FAQ Noise

[dhtml]

If getting people to read the FAQ is a goal, adding noise doesn't help.

I'd like to remove:



| 2.5 How do I direct someone to this FAQ?
|
| This document is posted to clj very frequently. There should be no
| reason to direct someone to it. However, if someone asks a question
| answered in this FAQ or in one of the resources listed herein,
| please let them know their question is answered in the FAQ and that
| the FAQ can be found at http://www.jibbering.com/faq/
|

I've never seen this question asked here. Anyone strongly objected to
removing it?

 

[dhtml]

If getting people to read the FAQ is a goal, adding noise doesn't help.

I'd like to remove:



| 2.5 How do I direct someone to this FAQ?
|
| This document is posted to clj very frequently. There should be no
| reason to direct someone to it. However, if someone asks a question
| answered in this FAQ or in one of the resources listed herein,
| please let them know their question is answered in the FAQ and that
| the FAQ can be found at http://www.jibbering.com/faq/
|

I've never seen this question asked here. Anyone strongly objected to
removing it?

Going...

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

If getting people to read the FAQ is a goal, adding noise doesn't help.

I'd like to remove:

| 2.5 How do I direct someone to this FAQ?
...

I've never seen this question asked here. Anyone strongly objected to
removing it?

Agreed, but ensure that there are references to the full URL which is,
IIRC,
<http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html> : there's one in Section 1.

My main News server currently appears to be accepting uploads but not
propagating them and not supplying articles either. Therefore, my
long reply in another thread has not appeared. I don't fancy
duplicating it via Google, so I'll mail you a copy soon.

 

[dhtml]

Agreed, but ensure that there are references to the full URL which is,
IIRC,
<http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html> : there's one in Section 1.

?

I don't understand your response. I propose removing the above cited
(FAQ 2.5) from the FAQ.

My main News server currently appears to be accepting uploads but not
propagating them and not supplying articles either. Therefore, my
long reply in another thread has not appeared. I don't fancy
duplicating it via Google, so I'll mail you a copy soon.

I replied to it. It shows up in my reader, but was not on the list.

Date: 10/3/08 5:47 PM
NNTP Posting Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 00:45:36 +0000 (UTC)

Strange. It doesn't appear in GG either. I also explained in that msg
that mail to Bart had been delayed (error message from news server).

Garrett

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

dhtml wrote:

Going...

That's rather quick, especially at a weekend. Granted, it's not
irrevocable.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

I don't understand your response.  I propose removing the above cited
(FAQ 2.5) from the FAQ.

Yes, I agreed, but wanted to stress that the last line, more or less,
is an important statement and something like it must remain
somewhere in the FAQ. In discussion a year or two ago, it was agreed
that the URL in the FAQ should be in full, i.e. with "index.html".

In Sec 2.3, in a subsection on replying, I suggest something like
"Check the FAQ before replying and cite any part that applies.". We
have often seen bad answers given by those who have not done so.

Strange. It doesn't appear in GG either.

Google was evidently unwell.

 

[dhtml]

Yes, I agreed, but wanted to stress that the last line, more or less,
is an important statement and something like it must remain
somewhere in the FAQ. In discussion a year or two ago, it was agreed
that the URL in the FAQ should be in full, i.e. with "index.html".

Still in the FAQ:

| 1 meta-FAQ meta-questions
|
| You are reading the comp.lang.javascript meta-FAQ, version 9.91. It
| is available on the web at http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html
| in HTML form.

In Sec 2.3, in a subsection on replying, I suggest something like
"Check the FAQ before replying and cite any part that applies.". We
have often seen bad answers given by those who have not done so.

Got it. Added a 'Replying' section and moved an item from "How to Ask a
Question":

| Replying
|
| * Quote the minimum of the preceding messages that is
| sufficient to provide context for the reply but trim the remainder,
| and add your comments below the pertinent section of quoted
| material, as per FYI28/RFC1855 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
| (never top post).
|
| * Cite any part of the FAQ that applies. Be specific and link
| to the relevant section.
|
| * Avoid being unnecessarily rude.
|

What do you think?

 

[dhtml]

That's rather quick, especially at a weekend. Granted, it's not
irrevocable.

I can put it back, if it removal seems debatable.


Garrett

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

| Replying
|
|     * Quote the minimum of the preceding messages that is
| sufficient to provide context for the reply but trim the remainder,
| and add your comments below the pertinent section of quoted
| material, as per FYI28/RFC1855http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
| (never top post).

That could be simplified without loss of meaning, maybe :

* Quote only relevant parts of earlier messages, and add your
comments below each quoted section
(FYI28/RFC1855http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt). Do not top-post.

|     * Cite any part of the FAQ that applies. Be specific and link
| to the relevant section.

