Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

How To Build And Maintain A Good FAQ 221

Posted by timothy from the rare-art dept.
comforteagle writes "FAQs have been around since the beginning of the web & most of them still suck. Most of us who build FAQs rely on handcrafting them, but this really isn't necessary anymore. Sean Kerner has written The FAQs on FAQs as an introduction to getting up to speed fast with a FAQ, letting opensource software do the majority of the work, and allowing the author to concentrate on providing good answers. He shortly reviews a few apps, but settles on phpMyFAQ."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How To Build And Maintain A Good FAQ More

How To Build And Maintain A Good FAQ

Comments Filter:

  • FIRST POST! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Oh, FAQ off.

  • First Rule (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stanmann ( 602645 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:48PM (#10452464) Journal
    Base the FAQ on actual questions that have been asked, don't make it a propaganda document that leaves more questions than it answers.

    • Re:First Rule (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tokenhillbilly ( 311564 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:53PM (#10452525)
      I agree. I don't even bother to read FAQ's anymore since they rarely don't answer anybody questions and serve only as a self promotion tool.

      It seems that the FAQ has gone the route of the scripted press conference where the only questions that get answered are the ones that show the product/candidate in a good light.

      • I agree. I don't even bother to read FAQ's anymore since they rarely don't answer anybody questions and serve only as a self promotion tool.

        It seems that the FAQ has gone the route of the scripted press conference where the only questions that get answered are the ones that show the product/candidate in a good light.

        There are still several very good FAQ on the Internet. Some project does not understand that documentation and FAQ are actually import part of it. For myself, I appreciate the quality and

    • Re:First Rule (Score:5, Funny)

      by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:59PM (#10452593) Homepage Journal
      Even worse:

      Q: The main window doesn't load. What do I do?

      A: Call our toll-free 1-800 support number!

      Noooooo! I'm reading this so I *don't* have to directly communicate with other humans!

      • Re:First Rule (Score:5, Funny)

        by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:11PM (#10452701)
        Even worse:
        Q: The main window doesn't load. What do I do?
        A: Call our toll-free 1-800 support number!
        Noooooo! I'm reading this so I *don't* have to directly communicate with other humans!

        No, no. The real bitch is when you call up the 1-800 number and the dialog goes like this:


        FLOOZY: Hello, my name is Sue-Ann at ACME help desk, how may I annoy the living shit out of you today?

        YOU: Well hmm, I have this problem with your product: see, it slices but it doesn't dice.

        FLOOZY: Ah yes Sir. Do you have the Inter-Net?

        YOU: Er, yeah...

        FLOOZY: Sir, may I direct you to aych-tee-tee-pee-colon-slash-slash-wee-wee-wee-dot -ay-see-em-eeh-dot-com-slash-eff-ay-queue: may I suggest you try to see if this page contains an answer to your question, and then if it doesn't, call me back? Thank you Sir and have a great day *CLICK*

      • Re:First Rule (Score:5, Funny)

        by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:14PM (#10452734) Homepage Journal
        I prefer this, which I found on a service provider I was looking at...

        Q: I can't send email. What are the servers and settings I need to use?

        A: Please email support@someisp.com for the setup information. We do not post this information on our public website.
    • Although it's on management style, rather than on technical writer style, there are some useful pointers to be found here: LWN article

    • Re:First Rule (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Buzz_Litebeer ( 539463 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:27PM (#10452836) Journal
      The worst FAQs are the ones that answer questions NO ONE COULD EVER WANT ANSWERED.

      The worst are:

      Q: How Can I Buy Multiple Licences to our product
      A: Detailed method on buying more licences

      Q: It says I do not have enough licences
      A: Buy a new licence

      Q: How can I become a super member, and gain 2 free licences and Friendship dollars
      A: Detailed answer on how to become a super member

      Q: Where can I buy this product in my area
      A: Etc etc

      I mean, I have seen faqs where all the questions had nothing to do with the product but on how you could buy more product, upgrade the product, or FIND MORE OFFERS FROM AFFILIATES.

      Then you have to call a X dollars a minute help line. (NERO BURNING ROM DONT BUY THIS PRODUCT... That way if you call up for help at least your buying the product in tech support costs).

    • Why FAQs should include "unasked" questions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Frater 219 ( 1455 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @03:14PM (#10453198) Journal
      What is an FAQ?

      The FAQ is a literary form, like the sonnet or the mathematics textbook. Every literary form has rules: a sonnet has a rhyme scheme; a mathematics textbook has problem sets and the phrase "left as an exercise for the reader". A sonnet is a particular form of poetry, and a person who writes one is a poet. An FAQ is a particular form of technical writing, and a person who writes one is a technical writer.

      FAQs differ from other styles of technical writing in many respects. Foremost, however, is that they are written as a dialogue between novice and expert. The novice, or a collection of (imaginary or real) novices pose questions, and an expert (or aggregate of experts) responds.

      Some FAQs are just that -- simple catenations of question and answer on a subject, with no particular connection between one and the next. Others group questions into broad categories, or have one question lead into another, sometimes in a long chain of increasing detail.

