Suggestion for FAQs

I mentioned this a while back, but no one ever commented, and I still think is sounds like a good idea, so what the heck!

I think it might be a good idea to add to the FAQ to include FAQs related to modeling. We keep answering a good number of questions over and over - "how do I break in my Fox 35", "What do I do with my adjustable leadouts", "Why can't I fly my ARF Nobler in Open at the NATS " (just kidding...), etc. The usual purpose for a FAQ is to cut down on the repetitive posting. It's not 100% effective, but it helps. Would you guys be interesting in doing this? I would be happy to contribute, and we could polish it to make sure there was just mutually-agreed-upon topics and content.

USENET standards generally suggest posting the FAQ once a month. In this case, being HTML and all, it's not practical to post the whole thing directly, but we could just post a message with a link to the FAQ periodically, or "anchor" it to the first page, or something like that.

Comments?

I have something in the works for this. Give me a month or two.

I sounds like a good idea to me, Brett. In fact, we could move the idea to the general forum. I started something like that once, but ran out of time. It is like putting together a column for the Stunt News, except you are all of a sudden faced with five years' worth of columns at one time. I could put a heading at the top of the forum called "Modeling FAQ's" or some such (title ideas anyone?)

First off we need ideas for topics. (Brett has a start--we'll skit the one about the ARF)

Then we need people to compile information or even create a start of an article by themselves. It doesn't hurt to include varying ideas that work ("How do I do a smooth base coat for a finish?" A: Some use nitrate dope for a base, others (myself included) use all butyrate from start to finish. Either will work. Those who use nitrate feel it sticks better and has more solids. On the other hand, it is not fuelproof, and if you ever get dope under the finish (like through the hinge slots, or where the horns come out) well..." To this, there are the talc, cornstarch, and zinc stearite alternatives, etc.)

Anyway, there's a start. So, we are open to topics, and we are open to people who could compile. Several people could work on it. I would welcome your contributions, Brett. You could e-mail them to me. I could do any final editing I feel desireable (or necessary) and send them back for final approval, and then post.

One nice thing about html, if people later on feel that additions should be made to any already posted FAQs, these can always be added as well.

So, topics, anyone? And volunteers to compile when certain topics are agreed upon?

I am going to move this over to the main forum. Brett originally posted this in the user support forum.

>One nice thing about html, if people later on feel that
>additions should be made to any already posted FAQs, these
>can always be added as well.

My experience with faq's where people were able to make additions is that it turned into discussion forums. FAQ has to be simple, straight to the point type of medium: 1 question, 1 answer. Allowing people post 'comments' and 'additions' on top of original answer may give more information but will confuse a person for whom the answer was intended for. That is FAQ pitfall no 1. Pitfall No 2 is when an answer tries to give you several ways 'to skin a cat'. Multiple answers will again confuse the person seeking the answer. A way to offer alternative answers is to provide references other sources of information such as this forum.

In 15 years on the internet, I've seen a number of FAQ's develop into really sad versions of their original intent.

>>One nice thing about html, if people later on feel that
>>additions should be made to any already posted FAQs, these
>>can always be added as well.
>
>My experience with faq's where people were able to make
>additions is that it turned into discussion forums. FAQ has
>to be simple, straight to the point type of medium: 1
>question, 1 answer. Allowing people post 'comments' and
>'additions' on top of original answer may give more
>information but will confuse a person for whom the answer
>was intended for. (snip)
>
>In 15 years on the internet, I've seen a number of FAQ's
>develop into really sad versions of their original intent.
>
>Steven Yampolsky

I totally agree. That was why I was suggesting html. I would post it on the server where it could be accessed from the link at the top of the forum. That link would take you to the index page that would list the various FAQs that were available for viewing, but viewing only. If someone had an addition, correction, or question that needed more explaining, they could e-mail me and I could update the FAQ by incorporating the additional information in that page.

In other words, the forum would continue, but the FAQ's would be accessable from the forum, only not something you could add to or comment on.

If you or anyone else wanted to submit the same, I would like to do it in the style that Brett suffested--incorporating all ideas into one, but maybe adding pros and cons when there are more choices. I would not want it to be "This person said this" and "that person said that" and "This person said that person is only playing with a half a deck of cards and they are all jokers".

(Edit addition) Oh, and one more thing, there is a FAQ at the top of the forum that gives information on how to use the forum. I find that a lot of people haven't bothered to read this as questions keep coming up that are answered there. These FAQs are only as good as the use people make of them.

My thoughts are exactly!

One point to make: one person shouldn't be burdened with maintaining the FAQ. There has to be a way to spread the work among several people. This brings forth another point:

Assuming several volounteers will be needed, the pool of qualified volounteers will be limited to people familiar with HTML. If FAQ can be maintained without having to have Phd in computer languages, the pool of volounteers will be much larger.

