Here's a draft of FAQ.

November 18, 2002 12:18 PM

Got a deep question? The draft of the FAQ is up.
posted by frykitty to MetaFilter-Related at 12:18 PM (64 comments total)

There are a lot of additions and changes yet to be made, but I wanted everyone to get a look at the work done so far.

Questions we already know need to be added:

Purpose of Metatalk
What makes a good post

What are other questions you'd like to see researched and added?

Oh, and yes, it's a self-link. Somehow I think I can slip this one in.
posted by frykitty at 12:19 PM on November 18, 2002

no...there are no slips!
posted by dangerman at 12:24 PM on November 18, 2002

no...there are no slips!

Fine. Take it to meta. ;-)
posted by frykitty at 12:29 PM on November 18, 2002

Great work, Frykitty et al. Thank you.
One minor design quibble, if it's possible to address it I would be pleased (",):- could you standardise the capitalisation style, ie,
- Avoiding Double Posts
- Calling Out Double Posts

vs.

- Is there a statute of limitations on doubleposting?

posted by dash_slot- at 12:29 PM on November 18, 2002

frykitty, I am using Chimera for OS X, and I can only see the links in the "About Metafilter and the FAQ" box. All of the other text is the same color as the background.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:30 PM on November 18, 2002

This is great. Thanks frykitty.
posted by timeistight at 12:33 PM on November 18, 2002

Great work.

I think it probably needs to be re-ordered, in order of importance or frequency that I hear the questions instead of alphabetical. Also, some of the answers can use a bit more context, but a great bit of work from scouring MetaTalk.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:35 PM on November 18, 2002

All of the other text is the same color as the background, in that first box....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:35 PM on November 18, 2002

thanks to everyone who took the time to put this together - it's really going to help (providing anyone ever reads it of course)
posted by gravelshoes at 12:40 PM on November 18, 2002

Steve: try again. I made a quick change that went all ugly. It should be better now.
posted by frykitty at 12:43 PM on November 18, 2002

could you standardise the capitalisation style, ie,

I will over time. I did a lot of cutting and pasting from different folks. It's a bugaboo of mine as well.

I think it probably needs to be re-ordered

*thinks* I'm guessing I can wrestle MT's categories to do that. I kept them in reserve just in case. The FAQ is MT powered (I need to put that on the page).
posted by frykitty at 12:45 PM on November 18, 2002

Kitty! Great job! You deserve a free Mefi baseball jersey for your efforts!
posted by daveadams at 12:51 PM on November 18, 2002

Yay!

Wait, is there something on there about cheerleading comments?

*checks*

Whew. Yay!
posted by gleuschk at 1:02 PM on November 18, 2002

Rock on!

However, there's a small problem with the Op-Ed entry -- the reference link and navigation are breaking (at least on my WinIE6).
posted by me3dia at 1:09 PM on November 18, 2002

I wasn't very pro-faq. Now that I've read it, I'm coming around. Great job frykitty.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:11 PM on November 18, 2002

Frykitty! Way super cool!
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:13 PM on November 18, 2002

However, there's a small problem with the Op-Ed entry

D'oh! Fixed.

(feel free to let me know of any problems like this--don't feel sheepish, I need the info.)
posted by frykitty at 1:15 PM on November 18, 2002

Cool beans.
posted by adampsyche at 1:16 PM on November 18, 2002

Very nice. And gee - I made the best-of list!

* beams with pride *

I know you said there would be more, but is there going to be a separate entry on images within threads? There, I think the consensus was "discouraged, but tolerated if used in moderation" instead of the outright "don't do it" for images on the front page.
posted by yhbc at 1:18 PM on November 18, 2002

Frykitty, would it be possible to have a quick intro to HTML also included in the FAQ? We've had numerous threads here asking about HTML help.
posted by riffola at 1:21 PM on November 18, 2002

Mini-mini HTML tutorial
Also Pronouciation of MeFi
posted by riffola at 1:28 PM on November 18, 2002

I'd like comment numbers attached to quotes. Like, Matt 12345: 12345. It sounds more official that way, methinks.

Also, perhaps an explanation of how the FAQ came into being (and the threads leading to it) in the first place? That might be good reading for new users, as well. Would it be a good idea to try to explain inside jokes? Or just leave those a mystery?

