It has been recommended that I include a section in the FAQ here about "How to Find Existing Information" in the forum.

What are your suggestions on verbiage to use? What would you say if someone asked how to find information here?

It has been recommended that I include a section in the FAQ here about "How to Find Existing Information" in the forum.

What are your suggestions on verbiage to use? What would you say if someone asked how to find information here?

I would lead them on a step by step how-to with screen shots.

I would explain the difference between searching Entire posts and searching just the titles.

I would give some advice on keywords and if any special characters are allowed/recommended.

Useful information for those with limited experience would be a list of the most common keywords in a table format. Something like "if you are looking for ... use the keyword/s ..."

It might be helpful and speed things up if you could divide the subjects up somehow. Like ISO, PPAP, Corrective Actions etc. I know this would be a pain in the beginning, but I think it would get used more in the long run.

Doug

FAQ's are there to help answer any basic questions for someone not familiar with whatever they are looking for. I think Brad is on the right track with his thoughts on some of the FAQ's that will help people better understand how the cove site works.

My :2cents:

It might be helpful and speed things up if you could divide the subjects up somehow. Like ISO, PPAP, Corrective Actions etc. I know this would be a pain in the beginning, but I think it would get used more in the long run.

Doug

The idea is good, but how is the problem. What I mean is, a couple of years ago we re-did most of the forums with this idea where we tried to categorize by 'topic'. The moderators and I spent a lot of days (a couple of weeks if I remember correctly) moving threads about and trying to get thousands of threads in their 'appropriate' forum.

What I found at the time was there were too many people who could each envision a different categorization scheme, so what sounded good to one someone else didn't like.

The current forum home listing / categorization is the result of that effort. If you envision a different specific categorization scheme, I'm all ears.

I had tried the guidelines for finding information in the existing FAQ section several times and can vouch that it works.

My view is that it has nothing to do with this subject but rather attitude of people. Some just barged in when caught in a jam either at work or study, hoping some kind souls here will answer their questions without the need for them to spend time searching for information they need. It’s easy to tell who they are – they disappear as soon as they get what they want. You don’t see them again and remaining as a part of this community is last in their mind. Taking the cue from our ‘kind host’, we always entertain them.

Yet there’s another category who could not even bothered to give a good thought about what they want to ask or find out – asking questions such as “what is ISO” and expecting people to read their mind or guess what they want. Such are the type of questions that elicit some less than polite response sometimes and yet, some one here will volunteer answers to their questions. There are some genuine ones who are new to the subject and ‘fit into this mould’ and if you had remain here (evidence that you are genuine) please accept our apologies - the bell curve has 2 extreme ends.

Perhaps we can have another box below the first one (containing the welcome message) at the opening page. The title of this box should be something like: Some good practices or netiquette for consideration before you start posting (actually a reminder). There should be 2 columns – one for existing users and another for newbie’s.
For existing users, some reminders are: no personal attack, refrain from responding if you don’t like what is written and so on…… For newbie’s, some reminders are: think through what you want to ask, be specific so that respondents can give you a better answer. Where possible, do a search before posting (I have never seen any impolite reply for posters who say that they had done a search but could not find……). Apologetic and well crafted questions for those in an emergency (in-fact all situations) always end up with an abundance of courteous replies.

My :2cents:

My view is that it has nothing to do with this subject but rather attitude of people. .... think through what you want to ask, be specific so that respondents can give you a better answer. :applause: on both points. Concerning the latter, my motto is: the caliber of the answers depends on the quality of the questions. If you phrase a question poorly, don't expect insightful answers.

Harry, as with all your posts, a very briliant and thoughtful post. Yes, you are correct about human nature. You have correctly identified some of the characteristics of the people who come to post a question.
**************
I was one of the reasons Marc posted this thread regarding improving the FAQ. I guess my thought process was, to an extent, to practice what we preach. The site is excellent, if you know what you're doing. But what if you don't? Where do you start?

