Slashdot Mirror
How To Build And Maintain A Good FAQ
comforteagle writes "FAQs have been around since the beginning of the web & most of them still suck. Most of us who build FAQs rely on handcrafting them, but this really isn't necessary anymore. Sean Kerner has written The FAQs on FAQs as an introduction to getting up to speed fast with a FAQ, letting opensource software do the majority of the work, and allowing the author to concentrate on providing good answers. He shortly reviews a few apps, but settles on phpMyFAQ."
FAQs have been around since the beginning of the web & most of them still suck
While I agree with the second part of this statement, FAQs significantly pre-date the web.
Maybe he should have said, "The really started to suck at the beginning of the web." Most usenet FAQs I have read tended to be very good.
contrary to its title, the article is not in the traditional form of an FAQ.
It's honestly not as hard as people make it out to be. I usually come across 3 types of FAQ: 1) The funny one. The guy thinks he's the most hilarious person on the planet, and asks questions (of himself) like "Are you a devil-worshipper?". Pointless waste of time. 2) The honest one. The guy probably hasn't been asked many questions, so the FAQ is sparse and useless. 3) The "substitution for a manual" one. The guy either thinks his software (or website) is so incredibly complex that NOBODY will ever figure ANYTHING out... or they don't think the user will read a manual. The bottom line is - you get a couple of people to use (whatever it is) for an hour or so. Anything there, you put in. The rest, you let run. Stop annoying us with 50 page FAQs for some stupid blog website, ok?!
When I think of FAQs or How-tos, I usually think of the ones that get bundled with linux distros. Those are usually long-winded, outdated, and innacurate. Be nice if some better guidelines were drawn up and some people revised the more important FAQs.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Yes, Perhaps that has to do with the method of creation. Usenet faqs are created by users for users, WebFAQs are created by Marketroids for lUsers.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
I don't see the problem with F. A. Q. instead of the common "fack" pronunciation. For those who don't mind actually using there mouth with a little dexterity it is just as easy and much less likely to be confused with "fact." Having had the chance to work with a large range of computer literacy (ie. no experience to far outstripping me) I find that sometimes you just have to spell it out!
Add a database and some level of interactivity and you should be able to improve on the old list of questions.
#1. Some way to add a question. This serves two functions:
#1a. The most obvious. It gets new questions on the FAQ.
#1b. Even if you know it is exactly like another question already covered. Different people ask the same question in different fashions. Having multiple questions link to the same answer helps people who don't think in the same terms that you do.
#2. A method of classifying "questions" as:
a. A real question that I had.
b. Information that I found useful but would not have thought to ask.
c. Self-indulgent crap.
(add more categories that you think of)
#3. A method of ranking whether the "answer" really answers the question (this can get back to #1b where everyone doesn't think in the same terms you do).
a. +5 perfect answer - no improvement
b. good answer
c. okay answer, parts unclear
d. bad answer, much unclear or partially wrong
e. you suck! the option you mention isn't even available
#4. A method of searching the database and presenting a list for the end user based upon the end user's selections. Suppose I have some time available and I want to look at all of the "useful information" items with +5 answers.
Most developers agree that it's a PITA to maintain a FAQ... responsible developers should, but who among us is perfect? :-)
Other users usually know the answers to frequently asked questions... or have more time to feel out an answer, etc. etc. It sounds like a good application for a wiki.
Having now skimmed the article, it looks like he gives wikis a mention, but not enough face time to merit weighing the positives and negatives.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
Nice, an article about FAQ's, but I found it rather lacking like most FAQ's. He only mentioned liking one application, but what about a comparison of the ones he tried? Or explaining why that one instead of the other.
I found it all a bit too short to give me an idea about what he tested and concluded. Now I still have to figure out for myself what is best. (Yes, I know I would have to anyway, but most articles can be a good guide and list the strenghts and weaknesses of every application)
home
This guy has a "FUQ": Fictitious, Unasked Questions. He's being honest on the fact that most "questions" in FAQs are forged by the authors anyway.
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics
I find it really funny that a website dedicated to the creation of FAQ's, doesn't have an FAQ page!
I'm still chuckling about that...
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
While I agree with the second part of this statement, FAQs significantly pre-date the web. They were certainly common back in the pre-Web Internet days of Usenet newsgroups - I contributed to several back in the late 80s. Did they start with Usenet, or do they predate that too? Perhaps we need a FAQ FAQ?
Now I feel old.
Sailing over the event horizon
Here, here.
Except for the feeling old part.
FAQs, back in the day.. damn, I'm going to wind up sounds like a geezer here, but still. There was a fully functional Internet before the Web and Mosaic ever saw the light of day. People seem to forget that. Especially those that just did not know and/or did not have access. Sure, things are much better, richer, with a lot more content available. But some aspects are clearly worse, such as: spam email, outright fraud, and identity theft... I almost wonder which is better, an era of shell accounts, slow PPP dialins, mail/nn/tin vs. today's broadband connections everywhere, tens of thousands of zombied machines, and companies built solely on the model of preventing spam in the enterprise.
It seems a shame that nobody remembers.
The notion of a fairly static FAQ is slowly evolving. Wikis aren't quite at the point of being generally useful, and there is still an artificial degree of seperation between topics.
It would be much more useful if wikis worked through shared data repositories. This would prevent/minimise conflicting information, and allow people to chase their thought processes. True integration of knowledge-bases of this kind would involve databases containing discrete facts. These facts would be assembled and patched into explanatory text.
Because the facts are held centrally, two pages containing related information involving the same facts would pull the same instances of those facts from the database. The explanation would need to be seperate, because nobody has figured out how to automaticaly generate that, yet.
BTW, this is off-topic, but biologists and geneticists are mourning the passing of one of the three scientists who discovered the structure of DNA. The BBC is reporting the death of Professor Maurice Wilkins, aged 87. He died in hospital, no cause was given.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm now the maintainer of this project, I picked it up from Bekman Stas, the original author. It is distributed under the Perl Artistic License, I know of one other company that makes use of it. It is very simple, and makes effective use of javascript to help in managing entries. I have extended it to support emailing admins on new contributions. I've made only modest changes since hosting it on Source Forge, but would certainly welcome any contributions or anyone wanting to continue and extend the project.
I don't see this project in the review, but it is very easy to set up and has met our needs very well.
Better yet, let your users edit the FAQ.
A previous employer of mine used an open FAQ system for the corporate FAQ. Anyone could add or edit a FAQ. If anyone ever asked a question that wasn't in the FAQ, they frequently got the answer "I don't know, but when you find out, please put it in the FAQ". We had a very complete, very useful corporate FAQ.
The common objections to this system that users might sabotage it are easily solved. Simply have it version controlled and force user identification. If a user puts something unprofessional in, roll it back and fire them.
The internet scenario is a little tougher than the intranet one, but still usually works well with the addition of a moderator.
In the end, the only difference between a FAQ and a WIKI becomes a forced FAQlike structure.