*
Love the idea of a FAQ. A good complement to the archives, not a replacement.
FAQ entries:
Below-grade finishes
Bathroom venting
Attic Venting
Cell vs. Fibreglass
Moisture Problems
Concrete Techniques
Deck Techniques
Drywall Techniques
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
The RealTruck AMP Research Bedsteps give you easy access to your truck-bed storage.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
As an infrequent user but avid reader at this site, I agree with the FredB answer - refer to the "archives" for the FAQs. I suppose that you will still get the same questions with a twist, anything is worth a try to head off the twisters. The photo idea is a good addition if that can be incorporated as a separate folder or annex. Good luck.
*
Never in my life have I gotten more undeserved credit for stuff than I seem to get on this board. My post that I am referencing from one month ago concerns the inadequacies of the search engine. Someone else came up with the FAQ idea, Maybe Andrew?, and that was quite awhile ago with plenty of people seconding the notion.
Not my intention to rub anyone's face in anything. My apologies.
Rich Beckman
*Andy,
View Image © 1999-2000"More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly." Woody Allen
*Joe's "autosearch" idea is a good one. Perhaps asking the person posting a new discussion to use key subject words (like "cut" and "rafters") would assure a good search.
*my opinion is that, as in most things, simple is best. A table of contents might be nice, but maybe just headings breaking up the list would be okay. I'm thinking the FAQ could be just a set of links to related discussions. For example, Heading:Navigating BreakTime1. adding pictures2. linking to sites3. etc...Clicking on 2, for example, would bring up the titles of the numerous times where Joe and others have shown others how to do it. From the titles, a click brings up the discussion, unedited, just linked to acitve or archived discussions.Just my opinion. Actual topics have been well covered by others. Rich.
*worm drive vs. sidewinderhanging doorsbearing wallsspan tableswood floor finishtile subfloor
*AndyPlease give Calvin's post some thought. For some strange reason newcomers keep posting building questions onto the i About BT Help Using, Ideas for Improvingfolder, . . perhaps because it's the first folder, or maybe because the wordsi Help andi Ideas are used. If you can't change the wording of the folder title, someone at your end should check it daily and repost stuff to the main board. I've answered several queries that showed up because I had that whole folder bookmarked, and never heard back from the original poster, possibly because they could never find there Q again.There have also been several lately in thei First Annual 1999 Fall Fest.. . thread which should prove just how easily some people can be confused. This part of the board needs idiot proofing!! Someone above suggests making the FAQ a rewrite by specially chosen individuals. I couldn't disagree more. Let the original discussions stand, these are what this place is all about, don't sanitize anything. Post a list of FAQ topics with links to the discussions. And maybe an explanation on any venting or cellulose threads about your buddy b "."I'll be glad to write that one for ya!!!Too bad it's taken about two years to get this off the ground!!-pm
*I really like the idea of somehow making the search function more powerful. It really is no big deal when someone asks a question for the umpteenth time. There is always someone willing to say "Check the archives". The problem is, checking the archives doesn't always give results. I know I would be much more likely to answer the poster with a link or two if I could dependably find them! But I avoid searching whenever possible, it is just not dependable (better than the spell check, but that isn't saying much).Rich Beckman
*Rich, I agree...The best results I have with the SEARCH function is when I can remember the poster's name and use their name as one of the keywords. It'd be nice to knock off some of the redundant posts, but many times a repeated posts brings forth new discourse. High traffic, with all the NEW MESSAGES, kills me at times, but it is what keeps this place alive.Regardless of the newbies, I'd like a better SEARCH/FAQ function for my own trips back into the archives.Mongo
*The idea of a Faq is a good one but is easily screwed up. A comprehensive faq is unreadable due to it's enormous volume of unneeded info. A brief one is useless because it doesn't contain the info you seek.I rarely look at faq's anymore.That brings us to the present request. A faq for house building. Or is it a faq for navigating and using this site? Or is it a mixture of both.I believe I'd leave it as a site navigating tool. The idea of a Table of Contents of archived discussions would be a nice idea. Maybe you could link one or two good discussions, leaving off the inevitable non-germane forty messages at the end, on each subject and encourage the use of the search engine. But I'd leave it at that. I do agree that it is easy to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Remember, the reason that the regulars seem to think that the questions are repetitive is because they have been hanging out too long. Newbies come and go and like to read interesting topics like "OSB or PLYWOOD?". It's those types