Also, from the [More inside] category: "Pease wait until it's posted." Maybe you meant to say "Peace, wait until it's posted?"
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:38 PM on November 18, 2002

Impressive. Most impressive. Thanks for all the hard work, not only on the FAQ itself but also its presentation. Very easy to navigate, as well as easy on the eyes. Huzzah!
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:40 PM on November 18, 2002

Yay! Add me to the cheerleaders!

(Er, one tiny thing...you might want to run a spell check. I caught "repitition" for "repetition".)
posted by JoanArkham at 1:41 PM on November 18, 2002

as well as easy on the eyes.

Well ... actually, I was going to say that I didn't like the red - it just doesn't seem to go with the MeFi blue and yellow.

Taste, as always, is subjective.
posted by yhbc at 1:47 PM on November 18, 2002

easy on the eyes of this beholder then :-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:55 PM on November 18, 2002

Matt 12345: 12345

John 3:16
posted by me3dia at 1:56 PM on November 18, 2002

Very nice. Bravo!

A suggestion for a new category: In-jokes. A brief explanation of the major ones, what they mean, and where they came from (to cut down on this kind of question)... and more importantly a gentle reminder to not overuse them. Because I, for one, am sick to death of our vibrating pancake overlords.
posted by ook at 1:57 PM on November 18, 2002

Frykitty ... a big "Hurrah" to you and all. I just want everyone to notice that the important question comes first! (*insert maniacal laughter here*)

A coupla things though: Though I agree with lending all weight of authority to Matt, I think it would be appropriate to at least offer a link showing who "the faithful" were who worked on the FAQ. Credit and respect where it's due, and all that. Second, once the FAQ is done and accepted, by whatever method (yes that does open a can of worms in and of itself), I think it should be somewhat immutable. Saying or thinking that it can change a lot over time weakens the soup, and spoils its flavor. Plainly put, what is the point of answers if they aren't answers but rather suggestions of the moment, and open to argument and interpretation at every turn? I know a FAQ isn't a set of laws, but it shouldn't end up being its own source of argument either. Finally, IMHO, "could you standardize the capitalization style, ie, " is a colossally BAD idea. A FAQ should offer help, not be a cookie cutter for posting style. We can argue until the cows come home about whether its "double post" or "doublepost" and all we'd be doin' is suckin' bandwidth. Let people write as they will, without offering others the chance to scream "read the FAQ, fuckwit. You used FPP and that's not allowed".


posted by Wulfgar! at 2:16 PM on November 18, 2002

Uh, Wulfgar, I think dash was referring to standardizing style within the FAQ, not mandating a posting style for MeFi. Chill.
posted by me3dia at 2:21 PM on November 18, 2002

I think it would be appropriate to at least offer a link showing who "the faithful" were who worked on the FAQ.

Scroll to the bottom of the page. It isn't complete, but will be soon.
posted by frykitty at 2:28 PM on November 18, 2002

me3dia, I'm not worked up, I just misunderstood the direction (or did I?). A FAQ, as an official document, can carry a lot of weight, and it can go too far. I wouldn't want to see that, nor do I think you would. You might want to take a deep breath of that chill Montana air yourself.

On preview: Thanks frykitty; sorry I missed it on first go.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:29 PM on November 18, 2002

I just misunderstood the direction (or did I?).

I think you did. It's just for titles within the FAQ. It's good to have consistency in a document, but I agree--I'd never want to get that nitpicky over here.

I'm very reluctant to make the FAQ a hard and fast set of rules. Matt has said that he likes things looser, and I'm happy with it the way it is. I think that quoting what Matt has said is authority enough.
posted by frykitty at 2:33 PM on November 18, 2002

I just misunderstood the direction (or did I?).

I think you did.

I think I did too. I'm sorry that there's no HTML for tongue-in-cheek.

I think that quoting what Matt has said is authority enough.

