FAQs not Flack

[GRW3]

We get routine enquiries that generate a typical response:

Do a search with keyword: gobblydegook

Or gobblydegook has been covered in these threads:

Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3
etc., etc...

Now usually it's the moderator and it's a pretty gentle direction but sometimes it's not and it can get snarky. I suspect a lot of good people do more playin than internet'in so maybe those clever searches just don't work as well for them.

Seems like the mando knowledgeble could develop a MandoFAQ section. The Martin forum (UMGF.COM) has a FAQ section on Martin guitars with about 50 separate categories. As I understand it that is a restricted forum with only approved and requested threads allowed.

I wish there had been a Tone Gard FAQ. It would have saved me a good deal of time and effort since I didn't realize it was GARD not GUARD.

[Payit Forward]

Hasn't this topic been covered before? If you search you will find these threads about it....

Actually, FAQs are great, but there would be some problems:

- If you try to cover all topics, the FAQ gets so big that you might have to search to find what you're looking for. It would be a monumental task for someone to build it.

- A LOT of the information on this site is opinion as much as fact. Again it would be a monumental task for someone to verify what is truely fact. If you search and read threads, you can decide for yourself what you consider fact.

Sometimes it is just easier to ask a question (again) and deal with whatever responses you get.

[John Flynn]

There was a volunteer project to do just that back in 2004. I was in charge of the mandolin accessories/parts section, which included Tone Gards. Along with a some help from a couple of other volunteers, I got the section completely outlined and about one-third written. Other volunteer committees had other sections, I think there was something like mandolin buying and building, mandolin playing, etc. But at one point, the whole effort was deemed to be not worthwhile and the plug got pulled on it. At least that's my poor memory of events.

[Bill Snyder]

I understand that some people don't want to do a search so they ask. However there are some that don't know about the search function and telling them about it can open the doors to a lot of information for them. Then there is the fact that when a topic has been covered 20 times in the last six months it is not uncommon for the responses to a new thread to be sparse. In these cases sending them to previous threads can shed more light on the topic. I also believe there is value in keeping some topics to a few, information heavy threads so it is easy to find most of the imput from several members both old and current.
I do agree that there is no need to be snarky about it and posting links to previous threads is always helpful instead of just saying do a search. Honestly though I think I have done it both ways. I normally post links to previous threads if I suggest a search, but when I have limited time I might have suggested they do a search w/o posting any links.

[Scott Tichenor]

One day as the Little Red Hen was scratching in a field, she found a grain of wheat.
"This wheat should be planted," she said. "Who will plant this grain of wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
Soon the wheat grew to be tall and yellow.
"The wheat is ripe," said the Little Red Hen. "Who will cut the wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
When the wheat was cut, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will thresh the wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
When the wheat was threshed, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will take this wheat to the mill?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
She took the wheat to the mill and had it ground into flour. Then she said, "Who will make this flour into bread?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
She made and baked the bread. Then she said, "Who will eat this bread?"
"Oh! I will," said the Duck.
"And I will," said the Cat.
"And I will," said the Dog.
"No, No!" said the Little Red Hen. "I will do that." And she did.

[Scott Tichenor]

Sorry, having a bit of fun, but the fable does make my point, perfectly. Plus, I can now likely count on getting some good extra hits from Google.

My opinion: people don't want to read FAQs. They want human answers. Plain and simple, and they won't go spending hours reading FAQs searching for the answers. Users of forums clamor for FAQs because they get tired of seeing the same questions over and over--many that some of them asked at some point in their development. "Go read the damn FAQ" is not a very welcoming comment.

This forum is itself a set of Frequently Asked Questions. However, if someone would like to take on a monumental task that you'll be involved in as leader of such a quest--for years, not hours, please raise your hand. You will be appointed the head of this project. You'll oversee dozens--no, thousands--of arguments and suggestions on how to do it correctly. You'll be expected to answer questions at 9:00 a.m. on a Saturday instead of taking your kid to baseball practice, and at 11 p.m. on a work night when you'd rather be sleeping. You'll want your own dedicated search engine, database design possibly and will need a degree in human resources. We'll discuss. Oh, and you'll be subject to public criticism by anonymous users going by monikers such as 'tatereater61'. Personally, I think there are far better uses of one's own time, so I won't be doing this myself. If you search, you'll find I've stated all of this before, but I'll shut up now.

[fredfrank]

Well stated, Scott. I liked the chicken story. Seems chickens and mandolins have some sort of mystical attraction to each other.

[John Flynn]

Well, I don't disagree with what has been said, but in fairness, there were a few of us Little Red Hens who did put in a lot of work on this at one time, so I think that shows there are often people willing to do it. As to the "arguments and suggestions," I test-marketed what I did and did not encounter that many. Sure, there will be some, but probably not any more than a lot of other stuff on the Home page, like the lessons and the history, etc.

