|
| Thanks, the mess has been cleaned up. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
This post made me think once again that the site's FAQ could be improved. First, there should be multiple FAQs, each dealing with a specific topic. Obviously, one of these topics should be "Monthly Competition".
Second, members should be allowed - and encouraged - to submit FAQs. They should be awarded article points for doing so. "FAQ" articles would have to be reviewed before being published.
|
|
|
|
|
| So what if we made a page listing every Tip that is tagged "CodeProject FAQ"? Anyone and everyone could contribute. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Anyone and everyone could contribute.
Having a page linking to all CP FAQs is OK. Allowing anyone to edit them is a bad idea IMO. CP FAQs should be authored by CP staff. You could consider editing privileges to a happy few non-staff. Although I would prefer a forum connected to the FAQ dispatch page, where you can receive, process and remove messages holding suggestions and comments.
|
|
|
|
|
| I like the general idea, but think Luc's right about the need to limit editing rights. I wouldn't go quite as far as he does though. I'd limit applying the CP-FAQ tag to Gold+ members and staff; and editing to the same and the original author (regardless of status). 3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: So what if we made a page listing every Tip that is tagged "CodeProject FAQ"?
This sounds like a recipe for a mess. Again, how would you find FAQs for a specific topic? A Tag? How would you enforce the selection of a predefined set of Tags? And most important, how would a reader know that the FAQ was authoritative, and not just somebody's wet dream?
If each FAQ was like an article, then I think it would work. Members could post to the FAQ's forum - just like with articles - and you would get some valuable input on how members would like things to work.
|
|
|
|
|
| I strongly feel that members should be able to update FAQs themselves, hence the Tip idea. However, I could create a series of articles ("Articles", "Membership", "Reputation" etc) that are editable by Gold level members (any flavour). Put these under a section "Site FAQs" in the General Reading chapter, sprinkle links around liberally and we're done? cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I strongly feel that members should be able to update FAQs themselves,
If a member updates a FAQ so that the concept of, say - Monthly Competition - is totally perverted, how strongly would you feel about that? OK, forget about the perverted part, what if a member just has a wrong idea about something, and posts that wrong idea, and keeps posting it, until other members start posting it, too?
I think this is what Luc was getting at. Unlike other articles, the site FAQs are postings about stuff that is beyond members' control, and so must be reviewed for accuracy before being published.
[ Of course, I would love to post a FAQ about how a certain feature of the site works, and then have the site start working that way, but I don't think that's what you intended.]
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: OK, forget about the perverted part, what if a member just has a wrong idea about something, and posts that wrong idea, and keeps posting it, until other members start posting it, too?
That's already a possibility; someone asks a question in The Lounge, someone else responds with an answer that is clear, detailed, and wrong, answer gets up-voted, etc...
The advantage of the common wiki-style FAQ is that it can be corrected as easily as it can be corrupted, whether that corruption arises from malice, misunderstanding, or plain old neglect.
|
|
|
|
|
To paraphrase: The disadvantage of the common wiki-style FAQ is that it can be corrupted as easily as it can be corrected, whether that corruption arises from malice, misunderstanding, or plain old neglect.
When I look at a site FAQ, what I really, really want to know is, Is this the way it's supposed to work, or is this the way a majority of the members think it should work?
In the case of CP, only a very few people know for sure how certain site features are supposed to work. They are the ones who should be authoring / approving the FAQ contents, not some newbie Joe Blow.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: not some newbie Joe Blow.
Which is why I was suggesting gold members.
Going back to your previous semi-joke about posting a FAQ entry and having the site start working that way: having separate FAQs would mean we could have more focussed discussion on each topic. A good thing.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: They are the ones who should be authoring / approving the FAQ contents, not some newbie Joe Blow.
Well, in an ideal world, where there's always enough time for documentation... 
But anyway, the top of this thread has you suggesting that CP solicit FAQ contributions from members, members who may or may not and in fact probably don't know for sure how certain site features are supposed to work. So I know you're not all that down on the idea of user-written FAQs. And if you are that worried about new users showing up and trashing the FAQs, then what's wrong with Chris's suggested limiting of that privilege to Gold-level users?
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: what's wrong with Chris's suggested limiting of that privilege to Gold-level users?
You missed the key point I made: "FAQ" articles would have to be reviewed before being published.
Why on earth do you think that any member - Gold or otherwise - would know more about how the site works than Chris & Co.?
First and foremost, the site FAQ should be an authoritative source for how the site works. If you would be satisfied to read someone's opinion of how the site works, fine. To me, that would consist of nothing more than a bunch of opinions, and would be totally useless, probably misleading, and a waste of time to read.
I can't figure out why you would even want to read someone's opinion about how the site works, or should work, or might work.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: Why on earth do you think that any member - Gold or otherwise - would know more about how the site works than Chris & Co.?
Again, this is your suggestion. You really can't get more authoritative than the current system, the one where Chris & Co. write the FAQ topics. Of course, this is based on their needs and wants - presumably FAQ topics are added when they feel one is required and have the time to write it. If you feel that this doesn't lead to sufficient coverage and your remedy is to solicit contributions from site users, then it's a bit disingenuous to argue that one system for accomplishing this isn't sufficiently authoritative: all of the systems proposed here involve bringing in non-authoritative content, the primary differences being what mechanism is appropriate for editing and approval.
OTOH, if what you're suggesting is that new FAQ topics should be submitted in private and then, after careful review, "blessed" by an Official of the Site thus making them authoritative prior to publication... Then I'm afraid I don't really see the point. I mean, why not just pull some of the more frequently-asked questions from this forum, along with their answers, and add them to the current FAQ? Soliciting fresh topics and making a contest out of it seems like a way to burn precious editor time processing questions no one asked...
As for...
Hans Dietrich wrote: I can't figure out why you would even want to read someone's opinion about how the site works, or should work, or might work.
...because it works. I rely daily on non-authoritative documentation for much more crucial things: APIs, compilers, libraries... When the choice is between documentation that must be proven to work and no documentation at all, I'll usually take the former - it's better than nothing. And so it is on CP today: if I want to know how something works and can't easily or quickly test it myself, I'll search The Lounge and then this forum until I find an answer - if that answer is from Chris or someone else on the CP Team then good, but any answer that works is better than no answer at all, as it saves me from having to ask the question or otherwise spend time figuring it out for myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: I think this is what Luc was getting at
Yep. IMO the way the site operates is to be decided by CP staff, not by the last member who decided to change some FAQ document. So the best I could come up with is a FAQ (or several) with its own forum for discussion, suggestion, bug reporting, all of that to be aggregated by CP staff; in the end the forum should be empty and the FAQ perfect (explaining how and, if not obvious, also why things should happen as documented).
We don't need FAQ wars, where one member says A, another says B (each could be serious or troll) and they keep changing the FAQ, driving everyone insane, and driving lots of users away.
|
|
|
|
|
Just curious as to why Visual Studio is under General Message Board instead of Programming?
|
|
|
|
|
Because it has nothing do with programming. This is all about VS Installation, License and mostly related with VS IDE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have just noticed that my signature is not showing with any post. While Click on New Message / Reply Message, My Signature is there, but after post it is no more present. 
I think there is some problem or am I missing some setting?
Thanks !
Abhijit
|
|
|
|
|
| Try now cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Let me try !
Sorry, It's still missing 
|
|
|
|
|
| OK, let me see what is going on. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Okey 
|
|
|
|
|
It's Still Missing 
|
|
|
|
|
| Patience, grasshopper. It's been a big week and I'm still trying to dig myself out. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