of mundane topics that generate lots of input, and therefore are inherrently interesting to read, even to the casual surfer. It's not so interesting to see those same discussions in the archives.One big problem with researching archives is time management. Another is finding the pertinent answer to the peculiar query. Sure there will be lots of answers, but they also raise different questions in different people. It's hard to get an answer about your particular aspect of an idea, when the topic is archived and the participants not available. "Live" discussions also requires persistance. The questioner must return in the future to see the answers. It's the constant flow of participants that make these forums interesting. I can get all the answers from a book, but I'd rather here it from the trenches.That said, I'd encourage you to limit the faq's to site related navigation and usage. Let the free wheeling discussions continue. Oldies like myself tend to refrain from replying to the OSB topics and newbies can then take their rightful place in the site by answering other newbies. They don't need to know that the topic has been hashed and re-hashed many times. And it really doesn't matter. It's just as fun for the current crop of participants as it was for the older crop of posters.Thanks for asking.blue
*Blue,The clarity of your thoughts always amazes me.I agree with you completely.They're only faq's to those of us who've read them to frequently.Vince
*Thank you for you very kind thoughts Vincent. Maybe the reasont that I speak clearly is because I tend to listen when I don't have a clue to the subject matter. Then, I only speak about things that I have thought out clearly. Of course all this is much easier to do when each word is typed, and editing is possible.Now, if I can only apply the same principles out here in the real world...blue
*Andy,Having read down through this whole thread I come to one conclusion.If Taunton allows you and whoever else is needed the time... And, using that time, you are able to come up with an faq/faqsystem that is able to satisfy everyone... You will have something that would be saleable all over the web. ie, a system whereby anyone with a forum can come up with a relevant, easy to use faq/library/reliable search engine of their own...Maybe a little incentive above that which you already have ???
*I am in awe. Now, I've got to make time (Hey Boss, mind if I miss a deadline?)to figure out what to do, but I'm leaning toward suggesting that we improve the search function, creating some sort of table of contents for the archives (I don't know how doable that is, with something like 40,000 posts)and coming up with a way to help newbies navigate the site better. Keep the ideas flowing, and I'll keep you posted on our plans.Thanks again.Andy
*i Uh, should I vent my attic?i Should I install my drywall and sheathing vertical, horizontal or diagonal?Seriously, I agree with Blue, a "table of contents" with links. But this takes manpower to assign a discussion to an area. Maybe when a new discussion is added, there should be a new check box, that more specifically groups the question. i.e. "concrete question, insulation, windows, paints/coatings, tools, cutting rafters/moldings, tiling and backer board, plumbing fixtures, electrical, general...etc ". Then the discussion would automatically fall into the table of contents.my 2 centsjiml
*This ain't gonna fly, is it?
*Andy,...40,000 posts...Is that a post count, or a thread count?In a sense, that's why I'd like to see the thread titles coded and used in a search function instead of individual posts/replies, and using a table of contents as the jumping off point for a search in the archives. If I do a search for "roofing nails" I'll get several responses, all from the same thread that actually discusses roofing nails. What do I do? I click on one of them, then once in the archives I click on ALL MESSAGES to read the thread content. I'll also get a few hits from replies in the 'shed about someone asking how to get their child from biting their fingernails, along with hits on which roofing shingles are superior, a thread on a someone who hit their fingernail with a hammer, a thread on a roof leak, etc.It'd be much more work to go back and categorize the threads. A lot of up-front work, but work that will pay off in the long run. Once set up, it won't be terribly hard to maintain. Still, in my opinion, it'll provide a far superior search function...which in turn could provide posters with answers to frequently asked questions without it really being a true FAQ.Then, I guess you could do what others have recommended, which is to use the FAQ as a reference on how to actually use the site. how to search, how to post, where to post, etc.40000 replies (just BT, or knots/sprouts/cooks, etc, as well?) still equates to a lot of threads...I hope it's replies...still, 40000 replies makes a lot of threads! I'd guess, though, that a certain amount of threads are duplicates, some died before fruition, some have no construction info in them, and all in the 'shed are throwaways in terms of construction-related content. All those could be passed over for categorizing.Still, a lot of work. However, a more effective search function? Muy bueno.Would this be independent of the other forums? Can BT be changed and the other left alone? Or does the software tie all parties together?
