FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:55 AM

Do what you like, Joe.

(a) Some people will whinge about it, no matter what you do and how good it is.

(b) Most people will just go along and use whatever you produce as best they can.

Have fun.

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: GUEST,greg stephens
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 10:15 AM

Yes I think apc is suggesting making things moreconfusing. And very sensible too, it seems to me. Mudcat needs people interested in folk music, and posting on that sort of subject, to provide a pleasing balance with BS threads. And too many BS threads puts off too many knowledgable interesting folkies, who end up not bothering to visit. So apc's point seems very basic and obvious arithmetic. If you make it easy to search without posting, you get less music postings. And the less music postings you get, the less people interested in music will post. It's a vicious spiral. So, keep it difficult.

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: MMario
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 10:02 AM

APC - are you suggesting "we" make thinks more confusing?

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 09:42 AM

I find a lot of good sense in what Ed and Jim suggest. Mudcat was my first real experience of a web forum and I'm still learning. I did try the DT for the song which I was looking for at the time, but didn't turn it up - I think because of the old alternative spellings problem. Fortunately, a post on the forum produced answers within minutes.

At the same time I'm tempted to suggest that if everything is made too easy to find in the DT, fewer unsuspecting passers-by will be lured into the forum, never to emerge again...

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: Noreen
Date: 01 Jul 02 - 08:44 PM

Joe, I agree with Ed's summary- a single page of sub-headings, each of which leads to another page with more detailed information, some perhaps subdividing further.

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Jun 02 - 05:17 AM

Just a thought, but if the 'Membership' page is also due for an update, can it make clear the policy on not releasing details, whilst possibly offering a separate box in which one can annotate those details (d.o.b. e-mail, sex, location etc.) which the member is willing to have included on the relevent pages. I was here for some months before realising that it needed a PM to Pene to get included.

Nigel

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 25 Jun 02 - 11:13 PM

Right off the bat, I think we need to tell people how to find and/or request lyrics. That seems to be what draws most newcomers to Mudcat. The problems that newcomers have are these:

Newcomers don't know how to search for lyrics, so they just start a thread by asking for lyrics instead, even when they could be easily found. Some Mudcatters are always willing to help them, which is fine, but some others give sarcastic answers, which no doubt alienates some newcomers. Mainly, it clutters up our archive with multiple threads about the same song.

Once they have started a thread, they don't know how to find it again, especially if it has disappeared beyond the 24-hour "event horizon." So sometimes they just start yet another thread asking the same question. Or they just fail to show up again to clarify their requests or to thank the people who have tried to help them. I have seen some Mudcatters grouse about the fact that requesters fail to thank them, but I don't think it's a matter of rudeness so much as ignorance. Probably the reason they never thanked you for your reply is because they never saw your reply—because they don't know how to find it. I have also seen newcomers start a second thread to thank people who responded to their first thread! (I think this happened when the newcomer got his reply by email.)

Newcomers often don't seem to know that our custom is to post replies in the same thread as the question, so they ask us to email them instead. This leads me to suspect that many newcomers have never participated in any kind of online forum before, so they don't even know what a "thread" is, or how one message becomes connected to another. Probably the only experience they have ever had in communicating by computer is by email. So when they type a message into a message box, they probably think they are sending email to some anonymous website manager. Naturally they expect to receive a reply by email as well. So I think somewhere you've got to explain to people what a forum is, and how it is different from email.

Surely we aren't the only website to have this problem. How do other forums handle it? Let's not reinvent the wheel. Maybe somebody out there has already written some good basic generic information about what a forum is, and how to use one. Maybe we could copy it or link to it.

It occurs to me that, since the forum page already looks different to members than to non-members, you could put LOTS of helpful hints on the non-member version of the forum page, without creating a nuisance for long-standing members. And maybe you could do the same thing with other pages as well.

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 25 Jun 02 - 06:55 PM

Joe,

I think that it would be best to split it into a limited number of simple categories that would all displayed on one screen (800x640 is probably a reasonable minimum nowdays)

If I was writing it, I'd put up some generic titles with a bit of explanation underneath. ie:

About Mudcat
(The whys and wherefores of this site)

Finding Lyrics
(How best to find what you want)

The Digital Tradition
(what it is and how it works)

Mudcat Culture
(what is BS and suchlike)

Membership
(Cookies, PMs etc explained)

Technology
(How to make links etc)

The above are just off the top of my head, so may not be suitable, and there are doubtless more.