As far as people not wanting to be referred to FAQs when they ask a question, I completely agree in the same way I think people don't want to be told to run a search or refer to other threads when they ask a question. What I think FAQs can be good for, though, is as primers for newbies, just like the history section, the lessons section, etc. They might make interesting reading for people just starting out that would tell them a lot of the "don'tcha knows" and would keep them from having to ask questions that people would then tell them to do searches on. I have a strong suspicion that there are a lot of newbie "lurkers" who have questions but don't even get up the gumption to ask at all.

If I knew for sure it would get used, I would re-start, update and complete work on the accessories/parts section on my own, although if anyone wanted to help, I would welcome it. If I got any "suggestions" about the outcome, I would listen. If I got "arguments," I think people know me well enough to realize that I would have no trouble, putting it delicately, suggesting how they should handle thier complaint.

But let me be clear, this is just my opinion. I'm not chomping at the bit to do this if it really isn't something people are interested in. Scott may well be right that it would be a waste of time.

[Scott Tichenor]

John, what parts of the work you did sit right here, which is where all of the information for the once ambitious user FAQ landed. I remember all of the virtual hands that shot into the air, "I'll help, I'll help". And a few did. And then without a cheerleader leading it 24/7, it died. And there it sits. I can give anyone and everyone logins and you can go at it, any time you're ready, but it'll all be subject to community discussion, criticism, suggestions, etc., and it will be real work.

[John Flynn]

Well, that seems to contain only a small part of what I did. Probably an early draft. But not wanting to fan any flames, I will bow out of this discussion.

[MikeEdgerton]

If I might add my two cents as it's obviously pointed at me. Let me ask this again, when you go to the library, assuming you do that, do you read the periodicals or do you ever go to the reference books? Today I pointed a new member of the cafe at four threads (amazingly marked the same way as the OP's diatribe) and they found the answer they were looking for. How is that offensive? Be honest. The person got their answer and that doesn't mean nobody else can answer, but they got their answer. The past threads are the library refrence books, the encyclopedias, the dictionary, etc. and the answers posted today are the current events, the periodicals. There's nothing wrong with either in my book, I just don't get it when someone has a problem with going back in time and looking at answers that were already given. The same folks that answered those threads are the same folks answering threads today, cafe members. Would it be better if we just wiped the old stuff away?

[Scott Tichenor]

Well, that seems to contain only a small part of what I did. Probably an early draft. But not wanting to fan any flames, I will bow out of this discussion.

No, no need, really! Everything I was ever aware that you did is contained here, which is was sort of a holding area while we were building it. If you did more than that, I have no idea where that information is. That glossary sure doesn't look like much, but I have easily 100 hours in it, and I can tell you it's one of the most poorly used resources on this site. Statistics don't lie. That we'll build a FAQ and "they'll come" is a popular argument, but not one I buy. I'm all for it. Problem is, everyone wants me to do it. I'm not going to. I know very well what I can handle within the limitations of family, day job, and (don't tell anyone), I'm a pretty serious musician.

[Scott Tichenor]

cafe members. Would it be better if we just wiped the old stuff away?

ain't gonna happen. Sorry.

A polite, "here are some previous discussions" links will do, minus the "this has already been discussed".

[JEStanek]

As another one who often links to older threads and search results, I view my role (to borrow Mike's analogy) as a librarian. I like referring many questions to older threads where a good selection of answers were given. I like it when people add to those answers.

Another problem with a FAQ for us is our subject matter is pretty dynamic. A FAQ on good instruments for $500-1500 will have changed from 2004 - 2008. Same thing with picks and strings.

I encourage new members to ask us the questions on their minds. New answers are great too. I also don't reply in threads (hard to find one, huh) that I'm not interested in. I try to steer clear of the "do your search" answer and prefer to give them a search result. I see that as part of my job as moderator. So, ask on, use the searches if you want, and don't be grumpy about those who don't!

I like bread with butter and strawberry preserves.

Jamie

[Steve Cantrell]

You see the "do a search" thing on a lot of different forums, so it's not a Cafe anomaly.

I recall getting into a pretty heated discussion about this very thing here on the Cafe once before. My opinion then, as it is now, is that often people are new and awkward and just want to put out a feeler to generate some conversation. Sort of like going up to the sports bar and saying, "How about those Bulls?". In this case, someone answers "Go to ESPN.com. Read about them there." Then they turn back to their beer. It makes you feel like you're not welcome. Anyway, just thought I'd add that.

[Ted Eschliman]

Another problem with a FAQ for us is our subject matter is pretty dynamic. A FAQ on good instruments for $500-1500 will have changed from 2004 - 2008. Same thing with picks and strings.

