[HP4GU-FAQ] Lots and Lots of FAQ List Issues

Tue Sep 24 15:49:28 UTC 2002

Hi, y'all.

--- "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> With the CoS movie less than two months away and
> with OoP just 
> around the corner, it might be time to make a final
> push to complete 
> as many FAQs as we possibly can.  

Yep. I recently bumped Snape up on the priority list,
to Get It Done, Already!

> Also, I notice that some of the existing FAQs cite
> message numbers 
> but do not include links.  Should we add some links
> to those FAQs 
> now, should we add them later, or should we not
> bother with this?
> 

I don't know about others, but what I've been doing is
providing the message number for everyday, ordinary
messages, and only providing a link to a message that
is particularly helpful or entertaining (or both).
I've also elected to reprint 3 select messages in
their entirety in order to give folks an even easier
reference. I call them "essential posts" in the FAQ.
But the Snape FAQ is going to be a very large
document, I suspect not quite rivalling the HB,
because of the amount of discussion he has received
over time. So I'm also going to add internal links and
a table of contents for easy navigation within the
file.

> Next, perhaps we should think about deleting from
> our new FAQ page 
> any FAQs that aren't uploaded.  As it stands, we
> have about equal 
> numbers of finished FAQs compared to unfinished FAQs
> with dead 
> links.  I suppose there's no sense advertising that
> we're only half-
> way along on the project.  Let's let that be our
> little secret.  ;-)
> 

Initially, I agreed with Cindy. But what if, as she
suggests below, we came up with target dates or at
least vague ideas of when we were going to work up the
undone FAQ's and changed the list to reflect that.

Such as:

Completed as of _date_
X
X
X
X

Coming Soon (anticipated upload of _date_)
X
X

To be compiled in 2003:
X
X
X

To be compiled in 2004:
X
X
X

That way, people who check the FAQ page will know that
yes, we know we need a FAQ on Ollivander, we just
haven't gotten there yet. It also gives them an idea
whether it'll be one month or eighteen before it's
reasonable to ask about it.

> STATUS
> 
> Right now, the following FAQs are completed and
> uploaded:
> 
That's a lot of FAQ's! Great work, everyone. (hangs
head... Gwenny is a bad elf)

> The following FAQs are in various stages of
> completion:
> 
> Snape FAQ  Gwen and Porphyria.  I understand from
> Gwen that all of 
> the message review has been completed and the Snape
> FAQ is in the 
> drafting stages.  Gwen and Porphyria have done a
> tremendous amount 
> of work on the Snape FAQ so far, and Porphyria is
> continuing to move 
> forward with the drafting.
> 

Yes, my personal goal is to have this at least roughly
ready to hand over for coding/formatting in a
month--October 25. I'll accept getting it done sooner,
of course. :^)

> STRATEGY
> Last time I checked, however, there were over 44,000
> messages in the 
> main list archives.   The list is so large now that
> it takes a 
> superhuman effort and quite a lot of time for a
> single person to be 
> able to draft a FAQ, search the archives for
> pertinent messages, and 
> link the best messages into the FAQ.  
> 

Amen, sister. At 35,000 messages, it took just over 3
months of (solid) message archive review to find the
raw responses I have for the Snape FAQ, and I *know* I
missed many because of the process I used. But had I
actually used the search function, it would have taken
even longer, ironically (because he gets mentioned so
often even when the post isn't really about him).

> For that reason, I suggest that we revisit the
> question of how we 
> handle FAQ preparation.  I think it might be best
> for all of us as a 
> team to focus on knocking out FAQs one or two at a
> time, depending 
> on how many volunteers we have with time to help
> out.  That way, if 
> one person is sidelined by RL, the project can
> continue moving 
> forward.  Not to mention the benefits of each of us
> having others to 
> nudge our efforts along.  Synergy, they call it. 
> ;-)
> 

I think this is a fabulous idea, Cindy! And it feeds
into my suggestion above, about a rough schedule for
them to be completed.

> For that reason, my preliminary view would be that
> we could take up 
> new FAQs in the following order:
> 
> Harry Potter 
> 
> Hagrid 
> 
> Malfoy Family  
> 
> Dumbledore 
> 
> War, Law and Justice 
> 
> Any thoughts about this sort of approach?

I know you said one or two at at time, but I just want
to go over the options. We can sic the entire FAQ team
on one of these at a time, or divide up into 5 small
teams and work them simultaneously, or take the top 3
and be 3 teams, complete a project, then move on to
the next 3, maybe shuffling who's working together if
desired, etc.

I think perhaps the projects could be adequately
served any way we slice it, but in the interest of
time, we might want to choose smaller teams (or bring
in some more help for larger teams) and try to get
several done at once.

> FAQ STYLE
> 
> I noticed that we have a great deal of individuality
> in the styles 
> of the various FAQs.  Some cite many message
> numbers; some cite 
> hardly any.  Some have an extensive narrative;
> others are more like 
> outlines.  Some have links; some don't.
> 
> Do we have any views on whether future FAQs should
> aim for one style 
> over another?  Personally, I'd be happy to allow the
> team working on 
> a FAQ to decide how best to present it, but this is
> probably 
> something we should discuss.
> 

I've been wondering about this, too. I know I has been
a very bad elf, and has not gone and studied existing
FAQ's to make sure Snape's is consistent with what has
gone before. What I *am* trying to do, though, is make
sure that each question we've chosen for the FAQ is
answered in a logical and thorough manner without
being too overloading or boring.

Also, what are other people doing about issues that
overlap? For example, much of the "leaving the DE"
discussion refers back to whether people think he
loved Lily. How do y'all deal with that kind of
duplication on your FAQ's?

And, finally, what about questions that are not
answered directly (such as Snape as Father Figure) but
that are answered indirectly (in this case, through
discussions of his relationships with Harry, Neville,
and Draco)?

> Also, I think we probably should think about not
> including TBAY 
> theories, as this would cause the FAQs to overlap
> with Hypothetic 
> Alley.  Cross-referencing to Hypothetic Alley might
> work just fine, 
> though.
> 

I'd be all for this. There are some Snape questions
that just got inundated with theories, and I'm finding
it very difficult to give straight answers to the
questions while still attempting to keep the theories
intact.

> UPDATING
> 
> Many of the FAQs were written quite some time ago
> and could use some 
> updating.  Nevertheless, I was thinking that we make
> some headway on 
> preparing the most important new FAQs before we
> begin the process of 
> updating.   But if anyone has some spare time and
> would like to 
> update a particular FAQ, please feel free to
> volunteer and have a 
> go.  

Yeah, this is a tough issue. If we wait until we've
got all the "new" FAQ's up before we go back and
update, we'll probably never get to it, because there
will continually be new characters and new wizarding
world issues to examine. But if we let them go too
far, they'll be useless.

What if we created a schedule of sorts for these, too?
That is, no FAQ should go for more than X amount of
time before some team diverts to update it? 

Gwen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com