In each section, I would then have a list of answers to the most common questions (some would obviously be listed in more than one category, but that's OK). That's how I'd do it anyway...

Hope the above makes sense and is of some use to you.

Ed

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 02 - 09:25 AM

Joe,

I assume by that we should ignore Max's proclamation (in this thread) that:

Hey it works. The SuperSearch is now UP-TO-DATE EVERYDAY. The indexing runs in the middle of the night every night now. I wasn't sure I'd be able to pull it off, but it works!

Well done Max! You are a genius...

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Jun 02 - 02:22 AM

Hi, Michael - the "Digitrad and Forum Search" hasn't been indexed since last September or so, so nothing since then turns up on the search. Max just doesn't have time to do that any more, so we're working on ways that it can be done remotely - by Pene Azul, by me, or somebody.
The Forum Search (in Quicklinks) searches by message title and user name, and the Filter searches by thread title - they don't need indexing, but they don't search the entire text of messages.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: michaelr
Date: 25 Jun 02 - 01:43 AM

This may be thread drift, but my most FAQ is: why doesn't the Forum Search bring up anything from last year?

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Jun 02 - 09:22 PM

A lot (maybe even most) of the people who visit are "guests" looking for specific information, and a lot never post or read threads. A very obvious feature should be instructions (in words of one syllable or less) on what the DT is and how to use it. "Digital Tradition" isn't really an instinctively-obvious name for "searchable list of songs and lyrics".

Also, the rules on how to name threads should be somewhere on top.

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Jun 02 - 08:55 PM

Well, the Mudcat revamp will add some nice features, but the changes won't be radical enough to warrant huge changes in the FAQ. The main change is that we won't have to use line breaks.
The FAQ will not be in a thread format, and that will mean a major change in the organization of the FAQ.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Jun 02 - 07:50 PM

Hard to say till we see the upgrade and see how it simplifies Life at Mudcat.

~S~

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 24 Jun 02 - 07:02 PM

Glad to hear it, Joe

I think that 'KISS' (keep it simple, stupid) should apply.

Agreed, there is a lot of important information to be had, but, above all, it should answer (within 1 click) the obvious questions (or at least point the way) that a first time user might have on 'one' screen never mind 'four' (Easier said than done I know)

I have to go now, but I'll try to post some more constructive thoughts tommorrow.

Glad that you've decided to do this. I think that it will be of benefit.

Ed

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Jun 02 - 06:23 PM

Well, Ed, I'm thinking of a combination of threads and pages - the pages for permanent information, and the threads for information that's in development. I've kept the thread setup up until now because it allowed me to update things without bugging Max. It bothered me that I lost the whole first page of the FAQ to the list of messages, but I couldn't do anything about it at the time.

So, yeah, the basic answer is that most of the FAQ will not be set up as threads.

There will be a main page and several sub-pages. I'm looking for advice on the maximum effective size of a page. I'm thinking it's no more than four screens, with the most important information on the first screen.

If anybody wants to write a section, and post it here to make it available for public review, go right ahead. I reserve the right to make use of anything anybody posts here, if I like it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 24 Jun 02 - 06:13 PM

Joe,

To my mind, the biggest problem with the FAQ (as it stands) is the fact that it is a thread.

There is a lot of information in the current FAQ, most of it really useful.

I assume that you are thinking about abandoning the 'thread' approach (and about time too)

It needs to be a whole series of structured pages that have nothing to do with threads.

If that's what you mean, I'll come back with more thoughts. If you intend to keep the thread approach where anyone can add anything, I won''t bother.

Ed

Subject: FAQ Revamp - what should be in it?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Jun 02 - 06:04 PM

Pene and I have been talking about de-doing the FAQ. It will consist of one page with a site map/permathread list, and basic information, with an indes to other pages or thread with more complete information.

I suppose the main page should have a size limit. How long do you think is appropriate? I'm guessing people don't want to scroll down more than about three or maybe four screens, and the most important information should be at the top.

OK, so what should be on the main page?
Here's what I think, mostly downsized editions of what we have now:

• Brief welcome and invitation to membership with link to more info
  
• Site map and PermaThread Index
  
• Search instructions, like what we have
  
• Explicit Lyrics Alert
  
• Index to subsections/other FAQ pages
  
  
  • Benefits of membership, features of Mudcat
    
  • login instructions / handling cookie problems
    
  • Rules of Conduct
    
  • Tech and HTML Guide
    
  • Digital Tradition Info
    
    
    • Downloading
      
    • Searching
    
    
  • How to Post lyrics & tunes

So, what else?
-Joe-