While the FAQ is being upheaved, "Give the heading of the relevant
section" will be safer. Even if it changes, a human should find the
replacement.

What do you think?

You don't seem to be trimming sigs! Else OK. You will have mail.

 

[dhtml]

While the FAQ is being upheaved, "Give the heading of the relevant
section" will be safer. Even if it changes, a human should find the
replacement.

It would be even better if the IDs were not numbered but more semantic, e.g.

<h2 id='#getWindowSize'>How do I find the size of the window?</h2>


That would require changes to the scripts and the XML.

You don't seem to be trimming sigs! Else OK. You will have mail.

OK.

Suggestions applied.

Garrett

 

[Henry]

On Oct 6, 5:59 pm, dhtml wrote:

It would be even better if the IDs were not numbered but more
semantic, e.g.

<h2 id='#getWindowSize'>How do I find the size of the window?</h2> ^??
That would require changes to the scripts and the XML.

Remember that the archives are full of references to the FAQ using
those existing fragment identifiers, which should not rendered broken
by changes.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

It would be even better if the IDs were not numbered but more semantic, e.g.

Yes, indeed. Those two listing schemes can be combined, though.

<h2 id='#getWindowSize'>How do I find the size of the window?</h2>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is obviously an invalid ID, and it is not backwards-compatible. Use
instead

How do I find the size of the window?</a></h2>

(Shouldn't you know the basics before you attempt to improve something?
One really wonders how you of all applicants could get this job.)


PointedEars

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

On Oct 6, 5:59 pm, dhtml wrote:



Remember that the archives are full of references to the FAQ using
those existing fragment identifiers, which should not rendered broken
by changes.

I think that it might be better if the previous FAQ, version 9.91 of
2008-01-19, were restored to its previous URL, making the current
document-in-hand formally a different document, perhaps in a clj-faq
directory rather than the faq directory. That would automatically
repair the old references.

The revised work could be headed
"New FAQ for comp.lang.javascript - 10.00* - 2008-10-??"
We've had a New Forest in Southern England since 1086 or earlier, so
there need ne no hurry to remove the adjective.

 

[dhtml]

The revised work could be headed
"New FAQ for comp.lang.javascript - 10.00* - 2008-10-??"
We've had a New Forest in Southern England since 1086 or earlier, so
there need ne no hurry to remove the adjective.

That's not a bad idea. It's bit of work, though.

I should be starting a contract very soon.

I think in the meantime, I can still make amendments to the current FAQ.

Garrett

 

[dhtml]

That's not a bad idea. It's bit of work, though.

I should be starting a contract very soon.

I think in the meantime, I can still make amendments to the current FAQ.

And that way, if the archives are searched, and the FAQ is linked, then
new, updated information would be returned.

 

[dhtml]

That is obviously an invalid ID, and it is not backwards-compatible. Use
instead

That was already pointed out by JR Stockton. Thank you.

That could work if changed to be <a name="FAQ5_7" and id="getWindowSize">...


Or perhaps:

(Shouldn't you know the basics before you attempt to improve something?
One really wonders how you of all applicants could get this job.)

Of course I should know the basics.

This is off-topic, but worth saying anyway:

If you wonder why you did not get to be FAQ maintainer, then re-read the
thread where you volunteered. The above quoted text that you wrote (the
one I am replying to now, in this paragraph) is the type of thing that
make others dislike you. I can tell you it comes off as pretty dang rude
and condescending. This is fairly typical behavior of yours. If you want
to be FAQ maintainer (and I believe you are technically qualified
enough), then adjusting your attitude might help.

Garrett

 

[dhtml]

On Oct 6, 5:59 pm, dhtml wrote:


Remember that the archives are full of references to the FAQ using
those existing fragment identifiers, which should not rendered broken
by changes.

So the way it is now, the fragment might be broken; the user might have
to search using the "find" feature.

If I create a new file "faq.html" and restore the old "index.html".
This preserves links w/fragment identifiers in the archives.

However, all the links to "jibbering.com/faq/" will return the old
"index.html" page, not the new "faq.html".

A rewrite rule could be used to map any http request with "#FAQ" to the
old page, as "index_09_2008.html", which would include a link at the top
of that page to the current "/faq/". The current page would then have to
eliminate all the links to "#FAQ". Then, anyone searching the archives
who got a link to an old FAQ section would still be able to get the
information provided by that link.

I don't have access to creating any sort of rewrite rule on that server.
If it can't be done on the server, it could be done in javascript.

Garrett