I agree, and that's why I used the FPP example. Matt doesn't like it, many do. That's why I'll paraphrase a repeat of something I've said before: better you than me.
;-)

posted by Wulfgar! at 2:40 PM on November 18, 2002

I like the lists of "good" threads on the sidebar and just want to add that the more links to the blue and grey on the FAQ, the better. Nothing drives it home like concrete examples.
posted by PrinceValium at 2:43 PM on November 18, 2002

It looks really good, but I have one question and one suggestions for you...
Will the FAQ eventually be on metafilter.com itself?
Also, there are some random things of interest like lofi, the zip code index, and more that I can never find - perhaps they could be added to the site design category? There's a good selection of them on riffola's userpage.
posted by whatzit at 3:00 PM on November 18, 2002

Looks wonderful and it's full of great content -- but there's one presentation issue. The bold Trebuchet 7pt in DIV.sideTEXT and the bold Trebuchet 9pt text in SPAN.subhead are barely readable in IE5.5 Win at 1024 x 768. Would you be able to tweak this?
posted by maudlin at 3:06 PM on November 18, 2002

I'll second both the cheers of approval - that must have been a lot of work! - and the votes against the red sidebar & the teensy-tiny text (Opera 6, Win2k, 1280x1024)
posted by epersonae at 3:47 PM on November 18, 2002

Yeah, I did only mean on the FAQ page ( wouldn't dream of criticising something as ephemeral as that on a FPP Mefi Homepage post).
"Let people write as they will." Hear hear.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:59 PM on November 18, 2002

Great work! Surely it doesn't have to be perfect and acceptable to all straight off - other stuff can gradually be added or rewritten as they come up. Thanks. That's one learning centre, that is!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:07 PM on November 18, 2002

I'd like comment numbers attached to quotes. Like, Matt 12345: 12345. It sounds more official that way, methinks.

Please no! A specialized citation system is a clear sign that members of a group have crossed the line into irretrievable geekishness. See the simpsons usenet group or talmudic scholars for examples.

Also - a special system of citation is a barrier to entry for new users, like in-jokes. Matt has said several times that he is against codes/jokes/acronyms that make it hard for a newbie to understand what is happening.


posted by Mid at 4:15 PM on November 18, 2002

other stuff can gradually be added or rewritten as they come up.

Miguel, that's the part that scares me. Imagine this, if you will: A post that sports awful spelling errors makes a scene on the blue. A FAQ makes the official FAQ page about spelling errors, Every single spelling error henceforth becomes a cause for call-out in MeTa. Or worse, a FAQ is added saying how anything about race is unappreciated on MetaFilter, and then a racially oriented post is thrown up. We end up arguing about whether "someone" should have read the FAQs as opposed to reading the link. Mark my words, it WILL happen. Post it (the FAQs), then leave it alone. That's my view, and I'm sticken' to it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:17 PM on November 18, 2002

I see you what you mean, Wulfy. [Hiya!] It is indeed a risk and reminded me of the many times Matt has explained why more detailed guidelines aren't a good idea. Keeping things flexible and trusting people to use their own judgement has worked well 9 out of 10 times.

However as this FAQ wasn't written by Matt and so is unofficial, I think that risk is calculable and worth running.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:37 PM on November 18, 2002

Metafilter: crossing the line into irretrievable geekishness.

I'm one to talk, I even ordered a baseball shirt
posted by yhbc at 5:26 PM on November 18, 2002

*smooch*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:47 PM on November 18, 2002

frykitty: thank you!

My $0.02
- use a bigger font size (however, this is subjective)
- "Why not build a separate site for X?"
Maybe it will help if we add an extra link to the detailed explanation (there is a link to it in the thread you linked to).
- there are two history groups on the left bar

posted by MzB at 7:43 PM on November 18, 2002

-is there a way to view the entire contents on one page?
-it would be nice to see the dates for some of the quotes/references. i know one can easily click on the reference link to view more info, but i'd like to see something like "Matt, 11/02" within the faq itself.
-it may not qualify as a "good" thread, but i always thought that the earthquake thread was notable since it was mentioned in several news articles.
posted by gluechunk at 8:02 PM on November 18, 2002

Ah, that's a good point about the Seattle earthquake thread: it was brought up as a positive example of a news thread repeatedly. It might be a welcome addition to the list -- even though (or because!) it breaks all the rules for a good post. ;)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:28 PM on November 18, 2002

frykitty: Nice work --- by coincidence I'm looking for a php faq script. Is the meat of the script for this faq (the backend) open source or is this something you put together? Thanks
posted by quam at 11:37 PM on November 18, 2002

Is the meat of the script for this faq (the backend) open source or is this something you put together?

It's MovableType.

Just peeking in to say I'm following everything, and many, many of your suggestions are great ones. I shall incorporate most of them.