*Jim, That'd be the ideal, but the way threads go off on tangents here, coupled with how people mis-post in the current folder system...I think it might be better to "back" categorize discussions. Categorize them as they go into the archives based upon final content.I'd love to see your suggestion work...
*Hi Mongo, Having someone categorize would be ideal but may not happen, lots of work (Andy?). But having a check box is "user maintained", not perfect but maybe better than nothing.
*Mongo, that's 40,000 replies. Say, for the sake of argument, that an average thread has 20 replies. That leaves 2000 threads, a number that I think is manageable, if we don't have to edit and sort very much. I don't know if BT can be changed without changing the other forums. I've been bugging our web honcho, Tim Sams, about this, and he's enthusiastic. I'm hopeful that we can make something happen. Still, we're short handed, so change may be gradual. Andy
*Agreed...if we get any improvements made, I'd suspect they would be along the lines of your suggestion.Would that be to keep the front page the same, as in various topics under just a few folders, but the archives would be separated into very specific phase-of-construction subject folders?That actually may be easiest...have the archived threads put into very specific content folders. Have a TOC linking to those archived folders. If they came up with a way for posters to designate the folder the thread would eventually be archived under up front (like you mentioned), that could work. Otherwise, have threads go to a generic archive folder when they drop off the board (like they do now), and once a week or so someone could manually deposit them from the generic folder into the proper content folders in the archives.All that would require is a manual shuffling of archived threads, along with construction of a table of contents page linked to the archive subfolders. Manually daunting, but I'd think easier than the revised search function I mentioned earlier. It wouldn't allow cross-referencing (one thread in more then one subfolder) unless the thread was copied (eats up server space) or a link was made and placed in one subfolder, linking to the thread in the cross-referenced subfolder. Simple to do...difficult to do...it all depends on how far we'd be willing to take it. Yet again more work, but I think it would still be better than the current search function...which wouldn't have to be altered at all.
*Exactly, the "breaktime archives" folder would go to a set of subfolders corresponding to the required check box selected when adding a discussion. It could even include active discussions, as some are not archived for many months (the oldest discussion in Energy, heating insulating is over a year old) , while some last only a week.
*Andy:Boy am I glad Mongo and I departed from the topic at hand and indulged in the traditional "it doesn't matter what the topic is we're going to have our say" posting. That both gives some useful input and illustrates the problem for any kind of arbitrary FAQ or Categorization system. Both problems can be easily overcome with a well designed archive search system(it says here).And that brings up a mechanical question: How do you search archives when the posts often go far astray from the title? Or, when many different folks use many different titles for what is essentially the same subject? Andy, your answer also answers that question for me.Why not set up the archives for full text search? With only 40,000 posts that is easily doable. The only problem is to provide the user with some sort method so the result is coveniently useable.Perhaps do one search level like a library catalog search where you ask for the book by author/title/subject. The computer responds with a listing of all books that meet the criteria giving the title, author, publication date, and a two line synopsis of the book. Now these categories aren't necessarily applicable here; but the idea is.A second search level is by text word with the initial response is the same as the above. Then the searcher can pick which topics for a full text display. After each display the searcher can come back to the initial display screen.Also, having a "How to Search the Archives for Dummies" page would be VERY helpful. No matter how experienced a user is every searchable data base has its' quirks. This is a good place to put the quirk info.Since this is a straight text search returning info in two stages(library style and then full text) the amount of maintenance by you folks once set up would be minimal.Last, here is an opportunity to really encourage people who ask questions to reply back on how the suggestions helped them. I get a strong suspicion that much of the information folks get from this board isn't in fact very useful. But I don't KNOW that and could be very wrong because we get so little feedback. Now feedback can't be made mandatory. But it can be more strongly encouraged so that others will be able to put some kind of credibility index on the information received.
*Ditto on the feedback. It's only polite to let us know what approach was taken, and we can gain by learning how things turned out.Personally, I think that most of what we offer here IS useful, although we may occasionally overwhelm the DIY'er with technical terms, acronyms and truck-full-of-tools solutions. When we don't agree, or offer a wide range of alternatives... well, that's just the real world.
*Are you giving any thought to the possibility as well, of a 'faux faq' ???You could use existing posts for that as well... Bob Walker "Unusual outlet" 6/13/00 6:48am
*What's a matter, Luka. You don't think enough people are reading your fiction? You gotta put links to it in other threads?:-}Rich Beckman
*LOL that's right.: )No bout adought it. I was afeered that thread would not get read again becuz it was already slippin' away. And I thought it was kinda funny myself. Of course, I'm legaly obligated to think that, bein as how I wrote the blamed thing...I'm real glad as always, that you gave me the great idea to write that... And just as I already agreed to in court, I didn't sully your good name by mentioning your inspiration in the post...
