FAQ: ways to improve? suggestions?

[e9999]

I set up the FAQ a while back, hoping it would become a nice repository of info that would prove useful. But it's kind of static in a way and that's been bugging me. I have relied on folks telling me -or my happening to see- that such and such thread would be good to put in the FAQ, but I've had very little feedback on this and it's not getting more complete as much as I would like. The format of using existing thread also makes it less focused.

So, here are a few questions for you all that will help me figure out ways to make this better:


- do you check the FAQ first when you have questions to ask?
- do you feel the FAQ is useful in its present form?
- do you have suggestions on how to improve it?
- would you suggest a different format altogether? if so, which?

let's hear your thoughts!

thanks

 

[calamaridog]

My thoughts are that many good threads that are potentially FAQ worthy end up going to s*** with off topic BS and arguements.

 

[hoser]

Would it be better if each FAQ subject was written by a single author and summarized the subject, result or accepted method? At the end of each "subject," it would say "see these link(s) for more information:" That way, a user wouldn't need to sift through all the garbage to find what they need. Of course the FAQ would need to be updated from time to time.

 

[uHu]

So, here are a few questions for you all that will help me figure out ways to make this better:

- do you check the FAQ first when you have questions to ask?
- do you feel the FAQ is useful in its present form?
- do you have suggestions on how to improve it?
- would you suggest a different format altogether? if so, which?

After looking through the FAQ 2-3 times, you know what is there, and thereby knowing what to look for there. Oh, just checked: there is some new stuff in there. And yes, the faq is useful, for what it covers.
It could cover more of the maintenance bits, w procedures and pix. Also some design / theory of operation for different systems could be handy.
Different format? don't know. But maybe the subject headings could be more syncronised, or on the same level, with the same level of detail. Giving a better overview of what the article/thread contains. (E.g. the "Slee rear bumper with tire carrier", what is that? "Presentation of", "installation of" or "purchase of"). Just to make it faster to find what you need.

Also the grouping could be reviewed. Isn't Armor part of Mods? And Front wheel bearing replacement part of Maintenance (although not "Regular Maintenance")? And isn't Driveshaft lubing part of Drivetrain? See, its not easy. Don't know the best system though. Kinda works well the way it is.


Otherwise, I agree w Calamari, and
Hoser's suggestion sounds reasonable, although I can't see the full impact right away.

 

[tabraha]

e- I will first say that you did a great job compiling the FAQ. I have referred to it many times for the newbs.

Personally, I rely almost solely on the search engine function. So, in effect the FAQ is included in the search but usually I find my answers using the search tool.

I really am pretty satisfied with the FAQ. I mean it stands for Frequently Asked Questions and you can really only do so much with the thread, and for what it's worth I think you've done that. I believe it's mainly a tool for newbs to hopefully find on their own but also for us to direct them to if they obviously haven't looked there. When most of us guys that've been around post a question it's generally not frequently asked.

Stop feeling guilty about it being stagnant!!!