      One difference among FAQs is how much background understanding they try to convey. Some writers presume that readers merely want shallow, rote answers to their problems: the question "I'm getting a 0x0F00 error" gets the answer "Run the reset_foo command" without further insight. Others use the FAQ form to present deeper facts about the system being documented -- using the question-and-answer format to lead the novice into deeper understanding.


      One of the common misunderstandings of FAQs is to treat them as if they should be only a collection of actual questions which have been frequently asked: that the author should not "waste" the reader's time on questions which should be asked (because their answers provide insight) but are not asked (because people do not seek insight as much as they should).

      This misunderstanding is an outgrowth of the peculiar form of ideological hatred which many people hold towards those who know more. Consider the computer user who proudly claims to be "computer illiterate", who believes that learning about the system he must use is beneath him. What he wants from documentation -- on the rare occasion that he deigns to read it! -- is only a rote answer to his precise question. Anything else is "wasting his time".

      Why does he resent it so when anyone tries to teach him the principles upon which his system operates, so that he can solve his next problem himself? Because for the expert (or FAQ writer) to teach him principles is to tell him that the expert will not be at his beck and call to answer his next trivial question. (If you teach a man to fish, you thereby tell him that you will not hand him a fish every day.)

      Teaching the underlying principles is ultimately egalitarian. It says that I, who today am the expert, will not be your servant and will not be your master. I will instead place you on the same level as myself; I will teach you what I know so that you can solve your problem as I would solve it if it were my own. This is why it is unacceptable to people who believe knowledge to be beneath them.

      And this is why it is a benefit -- not a problem -- when FAQs include unasked (but worthy) questions as well as those that have been actually posed. It is a benefit, that is, to those who are actually interested in learning; and it hurts and offends those who are interested instead in the degradation of knowledge. That is a good thing.

    • Re:First Rule (Score:5, Funny)

      by WillWare ( 11935 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @03:20PM (#10453252) Homepage Journal
      The first rule of writing FAQs is:
      You do not talk about writing FAQs.
    • That's why I like this FAQ [400monkeys.com]. It's simple, to the point, leaves no room for ambiguity and answers a really frequently asked question.

    • Re: Take Linux FAQ for example (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @04:22PM (#10453828)
      OFFICIAL LINUX FAQ - Updated September 2004

      1.0 WHAT IS LINUX?

      Linux is a fine DOS-like operating system with many uses, the number one of which is compiling the Linux kernel itself.

      Compiling the kernel is an activity that must be accomplished time and time over again, sometimes several times per day. It is recommended that the Linux kernel be recompiled at least once per day on the most critical systems. Doing otherwise would likely result in system instability.

      Since compiling the kernel is such an important activity, Linux users often benchmark and compare machines solely based on kernel compile times. Most distributions provide the source code of the kernel to the users in an effort to ease the learning curve of the unfriendly environment.

      There are many reasons to compile the Linux kernel. Here are a few:

      -Installation of new hardware such as a USB mouse
      -Application of daily security patches
      -Training towards RedHat Certified Systems Engineer certification
      -Impressing friends, mates and family
      -Avoiding SCO lawsuits
      -Etc

      Please be careful when compiling your Linux kernel. You could hose your system.

      2.0 IS LINUX MORE RELIABLE THAN WINDOWS?

      One of the major goals of the Linux operating system is to reach the level of reliability enjoyed by Windows, which is also known to be a fortress of stability and security.

      However, one of the current problems with Linux is the requirement to reboot every 49.7 days. This issue has yet to be addressed properly (present still in release 2.6) since it is caused by a deep design issue and is not a simple bug. It is expected that proper for-profit commercial contributions from SUN Microsystems to the kernel development will increase the competence and professionalism of the developer base.

      In general, the lack of proper testing and general QA procedures is an impediment to Linux reaching high levels of reliability.

      Additionally, since most distributions install a large number of insecure services that are started automatically when the computer boots, it is quite normal to see Linux computers compromised daily.

      3.0 IS LINUX A FAMILY ORIENTED OPERATING SYSTEM?

      Simply put, no. As a hobbyist operating system, Linux requires much administration and configuration. A large amount of time must be invested in reading nearly useless documentation for every task (installing printer, configuring network, etc). For example, it is not uncommon that Gentoo installations take several weeks to complete, although in a way, it's never really finished.

      Since Linux is so time consuming, spouses are often left to their own devices. Fortunately, since Linux users tend to be sexually self-relying, their social impact stays rather low. Unlike the situation of AIDS percentage in the US population, which tends to fluctuate with Apple's market share.

      4.0 I GET A STRANGE MESSAGE WHEN I USE MY MOUSE

      Congratulations for having successfully installed a mouse on the Lunix operating system. But, if you see the following message, please consult 1.0:

      "Your mouse has moved. Linux kernel must be recompiled for the change to take effect. [OK]"

      5.0 SINCE LINUX IS OPEN SOURCE, HOW CAN DEVELOPERS AFFORD NO REVENUE?

      "Farmers by day, programmers by night," is the GNU way of life. Please note that most open source software is never really good.

      DOCUMENT VERSION

      linux.faq@@/main/release/3 ***

      *** Note: Moved to Clearcase from CVS when branching support became a requirement.

    • Re:First Rule (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RhettLivingston ( 544140 )

      Better yet, let your users edit the FAQ.

      A previous employer of mine used an open FAQ system for the corporate FAQ. Anyone could add or edit a FAQ. If anyone ever asked a question that wasn't in the FAQ, they frequently got the answer "I don't know, but when you find out, please put it in the FAQ". We had a very complete, very useful corporate FAQ.

      The common objections to this system that users might sabotage it are easily solved. Simply have it version controlled and force user identification. If a us

  • I love these recursive names... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:50PM (#10452484) Homepage Journal
    All we need now is The FAQs on FAQs on FAQs.

  • Why do most FAQS suck!? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vijaya_chandra ( 618284 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:50PM (#10452492)
    FAQs have been around since the beginning of the web & most of them still suck

    That's because most smart people on the net do not include the really Frequently Asked Questions in the FAQS

    • Re:Why do most FAQS suck!? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yahoGINSBERGo.com minus poet> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:48PM (#10452979) Homepage Journal
      That's because:


      • Most of the really frequently asked questions are obscene, off-topic or poorly-disguised flames.
      • Of the remaining questions, most are already answered in the documentation provided. A FAQ that answered those would really be one gigantic index file.
      • About half of what is left are questions that demonstrate a total lack of knowledge about pre-requisite information. A FAQ can't embed seven or eight years worth of education on the groundwork, if it is to have space for the material it is supposed to cover.


      The notion of a fairly static FAQ is slowly evolving. Wikis aren't quite at the point of being generally useful, and there is still an artificial degree of seperation between topics.


      It would be much more useful if wikis worked through shared data repositories. This would prevent/minimise conflicting information, and allow people to chase their thought processes. True integration of knowledge-bases of this kind would involve databases containing discrete facts. These facts would be assembled and patched into explanatory text.


      Because the facts are held centrally, two pages containing related information involving the same facts would pull the same instances of those facts from the database. The explanation would need to be seperate, because nobody has figured out how to automaticaly generate that, yet.


      BTW, this is off-topic, but biologists and geneticists are mourning the passing of one of the three scientists who discovered the structure of DNA. The BBC [bbc.co.uk] is reporting the death of Professor Maurice Wilkins, aged 87. He died in hospital, no cause was given.

        • Of the remaining questions, most are already answered in the documentation provided. A FAQ that answered those would really be one gigantic index file.
        • About half of what is left are questions that demonstrate a total lack of knowledge about pre-requisite information. A FAQ can't embed seven or eight years worth of education on the groundwork, if it is to have space for the material it is supposed to cover.

        That's funny. I've been using the 'Net since the USENET's heyday of the early 90's, and I was un

    • Why doesn't te phpMyFaq page have a FAQ?

  • A short history FAQ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by gwernol ( 167574 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:51PM (#10452505)
    FAQs have been around since the beginning of the web & most of them still suck

    While I agree with the second part of this statement, FAQs significantly pre-date the web. They were certainly common back in the pre-Web Internet days of Usenet newsgroups - I contributed to several back in the late 80s. Did they start with Usenet, or do they predate that too? Perhaps we need a FAQ FAQ?

    Now I feel old.
    • FAQs have been around since the beginning of the web & most of them still suck

      While I agree with the second part of this statement, FAQs significantly pre-date the web.

      Maybe he should have said, "The really started to suck at the beginning of the web." Most usenet FAQs I have read tended to be very good.
    • When I think of FAQs or How-tos, I usually think of the ones that get bundled with linux distros. Those are usually long-winded, outdated, and innacurate. Be nice if some better guidelines were drawn up and some people revised the more important FAQs.

    • Re:A short history FAQ... (Score:4, Funny)

      by BlueTooth ( 102363 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:49PM (#10452985) Homepage
      I'm sorry, but to the best of my knowledge, the web predates time itself.

    • Re:A short history FAQ... (Score:3, Informative)

      by ajs ( 35943 )
      FAQs have been around since the beginning of the web & most of them still suck

      While I agree with the second part of this statement, FAQs significantly pre-date the web. They were certainly common back in the pre-Web Internet days of Usenet newsgroups

      Usenet (though, perhaps not FAQs, I'd have to check on when the first FAQ was published) significantly pre-dates the Internet.

      The ordering is:

      Networking
      Usenet
      Arpanet
      IP (The Internet Protocol)
      Internet roughly as we know it today
      The World Wide Web (i.e.

  • Ad Infinitum (Score:3, Funny)

    by berkleyidiot ( 762486 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:52PM (#10452514) Homepage
    a FAQ on FAQs... this [penny-arcade.com] PA strip comes to mind.

  • FAQs (Score:4, Informative)

    by bsd4me ( 759597 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:53PM (#10452529)

    FAQs have existed for a long time before the web (eg, the FAQs for the various newsgroups), and they worked well before becoming fancy.