But the red stays. :)
posted by frykitty at 11:48 PM on November 18, 2002

"I see you what you mean, Wulfy."

I don't. That's just silly. "These are the frequently asked questions. There will be no others!!!" Whatever. FAQs get maintained, dispite the terror that concept instills in Wulgar!.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:48 AM on November 19, 2002

Looks pretty good to me, guys. Everybody gets a gold star, a pay raise and a paid day off.

Two things, neither of them that important:

• the table in "Double Posts" is larger than in the other sections
• Could the date of the quotes from Matt be posted so that we know how current they are? I realize that if there is a reference the date will be found there, but not everybody will go to the thread in question. This doesn't make any difference at all to anything, but I think it would be nice.

posted by ashbury at 5:30 AM on November 19, 2002

Just checking in to say that it's looking great so far. So, consider this a vote of confidence from the knuckle-dragging mouthbreather -- you must be doing something right. ;)
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:10 AM on November 19, 2002

Yes but, on the other hand. when the tough crowd here goes all soft and gooey, you've probably done something seriously wrong. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:52 AM on November 19, 2002

&lt;voice="sean connery">"You're the man now dog!"</voice>

That being said, I think that the FAQ looks a little too much like Bartlett's quotations of our fearless leader. Nearly every page has Matt's Voice of Reason® on it -- and, while this is his site and his party, many of the rules of the road have grown organically. I thought our hope was to introduce members to Metafilter and its culture, not just show them pithy, sometimes bumper sticker worthy, statements of Matt's without any context.

My suggestion: make the References links to MetaTalk threads the first things that a reader sees. Or perhaps there's a sentence that sums up the collected wisdom and then come the thread references. Below this we run the Matt quotes.
posted by zpousman at 10:20 AM on November 19, 2002

Feh. Server error + user error caused my accolades to Frykitty and the rest of his gang to get fuxed.

Mad props to you ladies and gentlemen.
posted by zpousman at 10:23 AM on November 19, 2002

FAQ Coordinator: frykitty, with mucho thanks to researchers/proofreaders: Null, y6y6y6, RJReynolds, and more.
{{{sound of applause}}}

[Thom *claps* hands in appreciation of all your work]
posted by thomcatspike at 11:39 AM on November 19, 2002

This thread makes good faq material, as it relates to ettiquete with logon id's to passworded sites, etc.
posted by PrinceValium at 12:18 PM on November 19, 2002

frykitty, how about this very frequently-asked question?

Moderating this site must be a lot of work. Might Matt appoint some deputy moderators to take up the slack?

...parceling out moderation I would see as a clusterfuck. While it's not the majority, a good deal of MetaTalk posts are about questioning my choices, and I'm just one guy, operating as much as I can publicly with every decision. Imagine a team of 5-10 people making those choices. I suspect the site would get much, much less consistent, as multiple opinions and biases enter the admin fray. I've seen it happen on every group admin site I've ever been a part of, even with close friends. They all had their spats of admin infighting.
posted by mathowie at 11:52 AM PST on November 6

posted by timeistight at 11:17 AM on November 20, 2002

Great work! I would suggest just a few additions.

Define "double post." Some people may think it means the case where you hit "submit" and get an error message, so you go back and click it again, and then your post shows up twice. (Yes, I'm aware that it's no longer possible to do that, but the newbie isn't.) The double post you are talking about is a completely different phenomenon.

I would add a "why was my post deleted" question, listing the most common reasons for a post being deleted. Many of them are already referenced in the FAQ, but it would be nice to have them listed in one place.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:23 PM on November 20, 2002

Add also a list of the "secret" realms of MeFi and ancilary pages elsewhere-- lofi.mefi, waxpancake's stats page, etc. All these things come up in comments but are often unexplained, and lofi.mefi isn't linked anywhere on the Blue. Shine a light in these dark spaces!
posted by me3dia at 2:06 PM on November 20, 2002

~Should also to say who exactly that dang "cabal" is (um, I mean, isn't).~
posted by mattpfeff at 10:03 PM on November 20, 2002

A yet to become frequently-asked question, how to uses the "title field", has been answered here.
posted by MzB at 12:09 PM on November 21, 2002

Wow! Excellent work by the team. I love the red, by the way - adds a nice counter to the rest of the design.
posted by dg at 4:14 PM on November 24, 2002