FAQ: New host for the DIY FAQ

[Guy King]

The message from Matt contains these words:

Perhaps the answer would be to have a split wiki. One column the common view, the other column the contradictory view.

[John Rumm]

Tis one of the reasons I like the content management system with login idea better. Each person can maintain their own entries. People can post suggestions/ammendments etc in the group as usual, but it is down to the creator to implement them or not.

Once genuinely useful articles have been written, then people in here will tend to reference them. Anything too self indulgent or just "strange" will tend to wither due to lack of references (other than by the author no doubt).

[Grunff]

This is pretty much how I see it. The only question for me is whether there are enough people here who think they would contribute. I'm guessing John is up for it, anyone else?

[The Natural Philosopher]

I think what is needed is to create a web site for all this stuff..

Ive just got a tiddler up and running on a machine here for a different purpose..but the BBS web forums stuff is ideal for what we do here..and the ability to post pictures is absolutely gold dust..

The big issue is who pays?

You need at least one part time administrator to keep it clean and free from drivel ;-)

And the moment you accept sponsorship from a company, they can exert political pressure to get the worts crap that gets thrown at them removed..

Two models that work well are wikipedia and the sort of software run here

Have a look at the latter and delve into any thread to see what is possible.

I'm sort of half happy to use my time and expertise to set it up, and to an extent run it..but someone has to pay for hosting etc..though that isn' a huge expense..

[Grunff]

Hmmm, I'm not so sure a BB is the best solution - to me, that just duplicates the threaded conversation functionality we have on Usenet, while adding a few minor features such as images, pms and email notifications.

What I was thinking of was more akin to a publishing platform, something like WordPress or similar. This would allow maintenance of categorised articles, with each article or category maintained by its creator. It would provide a fixed, user-contributed resource, which is different from both the faq and the newsgroup.

I'm happy to host and set up, but:

Quite - unless we have restrictions on who can post articles, it can turn into a huge management task.

Just to clarify, the company which hosts the faq is our company - we aren't accepting sponsorship from another company.

It's an out of the box vBulletin installation, would take half an hour to set up. But as I said, I'm not sure a BB is what's needed - what do others think?

Hosting isn't an issue, happy to provide this for whatever solution is agreed upon.

[meow2222]

Unfortunately Drivel isnt the only source of hotly debated stuff, it happens fairly regularly between a fair number of us. There are lots of threads with 2 or more people chasing each other down the page. The only way I can think of to avoid problems with this is to let each contributor add their bit. If we dont do it that way then we're getting into a lot of extra work with the group reviewing articles one by one, more like our primary faq. And for a large quantity of pieces thats jus too much work imho. I dont see a big problem with letting more tha one view stand, wheres theres debate people can just make up their own mind.

NT

[meow2222]

Unfortunately Drivel isnt the only source of hotly debated stuff, it happens fairly regularly between a fair number of us. There are lots of threads with 2 or more people chasing each other down the page. The only way I can think of to avoid problems with this is to let each contributor add their bit. If we dont do it that way then we're getting into a lot of extra work with the group reviewing articles one by one, more like our primary faq. And for a large quantity of pieces thats jus too much work imho. I dont see a big problem with letting more tha one view stand, wheres theres debate people can just make up their own mind.

And its far to say that majority voting isnt a reliable way to reach the truth.

NT

[Matt]

Ditto. Web forums, with very few exceptions are hopeless for usability.

Pictures might be "nice" but RSI and click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click to read a solitary article isn't.

Maybe worth having a look at

Long term (free) hosting commitment, run by the team behind wikipedia and with the convenient wiki interface.

[Phil Addison]

I agree, WordPress or similar seems ideal. It's something we have toyed with for the main FAQ too, and I'm thinking actually amalgamating the main FAQ with this would benefit the FAQ in terms of getting existing stuff updated as well as bringing in new. Having a content management system that allows registered people to update/add to the FAQ directly does seem a good thing. It also has the major advantage of not needing to be created in html form.