I was scared to death at this site when I came to visit. It was not intuitive to me on how to begin. Luckily, Coury was kind enough, along with some of the ASQ regulars, to e-mail me/PM me to give me guidance. The site became something of a library, a treasure of knowledge, and a system to be respected. I tried to respect the system, and did everything I knew to do things appropriately.

However, I cannot assume that everyone approached the site that same way. Thus, they will not always expend the time to "learn" the best way to do things. However, like an advertisement, the FAQ is the first impression, and allows for possibly better dissemination of information than is currently happening.

I haven't been around a long time, but I have seen some poorly worded posts, and some pretty basic questions that would take two minutes to find the answers. Many, I went to Google and found the answer. Why did they not do that? I don't know.

This is just me: I do not have it in my makeup to return ignorance for ignorance; insensitivity for insensitivity. I hope (I'm not perfect; I will fail) that I try to always take the High Road, and greet each post with a smile. People in quality get berated enough at work; they don't deserve it here from me, however ignorant the question seems.

However, that does not give Carte Blanche to any person to throw together any combination of poorly structured, mis-spelled words, and be horrified if they get back any less-than-ideal reply from a 24/7 global audience.

So that leaves me with trying to provide the best information up-front that we can. I believe strongly that no matter how good the FAQ is, we can always improve the initial experience people have with the Cove.

Here is just a general outline for the FAQ I thought up:

1. How is the Cove organized?
2. What's the easiest way for me to find if my question has already been answered?
3. What is expected of me when I post?
4. When should I add to a post, and when should I start a new post?
5. Where are attachments?
6. How do I thank a really helpful post? Why should I thank someone?
Who do I contact for questions/complaints?
7. Can I ever disagree with a moderator and their post?

Thanks for the kind words and for outlining the objectives of this thread in more detail. While I may have been around slightly longer than you I must point out that I had on many occasions reminded myself to emulate you as far as ‘patience’ or ‘behavior’ in this forum is concerned. Yes, all of us need a self check or censure on occasions.

Coming back to the subject, you are right that we cannot expect or assume that everybody does things our way. I lurked around for sometime reading, getting a feel of the regulars and moderators before I ‘jump in’. By then, I was prepared or was able to accept if some brickbats were thrown my way. Understanding the behavior of people in groups certainly helps.

While I mentioned that I had no problems with the FAQ section in my previous post, I do agree and support you view that some improvements are in order (continual improvement). Your listing looks fine to me except item 7. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding but technically a post by the moderator is just another post. A moderator is just another poster who is given an extra duty. Having said that, usually only those deemed to have good knowledge or experts are appointed moderators – was it your intention to clarify this under item 7?

Thanks again for putting in so much effort to improve this forum.

While I mentioned that I had no problems with the FAQ section in my previous post, I do agree and support you view that some improvements are in order (continual improvement). Your listing looks fine to me except item 7. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding but technically a post by the moderator is just another post. A moderator is just another poster who is given an extra duty. Having said that, usually only those deemed to have good knowledge or experts are appointed moderators – was it your intention to clarify this under item 7?



You have just driven home one of my thoughts!! There will be two kinds of posts by a moderator. One would be content. In your words, that's another posts. Just because Joe 5000 posted XYZ, you can post a view of a different opinion, or with additional information. These would be subject to courtesy and respect notions for all involved (including Joe 5000).

The second would be moderator posts. These are primarily ones of trying to get the post back on topic, calming a "heated" thread, warning a poster of inconsiderate conduct, etc. Those posts are to be considered Law, if you will. It is strongly encouraged that they not be publicly challenged.

However... at any time, an individual should first privately contact that moderator, then they can contact another moderator, or Marc, should there be any issue.
******
Many times I have received PM's from some very bright people who have a little different spin on an issue than one a moderator had posted. They did not feel they could post, as Joe 5000 said something different.

If any of you have further suggestions for improvements with regard to the FAQ here and the Forum Software - Suggestions, Problem and Bug Reports (http://elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?f=153), please feel free to add to this thread.