| ??? 06/30/06 18:21 Read: times |
#119482 - Follow-up Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
OK, I do not think I have a suggestion, but the two things that come to mind from recent forum posts is a) that Kai and I agreed that there would never be a concensus on cable shield and b) someone posted "to drive LEDs you must multiplex (my emphasis).
Both would lead to 'faulty' FAQ answers and, while I have no idea how to avoid them, I think such should be considered in this discussion. I think that in this case, the author of the FAQ should be contacted and it should be pointed out. Even if the author doesn't agree, there should be a professional interest in providing a competing solution that has technical merit. If the author does not do so, you could post the "other" solution to the FAQ thread. In cases where the omission makes the original FAQ entry absolutely wrong or the author refuses to include technical information that arguably should be presented on the FAQ (and not in the FAQ thread), that's where someone would have to contact me and I could make a decision. If favorable, I'd insert the text into the original message of the FAQ. I would note that the "thread" that could be appended to the FAQ shouldn't be a discussion or a flame-war, but should factually state the missing or additional information. In other words, the FAQ and its "thread" shouldn't read as a message forum thread, but as a cold, emotionless statement of information. The FAQ system would be a severely modified version of the forum so it wouldn't look just like another message forum thread. Ahead of time I would say that the FAQ system would not be a "free speech zone." I can--and would--modify FAQ entries to improve how it's written, formatting, make corrections and changes, and even delete content that reads more like a forum discussion than a FAQ entry. In fact, here's a completely new idea: Any registered user could create a FAQ entry and anyone could edit their own FAQ entry or their own "response." But the same beloved message scoring system could be used to score each individual FAQ entry in the thread; this would include the original FAQ entry and any of the entries in its corresponding thread. The FAQ would then be displayed based in the order of the scores each entry receives. So if the original FAQ entry got +2 but a follow-up entry in the thread got +6, it would actually become the first thing shown when someone pulls up the FAQ. I know the scoring system has often been controversial, but perhaps this is an occasion where scoring could be very useful in letting the system know which entry in the FAQ thread is the "best", and to display that first? If so, the score for each entry would not be displayed, but the system would use it internally to order the entries displayed for that FAQ. Regards, Craig Steiner 8052.com Webmaster |