    The comp.lang.c FAQ is probably the best example. It is rather big, and has always been so as long as I can remember. It is also pretty usable, even when it is viewed as a single flat document. You just need something to search it, whether it is more, emacs, or a browser.

  • Permanent URL (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:54PM (#10452534)
    One thing which should be obvious: do not change the URL of your FAQ over the years, or if really you must do so at least put a redirect.

    People love to bookmark stuff and it is no good when one finds out that his few-year-old bookmarks are dead or 404.

  • Don't let Marketing write your FAQ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jandrese ( 485 ) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:54PM (#10452539) Homepage Journal
    The FAQ should be written by your tech support people, not the marketing people. In fact the marketing guys shouldn't be allowed to look at it. There's nothing worse than having some problem with a product and going to the FAQ and seeing stuff like:

    Q: Is this product fully buzzword compliant?
    A: Yes! We have integrated full buzzward compliance into this product.

    Q: How fast is this product?
    A: The product is the fastest in the industry!

    GRR! All I want is some help trying to figure out how to set some option with your horrible interface.

    Many times you can search the web and find a _real_ FAQ, written by users, that gives you actual information. Unfortunatly, those FAQs are the ones that get taken down by the same corporate douchebags that wrote the useless FAQ.

  • Ahh but where do Unanswered questions go (Score:5, Funny)

    by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:56PM (#10452560) Homepage Journal
    They'd have to go into a FUQ

  • and you say it... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JohnnyKlunk ( 568221 )
    ever want to slap someone for saying it Eff Ay Queue, rather than fack?
    When will people learn?
    • Would "fackweh" be an acceptable alternative? Some of our more senior co-workers here (they don't hear so good) may think we are uttering profanities.

    • Re:and you say it... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by nktae ( 753573 )
      I don't see the problem with F. A. Q. instead of the common "fack" pronunciation. For those who don't mind actually using there mouth with a little dexterity it is just as easy and much less likely to be confused with "fact." Having had the chance to work with a large range of computer literacy (ie. no experience to far outstripping me) I find that sometimes you just have to spell it out!

    • Re:and you say it... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HoneyBunchesOfGoats ( 619017 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:15PM (#10452741)
      It's an initialism. It signifies the first letters of the words that form it. It makes much more sense to say those letters (since most initialisms don't form actual words) than it does to try to say them as their own word. You don't say "cuh-pooh" when you're referring to your CPU, do you?
      • Wait, "cuh-pooh" is not right? Now you're going to tell me that CD-ROM is "cuhduh R O M." ObSimpsons Quote: "I was saying Boo-Urns."
      • That's because CPU is not a valid combination of morphemes. FAQ is.

        Although I'll admit that SCSI caught me off gaurd.

      • Re:and you say it... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by freqres ( 638820 )
        Awe come on, you must not have had any previous military or government experience. In those places people come up with obfuscated names for things just so the acronym is another pronounceable (or at least pronounceable with some hidden vowels) word. That way only other people in the organization know what the hell you are talking about. Go drop in on a conversion involving two people in the military and be prepared to be completely confused (unless you yourself are in the same military).
    • ever want to slap someone for saying it Eff Ay Queue, rather than fack?

      hmm... nope. Because if I did, I would have to start slapping myself, and I'm not really into the whole self-inflicted pain thing.
    • ever want to slap someone for saying it Eff Ay Queue, rather than fack? When will people learn?

      Ever want to slap someone for saying fack, rather than fax?

      pk

    • I would rather someone spell it out than mispronounce the common phrase. I have a friend that always says "Ahs" rather than the letters O and S when referring to an Operating System. For example "Bee-ahs" when he means BeOS. Or "What ahs are you running?" Since I know what he means, it doesn't confuse me, but if he is trying to talk to someone else, it just adds to the language barrier if he is talking to a non-techie. It is actually quite amusing to me. No matter how many times he has been corrected

      • Internal dialog seeps out.. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Some people read acronyms on the net and use their own personal pronunciation until they are corrected. However, like your friend (I had some hotshot 22 y/o *ADMIN* here say to me, "You're running Be 'Ahs' on there?") they don't know if you're saying it right either when you say "O. S." "faq" or "lihn-uks". How can you be trusted when youre the first person they've heard pronounce it, and they don't know you from beans?

        Thank you.
    • I prefer saying it FA-Q, it's the best of both worlds.
    • No but I want to smack people that say "fak" instead of "F" "A" "Q"... I always think "When will people learn?"
    • ever want to slap someone for saying it Eff Ay Queue, rather than fack?

      This is an annoyance online as well as in spoken conversations because you'll see people (including in the comments on this story) use the phrase "an FAQ" to refer to a list of frequently asked questions, which looks horribly wrong to people who pronounce it "fack" (or who think FAQ is inherently plural).

  • Usenet Did FAQs Best (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kentborg ( 12732 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:57PM (#10452576)
    The best FAQs predate the "web" and originated on usenet. They were extremely useful documents probably because they were not designed to be useful, they were designed to prevent the asking of stupid (I mean frequently asked) questions.

    This means the best FAQs are not made up of questions that someone thinks will be useful, they are made up of questions that are actually frequently asked. Also, the best answers are not the answers that some marketer or geek would like to give, they are the answers that will make the question go away.

