Faq tweaks?

From @mcast on Tue Sep 06 2016 20:08:08 GMT+0000 (UTC)

I like ipfs/faq, it’s a neat hack! Also thanks for the meta label (which I can’t apply myself).

First I set off to turn the whole FAQ “purple”, but of course GitHub doesn’t do purple links. Then I had other ideas…

  • encourage readers to +1 on the top (question) post on their favourite few; noting that these (in current GitHub UI) seem to be lightweight but irrevocable.
  • use either milestones or another label or two, to collect “the best”
  • suggest a consensus mechanism for extracting the essence of questions into a new issue, if they get long & off topic? Not sure what.

I’m guessing that questions are on a frequency scale, and many people don’t need to read out to the end of the long tail / just want to hear the obvious.

Edit: cancel your “reaction” by clicking it, it has a pale blue background.


Copied from original issue: https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/175

From @mcast on Tue Sep 06 2016 20:59:24 GMT+0000 (UTC)

(thanks)

“Milestones … to collect the best”, rather several to make topic headings?

  • Basics
  • Updating
  • Legal
  • Anonymity
  • … I haven’t read enough of them to make a good set of headings.

Milestones:issues = 1:many works like headings:questions. However I see that some issues cut across multiple topics already. Ordering of the topics might help?

Labels:issues being many:many might work better, for an interactive FAQ presentation?

From @RichardLitt on Tue Sep 06 2016 21:02:48 GMT+0000 (UTC)

> encourage readers to +1 on the top (question) post on their favourite few; noting that these (in current GitHub UI) seem to be lightweight but irrevocable.

SGTM. They are revocable; I don’t think you can sort by these, though, sadly. Let’s add a line to the README encouraging them.

use either milestones or another label or two, to collect “the best”

I think many labels makes more sense. Many to many makes more sense.

suggest a consensus mechanism for extracting the essence of questions into a new issue, if they get long & off topic? Not sure what.

This is hard; people will always go off topic. I don’t want to close or lock topics, either. I think the way we’ve been doing it is OK. I don’t mind redirecting people, or telling them something is off topic.

From @mcast on Tue Sep 06 2016 21:09:22 GMT+0000 (UTC)

> > … extracting the essence of questions into a new issue, if they get long & off topic? Not sure what.

This is hard; people will always go off topic. I don’t want to close or lock topics, either. I think the way we’ve been doing it is OK. I don’t mind redirecting people, or telling them something is off topic.

At this point I was referring to the future “will be rendered” #55. The way issues progress is good.

From @jbenet on Thu Sep 08 2016 16:28:42 GMT+0000 (UTC)

Whatever is most useful to the community. Definitely can have improvements.
But we can also add too many features (making it a bit confusing too). I
think @RichardLitt and @flyingzumwalt will have a ton of good thoughts on
what to do
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:09 PM Matthew Astley notifications@github.com
wrote:

… extracting the essence of questions into a new issue, if they get long
& off topic? Not sure what.

This is hard; people will always go off topic. I don’t want to close or
lock topics, either. I think the way we’ve been doing it is OK. I don’t
mind redirecting people, or telling them something is off topic.

At this point I was referring to the future “will be rendered” #55
https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/55. The way issues progress is good.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/175#issuecomment-245092384, or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIcoYX7f7FsrxFm1q7jRADo5_swj4DDks5qndaCgaJpZM4J2OwC
.