>My thoughts are exactly!
>
>One point to make: one person shouldn't be burdened with
>maintaining the FAQ. There has to be a way to spread the
>work among several people. This brings forth another point:
>
>Assuming several volounteers will be needed, the pool of
>qualified volounteers will be limited to people familiar
>with HTML. If FAQ can be maintained without having to have
>Phd in computer languages, the pool of volounteers will be
>much larger.
>
>Steven Yampolsky

Na, anybody with MS Word can create an HTML file from the text they type and it will retain the formating.... Nothing to it, don't even need to know what the HTML paragraph command is.

>Na, anybody with MS Word can create an HTML file from the
>text they type and it will retain the formating.... Nothing
>to it, don't even need to know what the HTML paragraph
>command is.

Precisely. Besides, although I did write much of the original site in plain ol' HTML, I now have the latest version of Front Page. It is simple cut and paste. If people send me the file, I can put it up.

Besides, doing it the other way, I would have to give access to the website to multiple users which, for what should be obvious reasons, I don't care to do. Even Bob (who is the only other one with access) and I have occasionally found ourselves working on the forum at the same time.

I can easily convert anything to html, can jazz it up if desired, and can ftp it to the site. So all I would need is any kind of word document, whether it is converted to HTML or not.

Additionally, I would also want final editorial approval of whatever goes up beyond the forum. If I am responsible for it, I would want to know that it is correct, as well as readable and understandable. I have been sent articles that people have published in their newsletters for use on the site, and some if it is just plain wrong. If I am responsible for the site, I would want to know what was being published.

That shouldn't be a problem. And if someone (such as yourself) compiled a FAQ for publication to the site and I decided to edit or rewrite portions for whatever reason, I could resubmit it to the original compiler for their approval.

Ah, censorship rears its ugly head! What's next, freedom of religion?

<"What do I do with my adjustable leadouts"

Brett,

Is this a reference to my roll axis trim thread?

><"What do I do with my adjustable leadouts"
>
>Brett,
>
>Is this a reference to my roll axis trim thread?
>
>Kim Mortimore

I don't really think this is in reference to anybody in particular. It is just a means of compiling what we have already put up in such a way that people can easily find and understand it without having to ask the same question over again. How does a uniflow tank work? Where should I set my leadouts? The trim-flow chart. Where do I set my pipe for a starting point? (I do have a pipe chart posted now)

But things like this can be posted and referred to. You have a question--and yours would probably go beyond the FAQ--and you post it. But people in their answers could also refer to a certain FAQ without retyping the same information each time.

But that still won't mean that we will all read them, as is evidenced by the number of questions that people have asked about the use of the forum software that are answered in the forum FAQ listed at the top of the forum.

><"What do I do with my adjustable leadouts"
>
>Brett,
>
>Is this a reference to my roll axis trim thread?
>
>Kim Mortimore

Not directly - it's a reference to the maybe 20+ threads here and on Flitelines (and RCO, if we could get to those) on the topic. This particular thread may have been helpful to you if you could have know about it. but more likely your question could have been answered more directly with one of the several threads about flapless stunt planes.

And don't get the idea that I begrudge posting things more than once - I enjoy it otherwise I wouldn't answer. It's just far more efficient for someone to do a little bit of research on their own first, and have the answers at their fingertips, than to first figure out what to ask, and then sort through the 3 different opinions, and the inevtiable thread drift, to find a sound answer. Right now, there's nothing like a searchable reference document. That's what a FAQ would provide.

>(Edit addition) Oh, and one more thing, there is a FAQ at
>the top of the forum that gives information on how to use
>the forum. I find that a lot of people haven't bothered to
>read this as questions keep coming up that are answered
>there. These FAQs are only as good as the use people make
>of them.

One partial solution for this if the larger FAQ project is attempted (and I'm not sure if this is already implicit in the previous posts) might be to proactively "invite" users to go to FAQs before posting a question. One example could be a page when you first log on saying: "Would you like to browse frequently asked questions on the following topics?" followed by a list of topics and a "Click here to skip this page in the future". People who will not use FAQs may not be persuaded, but there are probably others who fall into the I Didn't Think of That category. Or a larger, more prominent FAQ icon/heading. Are there even people out there who do not know what FAQ means? Na.

>Na, anybody with MS Word can create an HTML file from the
>text they type and it will retain the formating.... Nothing
>to it, don't even need to know what the HTML paragraph
>command is.

If this is the case and volunteers can be used for "grunt" work to set up or maintain FAQs, I would be interested in helping. I have received a lot of benefit from this forum and would like to give something back.

Instead of "FAQs", I would prefer calling them "Articles". A simple index would be worth looking through, for all of us. Old threads could be condensed into an article, by a fleet of volunteers, or just the link to the old thread. Those threads should probably be locked, to prevent further comment. Steve