    Put another way, good FAQs are not just another way to organize informations, the honestly are Frequently Asked Questions...plus answers that frequently satisfy those questioners.

    How to maintain them? They same way one compiles them--by surveying the questions that get asked.
    • Add a database and some level of interactivity and you should be able to improve on the old list of questions.

      #1. Some way to add a question. This serves two functions:

      #1a. The most obvious. It gets new questions on the FAQ.

      #1b. Even if you know it is exactly like another question already covered. Different people ask the same question in different fashions. Having multiple questions link to the same answer helps people who don't think in the same terms that you do.

      #2. A method of classifying "questions
      • A method of searching the database and presenting a list for the end user based upon the end user's selections.

        Thanks for the idea, I'll be off to the patent office now! Anyone using one of these FAQ things will owe me royalties based on percentage of sales. Wow, this post has about 3 ideas phrased in the form of a patent application.
    • The best FAQs predate the "web" and originated on usenet. They were extremely useful documents probably because they were not designed to be useful, they were designed to prevent the asking of stupid (I mean frequently asked) questions.

      Thats not a very fair statement. Considering how few people used/know about/even remember usenet, you're talking about a very small minority. In you were to try writing a FAQ for say, how Slashdot is run, how easy do you think it'd be to write a FAQ to avoid stupid question

  • Unfortunately... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iamlucky13 ( 795185 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:58PM (#10452588)
    contrary to its title, the article is not in the traditional form of an FAQ.
    • I was wondering if anyone else caught the irony. That did not pose any frequently asked questions or pretend to present any answers to any questions. I think he wrote it just to piss us off.

  • FAQ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Claw919 ( 604849 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:00PM (#10452604)
    It's honestly not as hard as people make it out to be. I usually come across 3 types of FAQ: 1) The funny one. The guy thinks he's the most hilarious person on the planet, and asks questions (of himself) like "Are you a devil-worshipper?". Pointless waste of time. 2) The honest one. The guy probably hasn't been asked many questions, so the FAQ is sparse and useless. 3) The "substitution for a manual" one. The guy either thinks his software (or website) is so incredibly complex that NOBODY will ever figure ANYTHING out... or they don't think the user will read a manual. The bottom line is - you get a couple of people to use (whatever it is) for an hour or so. Anything there, you put in. The rest, you let run. Stop annoying us with 50 page FAQs for some stupid blog website, ok?!

  • FAQ rule number one (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:02PM (#10452619)
    When you use a FAQ with a search facility, and it comes up with some answer to your question, followed by a question asking "Was that answer useful? [Yes] [No]", you can bet without reading the answer that:

    1) The answer is invariably completely bad and off-topic

    2) You can click on "No" all you want, no-one gives a shit about your end-user experience at the other end, since the FAQ never improves

    • Re:FAQ rule number one (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cjpez ( 148000 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:13PM (#10452719) Homepage Journal
      Bah, I really hate those "was this answer useful?" questions. So very lame. There's no context to determine a useful yes/no answer! No, your answer about subject X wasn't at all helpful because I need some help on subject Y. Does that mean that the answer for subject X should be removed, or that it's bad? Of course not, it just means that I didn't find it useful in this case. Maybe I'll find it useful later. Maybe I'll never find it useful but someone else will. And there are big corporations with that question on their pages! So very very silly.
    • That's because any FAQ that needs to ask if the answer was helpful is not really a FAQ; it's documentation (good or bad) disguised as a FAQ. A true FAQ answer would never make it on a real FAQ if it hadn't *already* proved its usefulness.

  • FAQs correlate to bugs and amgibuity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Uncle Op ( 541486 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:03PM (#10452623)
    Most "decent" and frequent software questions from most "smart" users have to do with bugs of ambiguity or other problems that come from either poor documentation, poor software, or both.

    I expect the same can be said of the FAQs of many products and interest areas. So the real problem facing an FAQ maintainer is - when they have such control at least - the correction of the problems the FAQ(s) bring to light. In this case, a database makes sense when it links in to the database of acknolwledged bugs or defects with the product or area of interest.

    In the case of interest-area FAQs, like rec.woodworking or rec.scuba or rec.your.car, a traditional database makes more sense; you often have no way of fixing something that isn't yours to fix, so you offer advice. But even here, the "current" top-rated FAQ may not always be the most helpful. So one needs to allow a knob or two to keep some FAQs at the top of the list, or otherwise locate them in an obvious place where they are easy to find.

    Ultimately I find Google to be my current search-for-the-FAQ-of-the-moment tool, and I sift through the results for what will help me get what I need done.

  • Some Facts on FAQs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ngkdc ( 810481 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:09PM (#10452685)
    All too often FAQs (and for that matter User Manuals) are simply reminders to those who already know how to use a particular product, rather than aiming for the beginning user.

    By their very nature, FAQs (and manuals) are written by the programmer (only in your dreams!) or by someone who already has hands on experience with the product.

