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

[SK Elkins]

Hey, FAQsters.

Kudos to Dicey and Cindy and Pippin!  We now have a Mysteries FAQ
and a SiriFAQ!  Great work.

Cindy wrote:

> 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?

The way that Gwen and the Snapesters have organized the SnapeFAQ -- 
by only linking to important messages, while leaving the others in merely 
as references -- makes good sense to me.  A number of the existing FAQs,
however, don't draw that same distinction.  For those FAQs, I think that it 
*would* be nice to make those message numbers into links eventually, but 
I don't think that we should make it a big priority.  To my mind, that falls 
firmly into the category of "revising the FAQs," which we've agreed is less 
important right now than getting our outstanding FAQs completed.

Still, given that it's not a very major revision, it might serve as a nice short
project for any of the HTML savvy who don't have the time right now to
help out with a big project.  So how's this sound?  If any of the HTML 
literate find themselves with a few spare moments -- not enough for a huge 
project, but enough for linking a message number here or there -- then they 
should go at 'em -- and then come back here to brag about what they've done 
so that we can shower them with praise and gratitude and admiration.  For the 
most part, though, we'll worry about those links when it comes time to revise 
the FAQs.  Sound good to everyone?

Cindy then suggested:

> Next, perhaps we should think about deleting from our new FAQ page 
> any FAQs that aren't uploaded.  

Gwen replied:

> 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.

I think this is a great idea, and I liked the way that Gwen suggested we format
it.  Just one caveat, though -- if we do this, then we *have* to stay on top of
the deadlines and revise the text if we do not meet them.  I've so often come 
across websites where I've seen things like "scheduled for completion June, 
2001," and I always find that profoundly (if vicariously) embarrassing.  I'd
really rather keep that embarrassment vicarious, thanks.  ;-)

Cindy:

> 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.  

Gwen cried:

> Amen, sister.

Amen, indeed!

It is a lot of work, even when it's divided among a small group of people.  I think that 
forming larger groups to handle at least the culling part of the process would be a great 
idea.  I do see some purpose to having a senior editor to impose a certain style on the 
document as a whole, but there's no reason that I can see for us not to tackle the culling 
and compiling in larger groups.

Cindy:

> 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.  

Gwen:

> 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.

In my experience, it is the wading through archives/culling part of the process that
is truly time-consuming.  And it is *truly* time-consuming.  I think that if we really
want to streamline this process to get those outstanding FAQs out quickly, then 
we might want to consider having the people cull for multiple FAQs at once.  In
other words, the person going through messages 18000-24000, for example,
would divvy up posts as they go into separate documents for a number of different
FAQs.  This would be slow going for the cullers, but I have a feeling that it might be 
a more economical approach, particularly as I don't really think that we have hordes
of volunteers.  

I agree that however we decide to do this, we really should make Harry a priority.
It is rather embarrassing that we don't have a Harry FAQ.  

I'd also agree that getting a Draco or Malfoy Family FAQ finished should rank high 
up on the list.  Hagrid as well -- and I would think that Hagrid might not be quite
as time-consuming as either Harry or the Malfoys.

> FAQ STYLE

> I noticed that we have a great deal of individuality in the styles 
> of the various FAQs.  

Personally, I really *like* the individuality of the FAQs.  To my mind, that's a
bonus.  I do think that we want to streamline their production in the sense of
speeding up the process, but I'd really hate to lose that sense of individuality
and character by turning this into a kind of factory line.  Let's strive for
something between those two extremes, shall we?

Gwen asked:

> Also, what are other people doing about issues that overlap? 

Well, for Lupin, Amy and I had been hoping to deal with a number of issues in
part by linking to the Mysteries FAQ.   I'm sure that no one can imagine which 
issues *those* might be.  <rolls eyes>

This is horribly unfair, of course, as it means that those people who finished
their FAQs promptly wind up doing a lot of dirty work that the rest of us now 
get to exploit.  But hey.  What can you do?

Sometimes, though, different FAQs might have such different styles that this 
wouldn't necessarily be desirable.  I suspect, for example, that SnapeFAQ
will likely deal with the Dread Prank, but in a somewhat different way than 
the SiriFAQ does.  I think that's perfectly fine myself.  The two documents
can always link to each other as well, just for good measure.  That way
listies who are really deeply interested in the Prank can get two slightly
different perspectives on it.  Just like on the list itself.  ;-)

Gwen:

> 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)?

I think that editorial decisions like this one are probably best left up to the individual 
FAQ editors to wrestle with on their own.  Each character and topic has its own
idiosyncratic issues, which is IMO a large part of why the FAQs all take such different 
approaches.  


UPDATING

Gwen suggested:

> 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? 

I think that's a great idea.  I'm just a little worried about our time constraints right now.  
I don't really know if we have the pure and simple *manpower* to get some of those 
FAQs revised *and* get the really important outstanding FAQs completed before we 
get inundated with post-OoP newbies, and I think that (for the major characters anyway) 
getting the FAQs written should probably be our first priority.

I also take Gwen's point, though, that with this approach we run the risk that the
old FAQs will just never get updated.  So how do we want to prioritize things
here?  Should updating some of the old FAQs take precedence over writing some
of the less important FAQs?  I'm open to suggestions.


Elkins