[SpamCop-List] Re: make it clear

[Mike Easter]

WazoO wrote:
> And it was due to the complaints of the "hard to navigate" amd "not
> up to date" that caused me to toss together the single-page version
> offered up in the Forum.

And I think you are doing a great job with what you have to work with in
the forum -- don't misunderstand that part of what I'm saying.  A really
great job.

>> The way to do that would be to have a faq which was up-to-date,
>> intuitively organized, and frequently reorganized and clarified and
>> amended.
>
> and as far as I can tell, the FAQ in the Forum meets at least most
> of those requirements.

It is a forum.  It navigates like a forum.  It has links to webpages and
other forum sections.  Those webpages need to be well integrated with
each other and optimized for navigational clarity and intuitiveness.  I
understand the faq and I can navigate the faq.  I can also navigate the
forum, but I don't like its navigation much.  That webfaq needs
improvement and inclusion of that content which can only be found in the
forum.  And finding the pieces in the forum requires navigation.  I
think that navigation can be done better with normal webpages, not a
forum.  Forum navigation is kludgy.

>> The forum is also a rough approximation of a place to create some
>> dynamic adjusting and pinning to the faq -- but it in no way
>> resembles what I described above about a real faq -- properly
>> organized for natural and intuitive navigation and enabling
>> immediate and simple introduction to the answer.
>
> As stated a few times before, JT offered to blow the money on a
> knowledgebase tool (pulling in your magical oak tree reference) ...
> but feedback on that query has been next to nill .....

I don't know what kind of money needs to be spent.  Maybe none.  I would
think that properly constructed webpages wouldn't be any money spent at
all, but someone's time and authority to do so.   The idea that you have
to have an attorney's approval to change a faq page is absurd.

>> The forum is not a faq, and it also isn't some kind of magical oak
>> tree that we used to joke about here.
>
> True, but the Forum offers a version of 'the' FAQ that incorporates
> the one you call "the real FAQ" .... It's "all" there plus what
> continues to be added ....

What needs to happen is that that old as well as new adjusted
information needs to be in a webpage faq instead of a forum faq, IMO.

>> The magical oak tree

> that if they hit the "+" at the left of the subject line, that all the
> answers would "magically" appear ....

I was surprised at finding the MS webforum the other day.  I'd only
participated in the nntp newsserver groups.  It also navigated poorly.

Also the search tool in the forum works poorly.  The other day I gave up
on it and googled for the term using google web advanced limited to
forum.spamcop.net.  No I can't remember the example.  I wanted a short
phrase in quotes and it included short words or a short word and that
was unacceptable.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin