[bct] Re: A more robust FAQ

  • From: "Brent Harding" <bharding@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:19:36 -0600

The problem gets to be that how do we prevent spam from just wrecking the whole thing? I wonder how likely spammers are to find something and add spam garbage to this? I know the traditional approach is the visual verification, but that makes it not accessible for us. I suppose the hardest thing of installing a system is having an audio version unless someone edited the code. Leo Laport does a wiki on his site and gives a password each week on his show.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Cross" <tcross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:06 PM
Subject: [bct] Re: A more robust FAQ

Your quite right - a badly organised wiki is not much use to anyone and yes, someone will probably have to adopt some sort of managing editor role. However, I don't think it would be any extra work compared to any other solution as they would all rely on some sort of editor who would have to markup the submissions and upload the pages, linking where appropriate. Basically, we are not going to be able to do this without some vulanteers who are willing to contribute some of their time to maintenance. I think we will need a team of them rather than just one and I think Larry has probably already filled is contribution quota.

Generally, the approach I've seen is that someone creates a set of top
level 'catagories' and everyone is asked to fit their content into one
of the catagories. People are discouraged from creating new catagories
unless they cannot fit what they want to contribute into the existing
framework. From time to time, the maintainers may go through and
'cleanup' a bit.

Like anything of this type, it requires cooperation and some


Neal Ewers writes:
> I like the fact that it would be easy for people to add things, but here
> is a problem that might arise. Let's say I put something in the wiki
> that is not correct. What then. Do we need to have things approved
> before they are added? If so, then this will be as much trouble for
> Larry as what we have now. But, I do think that we have to be careful
> that what gets added is correct information, and I think it has to be
> added in logical places. This may mean a bit of management of the
> overall product. I don't like to go there, because it would be some
> work for the person or persons who do it, but the end result of a not
> very well organized wiki to which anyone can add whenever and wherever
> they think likely, could result in confusion. What do people think?
> Neal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Skutchan
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:10 PM
> To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bct] Re: A more robust FAQ
> Hey, that's a great idea. What do the rest of you think? Is this
> something
> you can set up, Tim? Can we make it customizable so it is easy to
> navigate?
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Cross" <tcross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:55 PM
> Subject: [bct] A more robust FAQ
> >
> > If this is the sort of direction people would like to go and if Larry
> > agrees, what about a wiki? This would allow anyone who wants to make a
> > contribution do so easily and it doesn't require as much HTML
> > knowledge.
> >
> > Alternatively, what about considering something like faq-o-matic,
> > which would also allow easier addition of new content and doesn't
> > require HTML knowledge?
> >
> > just my 2 cents....
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > The Scarlet Wombat writes:
> > > I agree, a good FAQ would be a good idea. I would be happy to write
> > > parts
> > > of it. I am good at html as are a few others here and I am sure we
> > > could
> > > muster the necessary expertise to form the page so Larry would only
> have
> > > to
> > > put it on his site and create a link to it from the index page.
> > >
> > > There could be sections on:
> > > 1. recorders, low end to high end
> > > 2. microphones, bargain priced to the high end stuff Neal loves
> > > [grin] 3. mixers or mixing boards 4. software packages like Studio
> > > Recorder and Sound Forge 5. Recording techniques, how to get the
> > > most out of your gear
> > >
> > > These are just a few ideas, but such an archive would be a good ida
> > > and
> > > I
> > > wil l be happy to help.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> >

Other related posts: