 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Virtual PC / June 2004Proposed NG FAQ
My philosophy for this was to keep it simple, and to not duplicate the information already available. It would include: 1. Links to the current sites (notice this is #1 on the list) 2. Newsgroup-specific QA that doesn't really need to be in a site such as Robert's. Example: Virtual Server support 3. Brief answers to some of the top questions, with referals to the appropriate web site for full details This wasn't intended to be a huge codisil like some of the other NG FAQs, so I saw no reason that it needed to be hosted on a web site specifically. It's really a slightly expanded version of a "link to the FAQ site" posting. We just happen to have more than one site with valuable information. I planned on a weekly posting schedule. My thoughts on this: 1. There's a lot of turnover in this group. With the little bit of searching that appears to go on in most cases, people are more likely to spot a post from that week than from the better part of a month ago 2. Weekly doesn't add a significant amount of posts to the group. Those that don't need it, or don't care, can ignore it the same as they would a monthly posting 3. Since it's primarily a reference to the already existing information sites, it won't need to be a huge posting like some of the other NG FAQs are (or would be if they didn't just link to them on a web site). Let me know your thoughts on this. I've tried to address some of the points from the other OT thread we had going. Scott In article <#47zvorWEHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, in the microsoft.public.virtualpc news group, Scott Baker <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> says... > Let me know your thoughts on this. I've tried to address some of the > points from the other OT thread we had going. Works for me, and feel free to ping me if you need any help. The only real comment I have here is that while this is certainly a laudable effort, keep in mind that those who actually bother to read a news group FAQ are usually those who don't really need to. :-)  SignaturePaul Adare This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. True. But I also notice that a lot of answers to questions (from people who don't bother to read FAQs or other postings) get the same answers over-and-over-again-- "Check Jonathan's FAQ site", "Check Jonathan's OS site". I figure at the very least I'll stave off carpal tunnel for a another couple years if all I have to do is point people to the FAQ posting, which will already have the links, etc. :) Scott >-----Original Message----- >In article <#47zvorWEHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >laudable effort, keep in mind that those who actually bother to read a >news group FAQ are usually those who don't really need to. :-) OK, better late than never. That should have said "Check _Robert's_ FAQ site." Boy, guess I better hire a proofreader! Scott > True. But I also notice that a lot of answers to > questions (from people who don't bother to read FAQs or [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > rights. > > . For what its worth most FAQs start out small and can be published to a newsgroup as text but it's in the nature of things that they expand and need a web site. In my case I was able to post the STS FAQ to the newsgroup for about 3 months before adding a web site with the same content. Another few months later and there were monthly postings of four messages with FAQ text. When the follow-up product WSS came out we (the team) moved right away to a web site + regular pdf file posted on the web site and dropped posting the text to the WSS newsgroup altogether - just posting a note that the pdf file has been updated. The web site gets updated on a daily(ish) basis. (The pdf file is 150+ pages) All this just to say that even if at the beginning you can post the FAQ text to the newsgroup you will *very soon* need a web site so prepare for one from the go. Also grab a suitable url while you can. I had to scramble to get www.wssfaq.com when I didn't take this obvious precaution. Luckily the guy who had it was friendly. P.S. STS was a new product and knowledge was scarce at the beginning. I would expect that there is enough VPC FAQ information out there already to be too much for text postings to the newsgroup only. Mike Walsh, Helsinki, Finland WSS FAQ at wss.collutions.com > My philosophy for this was to keep it simple, and to not duplicate the > information already available. It would include: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Scott Thanks Mike. I think we're really on the same page already, but maybe I wasn't clear enough about my intent for this. My whole focus here is that this NG FAQ is really just a slightly expanded version of the "go check the FAQ site" posting you mention. We already have several sites with information (including an FAQ site). That's my primary focus--to direct people to those sites. The extra information is intended to handle mostly NG- specific information that really doesn't need to be in an FAQ about the product. Anything that would cause the NG FAQ to expand dramatically should really be incorporated into one of the sites we already have. Which falls right in line with your caution about FAQ growth. Does that help clarify the intent? Scott >-----Original Message----- >For what its worth most FAQs start out small and can be published to a [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > >. Yes. I should perhaps have read the other posts first before commenting this one. Mike Walsh, Helsinki, Finland > Thanks Mike. I think we're really on the same page > already, but maybe I wasn't clear enough about my intent [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > > >. No problem. If I wasn't clear enough in my original posti in this topic, it needed more explanation. You have real- world experience with this topic that I don't, so it's all good information. Scott >-----Original Message----- >Yes. I should perhaps have read the other posts first before commenting this [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > >. Go for it! It at least has the advantage of being a neutral reply for all of us. Some of the replies to the "We answered that question x times already" posts get sarcastic responses like, "Thanks for nothing, Guys!" This keeps things to a much better tone because it does not look so personal. >-----Original Message----- >My philosophy for this was to keep it simple, and to not duplicate the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Scott >. > Let me know your thoughts on this. I've tried to address some of the > points from the other OT thread we had going. I think it is a grand idea. I'd also agree somewhat with Paul's remarks about those people who most need it are least likely to read it, but at least if there is one there for them to ignore (and be pointed to later) then at least its their fault not ours! btw, feel free to repost when you notice the standard questions starting to reappear, not just wait a planned interval. Procrastination takes time! >-----Original Message----- >My philosophy for this was to keep it simple, and to not duplicate the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Scott >. And the other thread was getting sooooo long, too ::sigh:: Scott, I hope you realize that this means you are multi- threading. >-----Original Message----- >My philosophy for this was to keep it simple, and to not duplicate the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Scott >. In article <21e9c01c45b33$d8fa2b70$a001280a@phx.gbl>, in the microsoft.public.virtualpc news group, Colin Barnhorst <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> says... > Scott, I hope you realize that this means you are multi- > threading. ?? SignaturePaul Adare This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Paul, the reference is to Scott starting his new FAQ thread. It's a pun. :/ >-----Original Message----- >In article <21e9c01c45b33$d8fa2b70$a001280a@phx.gbl>, in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >?? Don't forget the "This is not the VS 2005 NG...." question. Even procrastination takes a little time. >-----Original Message----- >My philosophy for this was to keep it simple, and to not duplicate the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Scott >. That would be in item #2. Scott > Don't forget the "This is not the VS 2005 NG...." > question. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Scott > > . |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.