*You've gotten great ideas so far, Andy. Most sites that post FAQs are about navigating their site, not finding search-quality info therein--that is generally another topic--and one which is sorely lacking/functioning in most areas, not just here, I might add. If you want to post "trade-related" FAQs, they should be in a different, or folder-specific area, IMO. My main gripe is that unless one remembers the poster's name (often a really obscure type of name, i.e., not a real name) and couples that with a word or two in a thread name (not frequently anything having to do with the topic)...the search engine chugs away at clouds, yielding nothing of value.I really appreciate all the hard work you have done to make this site so accessible. It will be a huge chore for you to try to extract the pertinent info about, say, framing, from a topic that is titled "How Do I Do This?", or, likewise, from a topic entitled "Roofing" which veers towards the importance of blah-de-blah regarding framing before the roof goes on.Your efforts at making Taunton a fine, easy-to-navigate site are greatly appreciate! Best wishes!
*You can wipe that stuff off your nose now, Kai.hehehe: )
*Kai, zoned on B? The currentest "Roofing" has veered off into the not so exciting area of "Dumpsters" which is a definite change of subject. Joe H
*What did I do to give you the great idea to write it? More blame I don't deserve!Funny how your link above now goes to kai's reply to your creative writing instead of to the creative writing itself!Rich Beckman
*Huh? You mean the bird poop? That stuff landed on my mouth, not my nose. Otherwise, I've no clue about what you're speaking :/
*Oh dear, Joe. I better hit the sack. I have no idea of what the "zoned on B" might mean, for me personally! yikes. But thanks, I think :)
*OMG! You two are in cahoots! I can barely remember how to sign on, and you're linking to this and that. And who on earth knows what kind of thing I might have replied to da Luka's creative writing? I don't even want to know. Sheesh! Man, I need some kind of vacation. Shoot me now or shoot me later. (Ooops, that's for blue.)
*Mongo, are you -sure- you're not a lawyer? ;-)I use "search" all the time, but like the questions the answers get repeated a lot and it takes while -- then I kind of wish I could stick my research somewhere for the next person to find.I agree with KISS -- keep it simple, light editing for length & concision. The FAQ does not even have to repeat the text of the posts, just provide href=http://webx.taunton.com/WebX?14@@.ee956d1/53>links to the golden oldies.And as i noted in e-mail, I agree that CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS to the new arrivals to check the archives (FAQ?) would be effective. Esp. see below Matt G., LOL.
*Strange, that. It must just automagicaly take you to the latest response. Other than that, I don't know...It's all Doug's fault, anyway.It's Doug's fault that I keep blaming you too.
*Where do I send that free hat, kai?Andy
*kai,Luka is accusing you of brown nosing. But if you really get a free hat out of it, well, then I'll bet Luka wishes he'd of done it!Rich Beckman
*LOLShe can have it embroidered to say, "I gave Andy Engel a nose job, and all I got was this lousy hat".hehehe
*Make sure it has a bill long enough to pull down over her nose.: )
*Hey, Andy--you serious? Andy Angel! And I didn't even know I knew how to brown nose.Neener neener Luka. I'll let you know if the hat is worth it :)
*Neener? Not in my Merriam Webster.Rich Beckman
*Hi Rich :) "Neener" is not in my OED or MW either, but I might be able to find it in one of my slang dicts. It's the verbal equivalent of "Nhah nhah nhah nhah nhah," or, however that little snubbing one's nose, accompanied by vocals, at another sounds :) It's usually found in pre-teen's vocab, and, when said by an adult, is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I hope!Guess I need to add the ever-present BT disclaimer: Of course I could be wrong :)
*Andy,Sure FAQ's would be a good idea, but then again so was breaking down Breaktime into several topic folders. A lot of participants just post to the general board rather than going a topic folder. I have a feeling that most people will ignor the FAQ's and just ask away.If Taunton forges forward with a FAQ system, I think that it should lead the person through a short Q&A to lead them to the most appropriate thread. A simple indexing system may dump too many threads onto the reader's screen and they'll go right to a post board.Done well, it could be useful.... Even as a resource for general information. I assume someone will cull out the errant and incorrect information in threads before qualifying them as 'answers' to FAQ's.mike
*Good to see ya, Mike. I have to wonder, though, who should be making the calls as to whether information is correct or not? In the magazine, that's the scary part of an editor's job. Breaktime, however, is raw, un-edited opinion from a diverse group. That's what makes it so much fun. Do you think that having some desk-bound editor in Newtown decide what belongs in an FAQ will change the character of the threads so they no longer reflect their origin? Andy
*How about a folder titled "What does Luka think?". You could add one to each of the discussion groups. Just think of the space it would have saved on this post alone. Not to mention all the cooks who come slummin' over here would have a place to get together and swoon.Just an idea . . . ;-)
*LOL We already had this discussion in the ritzy cooks area.: )There already is a "Luka's" folder.It's called "taunton discussion forums"...