    The very best FAQs (and manuals) come when people comfortable communicating with others write the manual WITH THE ASSISTANCE of someone technical (to get the details straight). Sadly, these times are few and far between.

    Adding to this problem is the problem of (almost) nobody reading the manual (for which the acronym RTFM has entered the lexicon). Who wants to put all that effort into a reference document that will (for the most part) be ignored?

    The article was a nice breeze-thru review of tools to help generate FAQs ... though it could have been handled in about two paragraphs (including file names and likely URLs). It does nothing toward encouraging writing useful reference material, nor toward steering manual updates to include information requested in the FAQs. If the material is "already in the manual", perhaps it's lost in the noise.

    A more useful article would be on what makes a great FAQ, with examples (yes, /. the ONLY folks on the web getting things right for a change ... that'll fix 'em).

    Alas ... code is cool, code is sexy; documentation on the other hand is for those beneath the coder's horizion. I know ... transfer ALL the tech support calls directly to the programmer.

    *****

    And yes, I HAVE done my tour on the help desk, I have beta tested software releases (including following the release notice instructions ... much to the embarassment of the programmer).

  • I agree with previous comments that if you keep the marketing droids out of the FAQ, it will be a better document ... and would suggest you should have a tie-in to the tech support folks so that (as the "F" part suggests) when you get a lot of similar questions, you just pop a good/correct/complete answer in there - this is exactly the approach I've used with my BBQ Grill FAQ [komar.org]

  • KB's Vs FAQ's Vs helpfiles (Score:3, Informative)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:13PM (#10452716) Journal
    While an FAQ may be part of a KB, I think that many here are in fact using FAQ in reference to something more like "help files."

    Awhile back I built a support or "knowledgebase" (kb) web-based tool. It allows articles to be searched based on topic, keyword, body contents, etc.

    While it could include a basic FAQ section, the KB is generally more useful. For example, a question like:

    "How do I change my firefox start page", could be referenced with keywords "firefox" "browser" "start page" "home"

    Provided the user enters 1-2 of the above in search, the results will probably display the revelant FAQ article in regards to what he/she was looking for.

  • Perfect application for a wiki? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lpangelrob2 ( 721920 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:14PM (#10452735) Journal
    So what's wrong with having a wiki for this particular purpose?

    Most developers agree that it's a PITA to maintain a FAQ... responsible developers should, but who among us is perfect? :-)

    Other users usually know the answers to frequently asked questions... or have more time to feel out an answer, etc. etc. It sounds like a good application for a wiki.

    Having now skimmed the article, it looks like he gives wikis a mention, but not enough face time to merit weighing the positives and negatives.

    • The problems with wikis are that:
      • Well-intentioned, but uninformed, users often post misleading and/or conflicting answers.
      • Clueless newbies will ask questions in the wiki. (Nothing wrong with questions, but the question will either belong in a different part of the FAQ, or will have nothing to do with the subject of the FAQ.)

      Wikis generally result in an ugly, minimally-useful FAQ. If you don't have the time to properly maintain a FAQ, or are lazy, wikis are better than nothing, but they'll of

  • Video Game FAQs (Score:5, Informative)

    by Servo5678 ( 468237 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:17PM (#10452755)
    <begin rant>
    Video game FAQs [gamefaqs.com] can be the worst. After scrolling through screens worth of useless ASCII renditions of the game's logo, there's a long table of contents, an introduction about why the author loves the game so much, a nearly word-for-word copy of the game's manual, then a little bit of useful game info followed by another screen or two worth of worthless contributions, copyrights, and accolades such as "Thanks to my buds Mudskipper92@aol.com and Bowserfearsme@wuzup.net! Nobody had better steal the information in this FAQ or I'll sue you! You hear me biggamesite.com? I'm watching you!" As if knowing how to beat the boss of Level 4 is some protected trade secret.
    </end rant>
    *sigh* It feels good to get all that out.
    • While I certainly understand your concern, is it really that hard to CTRL-F for "Bowser" or something? Not to mention it's free. I say this as a major GameFAQs leech.

    • Re:Video Game FAQs (Score:3, Informative)

      by jandrese ( 485 ) *
      GameFAQs actual content varies in quality a lot depending on the author. Some of the FAQs are basically just reprintings of the manual, but there are some that are very good. Most of the time the game is simple enough that you don't really need a FAQ per say (few people have questions about it), but people feel compelled to write one anyway just because they like the game. Other times there are just one or two things that confuse players, but nobody wants to write a 1k FAQ for some reason.

      Anyway, I t

    • Re:Video Game FAQs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dolphy ( 569457 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @03:43PM (#10453447)
      While the endless stream of worthless gameFAQs is certainly a detractor, I think the site has a few very valuable lessons that can be learned from it.

      First of all, the site is thorough and popular. While this sounds simple, and not really all that important in the context of a FAQ, it provides a mindset that is lacking in just about any other form of online documentation (please, PHP.net users, do not consume me...it was just a generalization). How often do you have a problem and "go to the FAQ" absolutely confident that your issues will be addressed there? Not very often, I'm willing to bet. With gameFAQs, however, you can be pretty sure that SOMEONE has address your concern SOMEWHERE along the way (for most games, that is). The inordinate amount of detail that users commit to their FAQs is far more in depth than anything you will find in any other form of FAQ. This is probably because the author was, at one time, just another frustrated user who wanted answers. When he(she) finally got them, it was a point of honor to make sure it didn't happen to anyone else.

