Lots and Lots of FAQ List Issues

[Cindy C.]

Hi, everyone!

Thanks to everyone for their hard work!  I think we're making real 
progress.

And a spirited welcome to Eloise and Porphyria, the newest members 
of our FAQ team!

Here are a few quick reactions to the thoughts of Gwen and Elkins:

<updating FAQs>

Elkins:

>Should updating some of the old FAQs take precedence over writing 
>some of the less important FAQs? 

AND

>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. 

Hmmm.  I think the dilemma here is that we have way more work than 
we have available people to help.  Combing the archives is 
tremendously difficult work, and we only have about 6 people 
*actively* performing FAQ preparation right now.  

So how about this for an idea?  I created a new database 
called "Update Database."  When anyone has a spare moment, they 
could go to that database and add in suggested message numbers for 
any completed FAQ.  So, for instance, if someone would like to help 
with FAQing but can't take on a block of 10,000 messages, they could 
spend some time thinking about especially pertinent threads they 
remember.  They could then search for the message numbers and add 
them into the database.  

An example.  The Weasley FAQ might be updated to include the Seventh 
Son discussion from a few months back as well as the recent bully 
thread.  Someone could just drop those message numbers into the 
database, which will allow the person who eventually takes on the 
job of updating the Weasley FAQ to do so without a thorough message 
review.  This will also allow our active FAQ preparers to have a 
place to note any message numbers they stumble across without having 
yellow sticky notes all over their desks.

Would that work?

<schedule for competed FAQs> 

Gwen:

>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.

We could do this, and it might make some sense.  I'm a little 
nervous, though, because I fear we'd either constantly be pushing 
things back or we would wind up picking dates that are so far in the 
future as to be meaningless.  I think once again I'm suffering from 
some handwringing because our team is so small that it is going to 
take some serious time to crank out even one FAQ.

If we don't have a schedule, though, I suppose some people will ask 
why we're not thinking of doing a Moody FAQ.  Maybe we could just 
answer those inquiries directly by explaining that we're working on 
X, Y and Z first?

Elkins:

>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. 

That's true.  I have a question for the tech types -- just how much 
effort is required to physically edit a page of HTML once it is up 
and running?  In other words, if we changed the FAQs home page every 
two months to reflect adjustments to our internal schedule and 
priorities, would this cause you to pull your hair out?  Or is that 
no big deal?

<how many FAQs can we handle at a time>
 
Gwen:

> 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.

Maybe we need a roll call to find out how many people have time for 
some serious FAQ work right now, as opposed to those who will have 
time later or would be most comfortable taking on spot assignments 
(link check, etc).  I had been operating on the assumption that we 
would risk spreading ourselves too thin if we took on more than one 
or two FAQs, but I could be way off on that assessment.

Is there anyone else out there who thinks they could commit more 
time to FAQ preparation such as culling messages?  Right now, my 
roster of active FAQ preparers is Amy, Cindy, Dicey, Elkins, Gwen 
and Porphyria.  We also have a tech team of formatters consisting of 
Dicey, Jen, Joy and Porphyria.  I think that Eloise and Tabouli have 
said they can help with smaller projects.

Have I missed anyone?  

Unless we have several more people available to help with active FAQ 
prep, I think we probably can't manage more than 1-2 FAQs at a time, 
although I'd be thrilled to be wrong.

Gwen:

>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. 

This might work, if we plan it just right.  Right now, we're 
finishing up Snape, Lupin and (hopefully) HPfGU:  A History.

[I haven't really reported on what I'm doing with HPfGU:  A History, 
so I'll do so quickly.  I am taking Penny history lesson on MEG, I 
am adding great nuggets from Joywitch and from John's Live Journal, 
and I am creating a fairly brief Walk Down Memory Lane.  I'll toss 
some interesting stats and factoids onto the end, and that will be 
it.  So I don't think the project will take me very long at all.  
I'd say I am about 1/3-1/2 finished at this point.]

When Snape, Lupin and the History FAQs are finished, we'll likely 
want to tackle Harry and Hagrid first.  These seem a good match, as 
Harry is huge and Hagrid is likely small.  Perhaps all of us active 
FAQers could cull for both of those FAQs at the same time?

One question about the culling, though.  I assumed that the Senior 
Editor on the project would create a draft, basically going by 
memory of list discussions about what gets discussed.  Then the 
cullers would have that draft document and would look for pertinent 
message numbers, flagging some as worthy of a link and others as 
just worthy of a mention.  The cullers would also pull out really 
great quotes for the Senior Editor to add to the finished document.

Is that approach crazy?  It's kind of how Pippin and I handled the 
Mysteries FAQ.  We generated the substantive document first (using 
Penny's original, but rearranging it and adding to it), and then we 
started culling, updating the draft as we stumbled across new 
Mysteries.  

Is there a better, faster or more efficient way?  Come on, speak 
up.  Don't be shy.

Gwen:

> 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?

Well, the Mysteries FAQ seemed to touch on everything else on some 
level, so I didn't cross-reference much.  I do think teams should 
feel free to cross-reference to other FAQs, though.

<updating>
 
Gwen:

> 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? 

There might be another way to go at it.  We do have to consider the 
possibility of burn-out.  Frankly, once I had finished the Mysteries 
FAQ, I had had quite enough of FAQs, thank-you-very-much.  Maybe the 
way to deal with this is for people who are approaching burn-out to 
take some time to "recover" by focusing on updating a FAQ?

Thoughts?

Cindy