*OMG, I can see you lifting off to that space travel thread, with a head lighter than air! LOL
*Boy has this thread taken off! I still think the best answer is a better way to search the archives. First of all the "correct" answer changes over time. So I for one would like the latest, greatest answer instead of one that may have been gathering electron dust for some time. So, even if there were FAQs many folks would post anyway.Next, it is hard to imagine anyone knowing enough to do a credible job of editing on all the different subjects we have here. If that person were that good they would be making a lot of money doing something else. That is to say nothing about the potential liability on Taunton's part. Now if anyone is dumb enough to take the word of some anonymous person on a critical issue without further checking it is their tough luck. But, if Taunton puts their stamp of approval on the post by editing it then at least someone's lawyer is going to make money.Last, two things make this forum unique; the software and the poster's spontanaiety. Don't do anything to mess up either.
*I'm fairly new to this forum. I've been building more than a few years. This is a great place, most of you know what you are talking about. While I haven't used the archives alot, I agree that some type of index would be helpful.In my short time here I've quite a few questions more than once. Often a questioner has been refered to the archives, which seems to help, at least when I've seen it the discussion seems to end.It sure would help if questions were posted in their proper catagory though.
*Matt --I would add to your list the question I've been asked most often,"How can I tell if a wall is load-bearing". I'll gladly contributemy stock answer to the FAQ project.-- J.S.
*If it takes all that to get a lousy hat, what's it take to get a subscription ?LOL
*I agree I/ you Fred, who's to say what is the right' and current answer, and the liability thing....I think to clarify my suggestion, I would think the errant info (stuff that belongs in the Woodshed) could be culled from FAQ threads as well as blatently inaccurate information. I think many posts to questions are very well thought out and include alternatives and caveats. Most know there's more than one way to cut a 2X.
*
I came into work this morning to be greeted with an e-mail from Breaktime regular andrew d. In it, he suggested that we establish an FAQ folder. I talked with Tim Sams, Taunton's new web honcho, and both he and I think this is a great idea.
My question to you is, which questions are you the most tired of answering? Then, should we simply include old threads as answers, or should Taunton enhance the answers with graphics? Should we go further and edit the Breaktime answers into cohesive tracts?
What do you think?
Andy
*What kind of windows should I buy?How or should I vent my attic?What kind of toilet should I buy?What kind of housewrap should I use.How should I seal my foundation walls. How do I draw an ellipse.
*Common Q's about trig and geometry (ellipses, ovals, n-agons, crown, roofs....)Cellulose or fiberglass? :)
*All it took was an e-mail? Good thinking, Andrew!I'm not sure editing the threads is a good idea. People reading them might get the wrong idea about what kind of community we have here.The FAQ almosts qualifies as an FAQ. This thread contains a link to an FAQ discussion, but I can't get the link to work.Roofing comes up a lot. Specifically, "should I shingle over my existing roof, or tear off?"A search for "FAQ" turns up low flow toilets as a frequent concern. And of course, cellulose versus fiberglass as well as Condensation in a crawlspace.Which window brand is any good comes up a LOT.It's interesting that a search for FAQ only turns up 14 items. I didn't check, but I'm betting that not all of them even contain "FAQ", which, since I have your attention, brings me back to this postYou might also search for "CTFA", which stands for "Check the f***ing archives.Rich Beckman
*Maybe I was just assuming, but when I read the title I thought you were talking about a faq addressing problems people have with posting here. Like how do I post a picture ? How do I make a link that works ? Etc.As far as all the questions regarding roofing, elipses, venting, et al... I think a better solution there would be a sort of 'library' where past posts would be categorized according to subject matter.As for questions about how to make better use of this forum... I would say pick a question, collect a few posts on the subject and put together a comprehensive and understandable answer. Use posts. Edit posts. Add graphics. Whatever makes it work best. If you use any of mine, do what you want with them. You already have that right anyway...I'll add my offer to help in any way I can. Just let me know.
