Fantastic Posts Web Site

[Amanda]

The usual caveats: this is just Amanda and Amanda's opinions, I am 
not speaking for anyone but me, I am not an authorized representative 
of anything, etc.

Danielle:

> There is a lot of discussion about how to make it easier for new 
list 
> members to get used to the discussion topics and posting styles in 
> this group. The tool to do this already exists - the Fantasitic 
Posts 
> Web site. 

<snip> 

> So, instead of coming up with new methods and processes, why not 
use 
> the one that already exists (and does such a wonderful job)? Why 
not 
> update Fantastic Posts more frequently - anytime there is a new 
> theory, or at least ones that garner enough attention to get an 
> acronym? And continue to update the links to the actual relevant 
> posts, as well.
> 
> I realize that there may not be enough elves for this, but 
everything 
> being suggested here seems to point to the need for additional 
elves 
> in one form or another. Currently, do the elves doing the daily 
list 
> readings pull out things that could go onto Fantastic Posts? If so, 
> then what happens?

What a *superb* idea. FPs are not actually an elf function per se; 
they are the product of a FAQ team who work on a FAQ list, which was 
created to avoid cluttering up the main list or Chatter with 
discussion and strategy for this specialized task. *But.* The elves 
who do the reading rota are *ideally* positioned to note likely FAQ-
worthy posts. (is excited)

As for updating regularly--it would work for some FPs, and not for 
others. To explain, some background. 

There are several reasons the FP site hasn't been updated. One, it 
really is a tremendous amount of work to distill a FP essay from a 
mass of posts. Before anything else can be done, the posts must be 
combed--good ones flagged somehow. The system the team had devised to 
select FP-worthy posts didn't work, and before a new method was 
settled on, there was some disruption on the FAQ list (more on that 
in a minute).

Anyway, that first step is compiling a selection of posts for 
inclusion or working into a FP. Then a FAQ-writer or team work on 
stitching them together by general area into a cohesive whole, then 
they post their draft and readers proof them, check all the links, 
etc. Only then are they uploaded to the site and launched. 

What you've proposed would take care of post-flagging from this 
minute onward, but there are several sets that the FAQ team didn't 
want to ignore, that can't be "hopped over"; one is a set of pre-OoP 
posts, that we wanted to include, which have to be gone through, and 
another is the massive amount of post-OoP posts, which cover a time 
of unprecedented list volume and will require some sort of plan to go 
through. Your from-now-forward suggestion is brilliant and I can 
relay it, but there's still the earlier blocks of posts to take into 
account.

Another difficulty has been that the FAQ team are listmembers 
themselves, and have themselves been caught up in the theorizing and 
discussion. It's only recently, now that the list volume has slowed a 
bit, that the FAQ team has tried to make serious efforts to turn to 
FAQ-producing. Further, it is really only now, some time after OoP, 
after the flurry is smoothing out, that noteworthy new theories or 
threads can be perceived as such, that they stand out.

Yet another difficulty is an unresolved issue--what to do with the 
FAQs as they stand? By that, I mean the ones currently up now--should 
they simply be updated, or should they be left alone as "pre-OoP 
takes" and new FPs generated? This has not been decided. As I said 
above, not all FPs are created equal. Some FPs are simply lists of 
post numbers grouped by subject, which *could* be updated piecemeal--
but others are standalone essays, the product of authors no longer on 
FAQ, who would have no input into their alteration. And some FAQs are 
so voluminous already, handling the theories of books 1-4, that 
adding to them could make them unwieldy or unreasonably long. Some of 
the FAQs are already broken into 1 and 2 as it is.

There are FAQs in the works that hadn't been completed (or hadn't 
been thought of) before OoP, and these won't have that problem. But 
many existing FPs need updating or new "volumes." It is the list 
volume that is such a stumbling block, I think--the great mass of 
backlog. And it is really only in the past month or so, after volume 
has eased off to a pre-OoP level, that it could be expected that FAQ 
work could really resume.

It is unfortunate, then, that it was in just this timeframe that 
there was a great deal of disruption and conflict on the FAQ list. I 
believe that the FAQ list suffered from the conflict there. Not so 
much attrition--only two FAQ members actually left due to the 
disturbance--but in that many of its most productive members began 
to "tune it out" so as not to be involved in some of the 
machinations. Although the conflict has been resolved, those 
productive members are still in "tune out" mode.

MEG is aware that the FAQ effort is essentially at a standstill; it 
is partly the function of this Feedback list to ascertain how much 
that is a concern, versus other list concerns. 

Anyway, some background on what goes into FAQs. And thank you so much 
for a great idea for how to flag the posts. I had been a developer of 
the idea that *didn't* work, and the thought of one that would cheers 
me greatly. It shall be relayed.

~Amanda