Talk:Mailing list FAQ: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "I got rid of all the 'DEPRECATED' markers and the suggestion to read an article about why FAQs are bad. Because : a. FAQs aren't bad. The referenced article was an opinionat...") |
(why FAQs are GOOD) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Because : | Because : | ||
a. FAQs aren't bad. The referenced article was an opinionated view predicated on the assumption, untrue here, that FAQs are not actually frequently asked. FAQs are a recognised format for what might be described as 'Here be monsters'. It might want a new name and it might be abused in the cabinet office, but it's not BAD. Everything is probably abused in the cabinet office. It's certainly not somewhere to go for advice. | a. FAQs aren't bad. The referenced article [https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/07/25/faqs-why-we-dont-have-them/ article] was an opinionated view predicated on the assumption, untrue here, that FAQs are not actually frequently asked. Read it by all means, but read the comments and links there too - they're a lot more helpful. FAQs are a recognised format for what might be described as 'Here be monsters'. It might want a new name and it might be abused in the cabinet office, but it's not BAD. Everything is probably abused in the cabinet office. It's certainly not somewhere to go for advice. | ||
b. DEPRECATED was unhelpful. It wasn't clear if the deprecation was of the reply itself or the fact that it existed here. In some cases it pointed to the mailing list page was an even less appropriate place (how would a new person know that their question was relevant to the mailing list merely because it occurred there often?). I believe the label was attached to indicate 'this would be better answered elsewhere' but that's not always true and was not the obvious interpretation. | b. DEPRECATED was unhelpful. It wasn't clear if the deprecation was of the reply itself or the fact that it existed here. In some cases it pointed to the mailing list page was an even less appropriate place (how would a new person know that their question was relevant to the mailing list merely because it occurred there often?). I believe the label was attached to indicate 'this would be better answered elsewhere' but that's not always true and was not the obvious interpretation. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:22, 2 May 2017
I got rid of all the 'DEPRECATED' markers and the suggestion to read an article about why FAQs are bad.
Because :
a. FAQs aren't bad. The referenced article article was an opinionated view predicated on the assumption, untrue here, that FAQs are not actually frequently asked. Read it by all means, but read the comments and links there too - they're a lot more helpful. FAQs are a recognised format for what might be described as 'Here be monsters'. It might want a new name and it might be abused in the cabinet office, but it's not BAD. Everything is probably abused in the cabinet office. It's certainly not somewhere to go for advice.
b. DEPRECATED was unhelpful. It wasn't clear if the deprecation was of the reply itself or the fact that it existed here. In some cases it pointed to the mailing list page was an even less appropriate place (how would a new person know that their question was relevant to the mailing list merely because it occurred there often?). I believe the label was attached to indicate 'this would be better answered elsewhere' but that's not always true and was not the obvious interpretation.
c. It made this page unwelcoming and confusing.
d. They'd been there since 2014. Clearly, nobody agreed strongly enough to rewrite and move the articles. The FAQ is here, it provides a recognised function even if nobody ever reads it, and it's not going away any time soon. If you feel that strongly, rewrite the articles in an appropriate place yourself, don't just mark them DEPRECATED and leave them there.