*In a sense, the "SEARCH" function is in itself a FAQ. It's not complete, mind you, but I'm amazed at how little people actually use it. How to categorize the FAQ, at least to start? Maybe, maybe consider having the FAQ as a different type of SEARCH engine. One that searches only through the thread titles. First, assign each thread title in the FAQ a "subject number", with that number referring to a phase of construction. Each thread, depending on content, can have more then one subject number. Example...here's the FAQ table of contents:1) Excavation2) Site Drainage3) Foundation4) Foundation waterproofing5)...Embed a "1" in the title of all threads relating to excavation, a "2" in the title of all threads relating to site drainage, embed a "2" and a "4" in the title of a thread whose content deals with site drainage and foundation waterproofing, etc.Now, when I click on the FAQ title "2) Site Drainage" it'll connect me to links to all thread titles that contain info on that topic.Right now, the SEARCH function lists links to multiple thread replies containing the keyword, even if many of those replies are contained in the same thread. By just linking to thread titles instead of thread replies, the subsequent FAQ results list will be condensed dramatically.It would require a bit of labor, but in execution it's simple HTML code. That's not even considering available FAQ-type software, etc.It may not be a practical idea, but it's an idea nonetheless.Now, many of the threads do contain superflourous info, tangential discussions, etc. I suppose a certain amount of "deleting" could be done, and might even be required, to keep the FAQ links pure/unadulterated/on-topic, if that is desired. That would be quite a bit of work. And, where is the editing done? On original, archived threads, forever editing them? Or, are the threads essentially copied to a new FAQ area of the server and edited there, essentially doubling the informational content the server is required to hold? The banter in many threads does add a certain flavor to the thread...some good, some not so good, but I'd hate to lose it.As to "editing" or "re-writing", (ie taking 30 posts on a certain subject and condensing the info into a paragraph or article form), I suppose that could be done as well. My problem with that is that various opinions are now boiled down into what could be percieved by a reader as a Taunton-backed fact. That to me would be a less desirable option. I'd think the more editing Taunton doeas, the more liability Taunton assumes for the ideas put forth.As to which subjects to include in the FAQ? All of them. Seriously. Virtually every phase of construction has been re-hashed here. Some "re-hashing" brings new ideas, but many other times it's just the same old, same old.Pictures can indeed be worth a thousand words...at other times they can be a distraction. Prudent use of graphics would be most welcome.I see the FAQ as an improvement to the forum...it is needed. In the end, I almost see it as a refinement to the search function instead of a more traditional FAQ.
*Rich, you are merciless. Just because you posted this idea months ago and I ignored it is no reason for you to rub my face in it! Normally, you'd have to hit me with a 2x4 to draw my attention to a good idea, so I think that I'm doing pretty well here :-). Hey Luka, how do you make an emoticon look sheepish?Keep the ideas coming. Andy
*:-/or :- Can also be used for "huh?" or "I don't understand it either, I just said it" Or "can you believe that?"
*Y'all know that I hate to take a different view but here I must. You already have a FAQ Folder, it is called the Archives. What is missing is a prominent notice directing people to them and a reasonably easy way to search them.Many times a subject is covered in the archives under a variety of titles. It is hard to figure out just what title a person should search for when a person doesn't know much in the first place. So, improve the ability to search and you make the archives much more useable. A couple of possibilities come to mind on the mechanics.Next put a Very Prominent blurb up that tells people that certain topics are covered in the Archives and they ought to look there first. Maybe even give some examples.But...despite all that if you visit some other sites you will become convinced that too many folks are just too lazy to use the Archives or FAQs. They must post their question regardless. Maybe this is something like the people in a meeting who have nothing to say but must talk anyway, just part of human nature.
*Gosh while I was typing my last post Mongo came on with his. Don't understand the time difference but his wasn't there when I started, honest!Both of us have posted on varieties of the same theme. Figure out a better way to search the Archives and you will have done at least half of the job.
