I understand your point - you've already done it and don't want to change a bit, but trust me - that is a way to a dead end as far as navigation goes (at least): it will become a horror sooner or later.
What you are saying is almost exactly how it is, all you are suggesting is adding lots of work for Internet.com (as well as potentially the Moderators and submitters too) to make the index look different.
I have already been looking at various posts throughout the forums to find thorough answers to frequent questions, and some have been added already. Others need to be effectively written from scratch, as none of the existing answers are as clear/conclusive as we would like.
If anybody notices a very good answer to a common question, please let me know.
ps: the default view has been changed, so now only the stickies and threads from the previous 2 days are displayed.
That's the wrong approach: you should identify "common catagories" (very simple), then "common questions" first (requires some work - no doubt about it) and then (and only then) get the answers (this part is relatively simple).Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
What you do, however, is the exact opposite: you 're looking fo some good answers so they could be included. But that could also be called "code bank" or something ... which we already have. What you're missing is the concept of what FAQ is all about. But I'm sure you're already sick of my arguments ... ;) I have done it in the past and done it the "right way" so I know exactly what's involved so maybe it's a time when you guys would listen to me. :)
Best regards. :wave:
Maybe when there are more FAQ items then we can move from using stickys as indexes to sub forums instead.
Aside from that I don't see anything wrong with the way the FAQ is designed.
The codebank is for working snippets of code that people can download and use. The FAQ is for answering, and explaining the answers to, common questions that come up to do with VB. I posted an item on window handles that had no code in it at all, it was just an explanation. To me that's the difference between a FAQ and codebank.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
That is the approach we took RhinoBull. ;) The only difference is that we limited the posts we included to only those that provided answers of a standard that we were happy with.
We do not want another CodeBank, what we want (as penagate mentioned) is fairly thorough explanations that allow the reader to understand the concepts and issues, rather than just code examples (some posts have already been rejected for this reason).
Unfortunately the majority of answers available to common questions have one issue or another, and ideally should be re-written/extended (or a few answers merged together).
For example, saving files in databases is frequently asked, and the code linked to in your signature is great, but does not have enough explanation for the FAQ's. Obviously we will be greatful if you post them to the FAQ with fuller explanations, or alternatively allow me (or someone else) to use your code, with credit to you of course.
Doing things this way, it is going to take longer for the FAQs to be considered "complete", but the end result is likely to be a higher quality of answers.
As several people asked to be able to contribute (in addition to those who already have), we thought it would be best to let them have a go at writing answers (with verification and potential alterations before they are published). This site is a community after all :)
We may well add sub-forums at a later date, but I think the stickies will probably stay, not sure tho! :)Quote:
Maybe when there are more FAQ items then we can move from using stickys as indexes to sub forums instead.
I hear you but afraid we are takling two different things: I say "there is a better way ..." and you "that's how it's going to be ..." so I'm tired of this.
Good luck with your new project. :wave:
Is there are reason why FAQ section shows threads from only the last two days by default?
I might write something when I get into it... however, it is pretty disturbing as after being six years visiting the forums and then the forum you visit the most often goes down by one... I didn't even notice it first, I just saw "no new posts again... and again? something weird is going on..." *scroll down and not notice the name of the forum has changed*
As the saying goes..."Nobody likes change but..."
Classic VB can not remain at the top forever. Like Brad mentioned, when VS.NET 2005 is released in November we will more then likely move VB.NET up one and Classic VB down one. So the future order will be ...
VBF FAQ
VB.NET
Classic VB
API
Games
Database
ASP/VB Script
Network
Reporting
VBA
COM/ActiveX
The stickies link to all of the threads (in categories), so there is no need to actually display the threads aswell. As previously noted in this thread, having all the threads visible leads to confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merri
Ideally only the stickies would be visible, but arguably seeing the new threads can be a good thing. I have been thinking that penagates suggestion of separate sub-forums for the FAQ items may well be better, as only the stickies (which could be "unstuck") would be visible then.
That would be great :)Quote:
I might write something when I get into it...
So your saying, like pointed out, to eventually have the structure like CG's?
Possibly something like that :)