FAQ software support changes

[Jim Ley]

Hi,

I've read the thread on changing the way the FAQ works, I am happy to
install just about any software on the box that the group may want,
and to change the cron jobs to send other things easily enough.

I would be very concerned with both wiki vandalism, and incorrect
information appearing there. So I think it would need to be a user
login required system, to stop both the spammers, and to ensure a
little bit of reputation based changes...

Cheers,

Jim.

 

[VK]

Hi,

I've read the thread on changing the way the FAQ works, I am happy to
install just about any software on the box that the group may want,

Just a though:
<http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/TWikiRelease04Sep2004>
or other variants to consider:

and to change the cron jobs to send other things easily enough.

It's not really so important *when* does CRON send but *what* does it
send.
I am not denying that The Cabal in this newsgroup consists of
knowlegeable and experienced experts. They are such! Still I do not
agree that a selected group of 4-5 people can possible know any single
detail of script/DOM technique (legacy and modern) on any single
browser under any single OS. Collective feedback is a great add-on to
them. Some current FAQ answers are so old you can paint by your finger
on the dust they are covered (say "Local file access" topic).

I would be very concerned with both wiki vandalism, and incorrect
information appearing there. So I think it would need to be a user
login required system, to stop both the spammers, and to ensure a
little bit of reputation based changes...

If it's going to be 4-5 keys for The Cabal members only then there is
no need to start any mess: it's going to be a highteched recreation of
what currently exists.
If not, than how an auth can protect from "vandalism"? Are we going to
run a credit card verification before any posting?
There are not unbreakable codes, unhackable servers and untouchable
public boards. But as someone said very well in this thread, postings
(however sick they can be) are coming and quickly disappearing into
archives but FAQ's remain and always can be corrected.

 

[Jim Ley]

If it's going to be 4-5 keys for The Cabal members only then there is
no need to start any mess: it's going to be a highteched recreation of
what currently exists.

It would be a pretty much anyone who posts can get a login, the main
reason of the login would be able to police spam and deliberate
vandalism by revoking the account. If it takes a spammer some email
handling to get an account then their bots won't be able to post... it
won't of course hurt the individual vandaliser, but they can be
frustrated a lot simply by introducing a delay in the log in process.

To also enable easier future migration I would like to have the
associated pages on either jsfaq.jibbering.com or on a completely
different domain, I would still be happy to host either way.

Jim.

 

[Randy Webb]

VK said the following on 11/5/2005 1:15 PM:

Jim Ley wrote:




It's not really so important *when* does CRON send but *what* does it
send.

That I totally disagree with. It is just as important when it sends as
well as what it sends. A once-a-year top-notch document is worthless. At
the same time, a daily crappy document is also worthless.

I am not denying that The Cabal in this newsgroup consists of
knowlegeable and experienced experts. They are such! Still I do not
agree that a selected group of 4-5 people can possible know any single
detail of script/DOM technique (legacy and modern) on any single
browser under any single OS. Collective feedback is a great add-on to
them. Some current FAQ answers are so old you can paint by your finger
on the dust they are covered (say "Local file access" topic).

Do you have an alternative to the entry that is there now on "Local file
access"? There is no reason to change it when it is factually correct.

 

[Matt Kruse]

That I totally disagree with. It is just as important when it sends as
well as what it sends. A once-a-year top-notch document is worthless.
At the same time, a daily crappy document is also worthless.

I suspect that regular posting of the FAQ to this group is worthless
altogether anyway.

I see no evidence that any new users to the group read the posting. Most new
users to the group probably have no idea what the FAQ subject line means and
wouldn't read the post contents anyway.

I realize that some people here are hard-core traditionalists and
experienced net citizens who find it reprehensible that someone would post
to a newsgroup without reading the charter, the FAQ, and lurking for a week
prior to posting. But the reality is that most people would never dream of
doing any of the above, and so I question the real value of regular FAQ
postings at all.

Which is not to say that posting it regularly should be stopped. It doesn't
hurt anything. It's just not something I think deserves a lot of discussion.

 

[VK]

VK said the following on 11/5/2005 1:15 PM:

Randy Webb wrote:
That I totally disagree with. It is just as important when it sends as
well as what it sends. A once-a-year top-notch document is worthless. At
the same time, a daily crappy document is also worthless.

Here I have a non-parallel idea (I'm good on that in both good and bad
sense
Rather than be oriented on some time points why not to use a visual
issue:
Google Groups default display 30 topic per web-page.
Outlook Express displays 34 topic per page (Preview pane off, 1024x768)

Of course it all varies greatly from software to software and from
screen to screen. But very roughly one can say that a FAQ *Link* posted
on each 30th new topic will be initially visible in any news reader.
Google RSS feed may provide such info to CRON running once per day:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/feeds>
And the full text FAQ post comes each week as it does now.

If it has any sense...

Do you have an alternative to the entry that is there now on "Local file
access"?

Not yet. I mean I do, but it is not tested for full stability. Also I
want to look first if Konqueror, Safari, Opera and others have anything
to propose in this domain.

From other side some Konqueror or Safari user may already know the

exact answer (or have a code sample) and they would correct the
relevant wiki article - if it was posted.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>
, dated Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:15:01, seen in VK

Just a though:
<http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/TWikiRelease04Sep2004>
or other variants to consider:

If you want wiki pages, then write wiki pages. If the wiki pages,
written by you, are worth reading - which seems unlikely - then the
newsgroup readers can cite them and the newsgroup FAQ can cite them. If
they are worth reading after being edited or increased in number by
others, then the newsgroup readers can cite them and the newsgroup FAQ
can cite them.

Compete with the newsgroup FAQ; don't try to replace it.

I'd be very reluctant myself to commend the work of an anonymous author
who posts through Google.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Sat, 5 Nov 2005
15:10:16, seen in Matt Kruse

I suspect that regular posting of the FAQ to this group is worthless
altogether anyway.

Without having an edited FAQ - with an active Editor - posted to the
newsgroup, there is no corporate responsibility in the group. A group
with a FAQ that is frequently edited as a result of posted feedback has
an obviously trustworthy FAQ.

I see no evidence that any new users to the group read the posting. Most new
users to the group probably have no idea what the FAQ subject line means and
wouldn't read the post contents anyway.

If they don't more or less understand "Quick Answers" there's little
hope for them anyway. But the Wednesday title could be improved, if
only by adding "General" or "Reference".

I realize that some people here are hard-core traditionalists and
experienced net citizens who find it reprehensible that someone would post
to a newsgroup without reading the charter, the FAQ, and lurking for a week
prior to posting. But the reality is that most people would never dream of
doing any of the above, and so I question the real value of regular FAQ
postings at all.

You seem to have omitted to perceive that, as well as being a resource
which it is hoped will diminish the repetition of common questions, is
also a resource which undoubtedly diminishes the repetition of common
answers.

Which is not to say that posting it regularly should be stopped. It doesn't
hurt anything. It's just not something I think deserves a lot of discussion.

If possible, though, without wind-baggery.

If you want wiki pages, write wiki pages in wiki. Preferably so good
that they need no updating, or so bad that they get an immediate
rewrite. If you want an instructive Web site, then write and maintain
one.