*My $.02, as a relatively new contributor...1. Leave the archives in place, as is.2. Setup a FAQ that would draw on the advice of those archives. This will allow the editor(s) to include points of view they may not have considered, such as regional differences, plus the old 'more 'n one way to skin a cat'.3. When the FAQ is created, invest the time and $ to add graphic details to the discussions/topics.4. Create the FAQ as non-discussion style, while still including the different points of view.5. My best guess would be to have FAQs for different building systems (flooring, siding, roofing, etc.), as well as different building materials (tile vs. wood floors, cedar shingles vs. clapboards, asphalt shingles vs. metal). There would need to be some crossover, but I think this would be best. 6. When it's all done, print it out, put our names on it, give it to Taunton Press, and use the royalties to fund future Petefest-type shindigs! ;) Oh, OK, maybe Habitat or something...Sean
*Love the idea of a FAQ. A good complement to the archives, not a replacement.FAQ entries:Below-grade finishesBathroom ventingAttic VentingCell vs. FibreglassMoisture ProblemsConcrete TechniquesDeck TechniquesDrywall Techniques
*My vote for an FAQ would be pre-fabricated walls (or modular construction), and building your own trusses. Also, I'd echo the mentions of:Tear-off or re-shingleVent/no-ventHousewrapWindow brandsLow flow toilets
*An enhanced version of previous post of mine: (12/99)2x4 vs. 2x6 walls Cellulose Vs Fiberglass Insulation Cutting and Installing Crown molding Window brands and types Crawlspace Moisture Problems Vapor Barriers/retarders Cutting Roof Rafters Laying out and building Stairs Finishing Wood Floors Wood "look alike" floors OSB and related products Ceramic tile underlayment Building Cost per square foot Roof Ventilation Floor framing bridging Handling and use of Pressure Treated Lumber Pouring Concrete, & Curing, Cracking probs etc Roof Sheathing Floor Sheathing Pneumatic Nailers Circular Saws Air Compressors Cad Software Man made deck floor boards Fiber Concrete SidingVinyl SidingWood SidingAttaching Decks to HousesLumber Span TablesI'd like to request that the start a new thread screen include the quarry (check box) for i I have used the search function and checked the FAQ folder for the info I am asking about.
*careful about killing the goose that laid the golden egg..there is something unique with FHB that u don't get at other sites..if there was too much referral to FAQs it might tend to discourage new entries to the board...the FNGs soon learn the ropes and either stick around or move on .....i like the idea of improving the SEARCH function.. but mostly the remonstrance to idiots comes from the regular posters anyways... and someone's FAQ that they deride is another's meat and potatoes....b but hey , whadda i no ?
*I'm with FredB, improve the search function. Maybe it's my ignorant self, but I get so frustrated trying to use it I usually just give up.John
*That search thingee must be friends with the spell checker...? I have used it to search for things I KNOW were discussed & found nothing. Other times it works well. The "search whole site" feature ends up with a lot of cake recipes sometimes too. Maybe "Frequently covered subjects" are what is needed so new users don't associate it with the FAQs on so many other sites. Most of them are so lame that I usually don't bother to look at them, right up there with "Our Mission Statement"....Everybody clicks on that one, right?I have to admit that every now & then those same old questions do turn up some new answers that are worth hearing. Maybe some sort of mechanism to enable adding NEW answers to the "Old Answers to the Same Old Questions" Joe H
*Would a cross-reference to FHB articles, tips and techniques, etc. be possible with the search fuction? Those with the magazines would not have to pull out every copy to locate the information and could, at the same time, view the reponses from the Breaktimers.
*If we do a FAQ, pick three or four guys who are knowledgable in that area and have them write the FAQ's. Don't make it a thread or it will become too big to read. And we don't need name calling in the FAQ.Suggested FAQ's:"How big a beam do I need?""How do I post a picture?"Keep the FAQs Short or I'll just post my stupid question instead of reading the FAQ's.
*When you get this sorted out, and there are a lot of good suggestions (I'm leaning with Mongo for a table of contents to the archives), could you do something to make it easy for the new guy/gurl to post that first message/topic. There have been alot of new topics buried in someone else's post because of those titles on the yellow buttons. Something simple that describes what they want to do. Add discussion just doesn't seem to do it. Then, after they figure out the title, lead them down to the place to write the message. Or not, what the hell do I care.When you do it could you make it simple for us less than cybersmart artisans. Best of luck.And you got the speed thing going. Sure do miss those last post dates though.Thanks