      This brings us to the next important gameFAQs lesson: user contributions. Why relegate user submissions and experiences to the backwoods of a forum? Crawling has never been so dirty when you are up at 3 A.M. browsing obscure topics in hopes if finding gold. The submission sytem in place with gameFAQs (though not perfect, by any means) puts the power of documentation in the hands of those who will, inevitably, do a much better job. Sure, you'll have the UHAUL full of crap along with the cream, but even a basic ratings system can take care of that.

      Of course, there are plenty of other concepts that would be interesting when applied to commercial product FAQs. How about a bounty system for those questions that someone REALLY wants to know...but the developers just won't seem to answer? It would be fun to watch, at the least.

  • My experience... (Score:5, Informative)

    by singularity ( 2031 ) * <nowalmart.gmail@com> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:20PM (#10452780) Homepage Journal
    I maintain(ed) a Usenet FAQ for about six years or so for Eudora/Mac [faqs.org]

    It takes effort. Since the application I was writing for was still being released, information would change with every new version. Of course, you had to keep questions specific to a certain beta version [vampy-alumni.org] as long as they remained "frequently asked".

    It also requires following the newsgroup on a very regular basis, and watching for the trends (and the questions that are getting asked a bit).

    For a while I looked at things to turn the flat text file I was posting to the group into a nice HTML version. I ended up doing what I think that 90% of Usenet FAQ-writers did - did most of by hand. I just wrote the FAQ in HTML and then exported to plain-text to post and email.

    Some suggestions tp anyone thinking about maintaining a Usenet FAQ:
    1) Do not list your email address anywhere in it unless you want people contacting you with every question imaginable.

    1a) Refer everyone who emails you to the newsgroup, even if it is an easy question. If you answer the quick question, then they email you back with a more complicated one.

    2) Be honest and succinct.

    3) Find a program or script to regularly post the FAQ to the newsgroup.

    4) Get it set up so that you can post the FAQ to *.answers This will help with propagation and will automatically get several copies up on the web.

    5) Realize it is largely a thankless job.
    • My Usenet FAQ maintaince experience was similar. Hand crafted HTML document (which I blew away once during the HTML to ASCI conversion using lynx -dump) that I posted to my website, and manually posted monthly to Usenet in ASCII.

      The worst part that it became a manual version of dmoz.org's directory of links that I tried to verify monthly before posting.

      The updating of content was trivial and a bareable task in comparison to the maintaince of website addresses for software packages and high quality persona

  • About the article... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JamesTRexx ( 675890 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:24PM (#10452809) Journal
    Nice, an article about FAQ's, but I found it rather lacking like most FAQ's. He only mentioned liking one application, but what about a comparison of the ones he tried? Or explaining why that one instead of the other.
    I found it all a bit too short to give me an idea about what he tested and concluded. Now I still have to figure out for myself what is best. (Yes, I know I would have to anyway, but most articles can be a good guide and list the strenghts and weaknesses of every application)

  • A FAQ on FAQ's? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stinkyfingers ( 588428 )
    Sounds like what our buzzword department would call a Meta FAQ.

  • Too Funny - Missing FAQ (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DigitalRaptor ( 815681 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:29PM (#10452851)
    I find it really funny that a website dedicated to the creation of FAQ's [phpmyfaq.de], doesn't have an FAQ page!

    I'm still chuckling about that...

  • The Article (Score:2, Informative)

    by math major ( 756859 )
    It's slowing down, so here's the text:

    Maintaining and deploying useful FAQs can be a very tedious process. Luckily there are a number of open source FAQ generation and management tools out there that exist to try and make it a bit easier.

    FAQs. No matter how you slice 'em up and package them, at the end of the day are all about content. That's where it gets a bit interesting to try and see what tool (if any) you should consider for your FAQ as there are obviously a number of different type of tools tha

  • Pronunciation Question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stinkyfingers ( 588428 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:30PM (#10452861)
    If FAQ is 'frequently asked questions', is FAQs

    1. frequently asked questionsses (like bus/busses)
    2. frequentlies asked questions (like mother-in-law/mothers-in-law)
    3. frequently asked questions (like sheep/sheep)
  • I have some suggestions for Mr. Kerner on how he could substantially improve his FAQ. I'll be crafting a FAQ later this afternoon - check here this evening for the URL.

  • FAQs don't suck. This article does. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by njdj ( 458173 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:49PM (#10452988)
    FAQs have been around since the beginning of the web & most of them still suck

    Wrong on 2 counts. FAQs have been around twice as long as the web. They have been around at least since the early days of Usenet.

    The ones that are actually what they claim to be - a list of the most-frequently asked questions, with answers - are very useful. The purpose of a FAQ is not to answer every possible question, it is not to be an introductory guide, it is not to replace "Howto" documents... it is to collect the most frequently-asked questions about the subject, with answers that are useful to the people likely to ask those questions.