Good point, Jamie. Infantile wisecracks about Chris Thile's hair just don't seem as funny now as they did back in 2004.

[MikeEdgerton]

When Chris is old a gray he can come here and do searches that talk about when he had hair. He'll appreciate the cafe even more than he does now.

[Eugene]

I put a lot of time into those old FAQ essays myself too. Some bits were very heavily edited to appease the decidedly Gibson-centric, archtop perspective that dominates the US and from which I don't necessarily view the domain of all mandolindom. Some parts were scavenged into the newer glossary and even further edited.

I also added a bit to the later glossary on pitch naming conventions, because the vagaries of what octave and direction GDAE actually means is a bit of a pet peeve of mine...and look how many here actually took Helmholtz conventions to heart. More evidence that, as Scott said, nobody puts much effort into actually using the FAQ or glossary anyway.

[Avi Ziv]

If I'm not mistaken, there is a feature in this software (not enabled here I guess) which brings up a list of suggested older posts to review before you actually submit something. I don't know how it does the search and how good the match is. However it seems to be an attempt to make you stop and review some older threads before posting something new.

Has anyone seen this in other forums? Would that be helpful here? Not as a replacement for an FAQ but as another encouragement to use the archived data.

Just brainstorming

Avi

[Jason Nagati]

A polite, "here are some previous discussions" links will do, minus the "this has already been discussed".

I appreciate links to previous posts. But I find the "this has already been discussed" line quite rude, which I imagine is why Scott suggests leaving it out. Many newer or less frequent users, such as myself, are not as familiar with the entire catalog of posts as others, thus we do not know if something "has already been discussed".

Many newer members may perform searches incorrectly due to lack of familiarity with the search engine. I, for examples, searched for some subject once (before the forum update) that returned no hits. I posted my question and was directed to several previous posts. I believe the search function was set to a default of only posts within the previous month, something I did not realize. So I also suggest no flack or snark.

[GRW3]

I used the Martin FAQ section a lot when I first got interested in a Martin guitar. The information in it was very valuable in helping me understand the variations in their guitar lines. I may be mistaken, because it's been a while, but I believe when I joined umgf.com the sent me an acknowledgement e-mail pointing me to the FAQ section as a ready reference. (or some forum I joined did...)

You guys know a lot about mandos and I can understand why seeing the same topics revolve can be irritating but you know you're under no obligation to respond. And if that seems too cold let me revise it to you're under no obligation to respond immediately. It actually will not kill you if a newer group of members discuss something that is old hat to you. There might be a new take on something that you thought was done settled. But it seems very often the "Look Here!" response seems to shut down the thread. BTW, sometimes the the "Look Here!" threads, while having a wealth of information on the subject at hand, do no answer the question or reflect on the statements of the OP,

[billkilpatrick]

searching for suitable old threads works for me ...

[MikeEdgerton]

If I go back through my mail I have to say the majority of the people that respond seem to appreciate being pointed at the older threads. I'll keep doing that as it is an instant opportunity to find an answer. Those looking for conversation and not just for information might be better served just saying hello. I'm somewhat amazed that folks will dig through 50 pages of FAQ's and have a problem with a pinpointed search that addresses their issues. The reason people point you to previous conversations is more for you than it is for them.

[Bill Snyder]

Sometimes the old threads have better/more complete answers than the ones the new thread is generating. Sometimes not. They almost always have something to add to the discussion. On occassion they are revived (any thread that is not locked can be brought to the top of the page with a new post) and everything is readily available.
I think a good example of old threads that are worth pointing to are the Show Us Your Whatever threads. If I start a new thread for headstocks thats fine, but there are already two lengthy threads out there. If I point you to them it is not because I am irritated that you started a new thread, it is because I know that not everyone that posted in the previous threads will post again and you will miss out on 20 or 30 pages of interesting photos that you would enjoy seeing.
This is an instance when I think one thread for the topic would be beneficial. Since it is not going to be one thread the next best thing is having a link to the other thread contained in the new one.
JMHO.

[ApK]

There is a tone and attitude from both side that makes the situation an issue or a non issue.

On the asker's side, if you give some clue in your message that you are needing help or are politely seeking a favor ('I'm sure this has been discussed, but I'm lousy at this Internet thing, so please....'), then an answerer might be less likely to feel like the asker is treating them like a personal secretary with nothing better to do than type the same info over and over just because the asker feels it's beneath him to take two minutes to see what's already here....

On the answer's side, if the tone is simply one of help in answering the question "here are some great recent threads on that very question...." rather than tone of 'stop wasting my time and do your own freaking research' then links to old threads and search instructions may be seen as the great resources they are.

Here's a geek's article on how to ask questions:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Check out, particularly, the 'Introduction', and 'Before you ask' sections, and you'll get some idea of the mindset and dynamics we're talking about.

ApK