Regarding what goes in it, we had some discussion a while back about a potential structure and contents list for an improved FAQ, which I have just re-loaded on the FAQ site as a Word doc with outlining

a pdf version something along those lines satisfy both content requirements?

That's a non-issue since grunff is continuing to host it.

If any kind of editorial/admin role is needed, should this scheme take off, I'm happy to offer my services.

The FAQ has relied on sponsored hosting for years, since it outgrew free hosting space. The maintainer always holds the master copy that is uploaded so loss isn't an issue, and in the unlikely event of falling out with the sponsor we just have to find another.

I agree with grunff, a BB doesn't offer much extra, and suffers from isolation from the newsgroup community.

Great, so business as usual on that front ;)

Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at

Google uk.d-i-y archive is at NOSPAM from address to email me

[Guy King]

The message from [e-mail] contains these words:

That's why I suggested the idea of two columns. One marked "Orthodoxy", the other "Heterodoxy".

[Dave Fawthrop]

|>Hmmm, I'm not so sure a BB is the best solution - to me, that just |>duplicates the threaded conversation functionality we have on Usenet, |>while adding a few minor features such as images, pms and email |>notifications. | |Ditto. Web forums, with very few exceptions are hopeless for |usability. | |Pictures might be "nice" but RSI and click click click click click |click click click click click click click click click click click |click click to read a solitary article isn't.

Agreed Web based forums are absolute ***RUBBISH*** compared to usenet. Because of the problems noted I have given up using a very good forum in which I *really* interested.

[John Rumm]

Yup, why not... there are a few mini reviews I have posted to the group in the past that could go there for starters.

[John Rumm]

I don't think we need something that replicated usenet on a web forum... if we wanted that we could all use diybanter or one of the other web interfaces.

I would say something more akin to

for example. CMS, supports some catagories etc, has a search facility.

and if Grunff wanted to shift it elswhere in the furture, I am sure we would have spare capacity somewhere.

[John Rumm]

I would be all in favour of dribble having his own login. He keeps telling us that the existing faqs are no good, so this would be the ideal opportunity to prove he can do better...

Well not really - the intro could explain that this is not the faq, the stuff is not peer reviewed, and much of it will be op ed pieces. That is part of the attraction. People can say what they want (within reason), we can still discuss in the groups if we want, and ultimately there will be a body of work that we can either call on later or ignore with contempt as we see fit in the future.

The better stuff will no doubt improve with age and the authors add extra detail, take on board sugestions etc.

[Owain]

We could, but it would be nice to have our "own", especially if it worked properly and better than googlegroups, for use when away from the home PC. An alternative might be uk.d-i-y's own usenet server for the group, because ISPs seem to be dropping news services.

However this is a separate question from the FAQ.

Owain

[djc]

And who decides which is which?

A wiki is fine (and far more suitable than a BB) if the content is by and large uncontroversial, the problem is always with a few mono maniacs. Something like <

> for instance works well because for many pages one person has made the bulk of the page and others add correction or amplification but tend not to totally rewrite. Keeping track of recent changes and who made them is useful. In fact attribution of articles rather than anon is probably a good thing. You need some sort of account and login to keep control of spam and a moderator to clean up the stuff that creeps through.

[Weatherlawyer]

Perhaps but not to me. You may be aware of what this means:

We offer a variety of products which have a proven track record for effective business on the web. View our product range.

SymWorks provide a complete range of services to help develop your business presence on the web. From nuts and bolts development to consultancy and advice, we can help.!"

But I wasn't talking to you.

[Phil Addison]

Having worked with grunff on the FAQ hosting for some 4 years, indeed I am. Did you perhaps have some form of test in mind that SymWorks should pass before we spend their money?

But you were, and to everyone else that cared to listen. Don't you know that whispering doesn't work on Usenet?

Oh and BTW, I own the diyfaq domain name and choose where it is hosted, none of which is at any cost to you.

Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at

Google uk.d-i-y archive is at NOSPAM from address to email me

[John Stumbles]

I think a wiki would be great. You have my vote!

[Guy King]

The message from djc contains these words:

I wasn't being entirely serious.