    A majority of FAQs, and nearly all the ones that originated in Usenet newsgroups, still do that. And are useful.

    Is it just my imagination, or are /. editors selecting more and more trollish/flamebait articles for publication, and rejecting more and more interesting/timely ones?

  • we have a more advanced version of the FAQ now... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @03:04PM (#10453118) Homepage
    ...and it's called a 'forum'. No matter how esoteric your equipment or software there's almost certainly a forum somewhere dedicated to answering the technical questions of folks just like yourself. Unlike the FAQs of old you aren't limited to whatever's in the document; you can ask *any* question and most likely will get a half-dozen or more answers. They may not be the RIGHT answers, but then we've all run into FAQs that gave out bad information, so this isn't anything new.

    And if you're a truly adventurous newbie geek you can jump into that big internet cesspool known as the Usenet and partake in even a greater number of forums covering a wide range of topics, filled with members eager to answer your questions. These people aren't any more likely to be right than the ones you find on the web forums, but they're more likely to wear their arrogance on their sleeves even when they're wrong, which makes the Usenet an inherently funnier place to ask your questions. Even the simplest of questions can spark a flamewar between several complete idiots, and there are few thing funnier than watching a bunch of egomaniacal fools argue with one other.

    FAQs have a hard time competing with this sort of flexibility, and don't have the same entertainment value.

    Max

    • ...and it's called a 'forum'.

      In my day we called it a newsgroup, and FAQs were created to reduce the number of repetetive Q&A of basic, simple, and common questions.

      IMHO web based forums suck because most of them have primitive search capabilities, so unless you find the correct answer on the first hit from google, you may be just as lost as search groups.google.com. They also lack indexes, and usefuliness. Too many forums are many questions and few people answering them. There is little or no rewar

  • Jakob Neilsen's classic comment on FAQs (Score:4, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @03:21PM (#10453254) Homepage
    Jakob Neilsen's Top Ten Mistakes of Web Design [useit.com] has this as #7"

    Too many websites have FAQs that list questions the company wished users would ask. No good. FAQs have a simplistic information design that does not scale well. They must be reserved for frequently asked questions, since that's the only thing that makes a FAQ a useful website feature. Infrequently asked questions undermine users' trust in the website and damage their understanding of its navigation.

    That comment comes with an appropriate cartoon. [useit.com]

  • One thing I've learned about FAQs is that the writes give F*** on what the F stands for. A FAQ should answer frequently asked questions.
    Not what the authors think is frequently asked questions.

    Put in what users ask about, have trouble with etc. not some lame questions invented as you deciede "we should have a FAQ".

  • The first rule about FAQ Club (Score:3, Funny)

    by jcostantino ( 585892 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @03:53PM (#10453540) Homepage
    is you do not talk about FAQ Club.

    The second rule of FAQ Club is you do not talk about FAQ CLUB!

  • Pet peeve (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Piquan ( 49943 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @05:14PM (#10454301)

    I absolutely hate it when I have a user who says, when asking a question, "This should be a FAQ"; usually, they're the first user to ask the question. (They might mean, "This should be documented", and it often already is.)

    My responses usually are "No, it's not a Frequently Asked Question; I haven't heard anybody ask that question in the three years since the program was released." (Common followups include things like, "This is specific to your workstation's particularly uncommon configuration", or the like.)

    I've had one time when I said something like, "Yes, that should be frequently asked: the fact that the question was asked means that the user is thinking about the system, and the answer gives a good deal of insight into how it works and how to use it more effectively. Unfortunately, nobody else has asked it." (I proceeded to add the topic to the documentation after that.)

    But when I hear somebody tell me, "This should be a FAQ", I perceive it as, "My question is one that you should have anticipated me asking, and the fact that you didn't means that your documentation is inadequate." Perhaps my documentation is indeed inadequate, and I'm fine with acknowledging that, but it takes a lot of gall to say that I should have anticipated the user's question.

    Don't get me wrong: I respect the users' need for documentation. But for some reason, being told "this should be a FAQ" really gets my hackles up.

  • ToC vi macro (Score:3, Informative)

    by Diomidis Spinellis ( 661697 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @06:16PM (#10454746) Homepage
    I edit most of the small FAQs I maintain, such as the UMLGraph FAQ [spinellis.gr] by editing the HTML file with vim [vim.org]. One element worth automating is the FAQs table of contents. For that I have on the top of the file the following comment:
    <!--
    To update the FAQs table of contents yank the following vim commands into a register ("ry4j) and execute it (@r).
    /^<h2>Contents
    jjma/ul>
    kmb/^$
    "qyy:g/^< a name/s,<a name="\([^>]*\)><h2>\(.*\)</h2></a>,<li& g t; <a href="\#\1>\2</a>,|y Q|u
    'ad'b"qP
    -->
    This will collect entry headings like the following
    <a name="antialias"><h2>How can I improve the quality of the bitmap images I generate?</h2></a>
    to create the hyperlinked table of contents.

    #include "/dev/tty"

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Close