[theforum] Outdated FAQ issues

Erika ekm at seastorm.com
Mon Nov 24 15:51:36 CST 2008

Martin Burns wrote:
>> How many of these articles could benefit from an update, and is there a
>> good way to make the older articles fall down deeper into our archives
> iirc, if they were pages rather than articles, you can assign weight to 
> them - larger weights sink.

Actually, let me revise my response to this.

I propose this policy:
1. We should actively avoid keeping outdated information on our FAQ.
2. We should actively keep our our *entire* FAQ up to date.

Ok it's the same thing worded slightly different.  Do I need to 
formulate arguments for this position, or is it "good practice" as it 
seems to me to be?  (Let me know if I need to make a case for this.)

I mean this: we need to get the old outdated confusing misleading stuff 
*OFF* the FAQ, not just "sink it lower in the stack."

If the idea of keeping our FAQ (all of it!) current seems like a good 
one, then we can figure out how.  Here are some ideas:

1. relegate outdated stuff (just FAQ?) to an "archives" category.  This 
category would be reserved specifically for articles outlining outdated 
policy information that is valuable to keep for historical purposes, but 
should not be confused with current policy info.  Archived articles 
might be buried deeper in our site (not linked from the front page).

2. Create a real "landing page" for FAQ, and only link to current 
articles.  Requires more maintenance effort than #1 I think.  So I favor #1.

Other ideas?


More information about the theforum mailing list