Old FAQs

[Stu Jackson]

Just a reminder for those many new-to-us skippers that there is a trove of material on the C34 Tech wiki, including these topics from years and years ago that remain quire valid:

http://www.c34.org/faq-pages/faq.html

No need to reinvent the wheel.

Also:


http://www.c34.org/projects/projects.html

[KWKloeber]

Stu,

Question....  would it be appropriate to put the FAQs on the TW, preferably in the appropriate locations (topics) or at include a link to the appropriate wiki section in each FAQ answer?   

I ask because the FAQs are a one-shot snippet, and typically considered the "definitive answer."  But there may be (no, let me not be too P.C. here -- there ARE not may be) - dissenting opinions or newer/better info that supersede what's on many an FAQ.  And a new owner might get a false security by reading only the FAQ content, thinking it is the "definitive answer."

Just a few examples dear to my heart...   
First, emphasize that I AM NOT picking on the considerable work that went into the FAQs, or necessarily the answers -- but "some portion of" the material is "stale" and there's updated info that new owners may miss out on.

harness - "redo them or better yet solder them. The wiring harness upgrade is wonderful."  I say that I am not alone in taking exception to "most" people soldering marine wires, and I think I've posted enough info to prove that the stock harness upgrade is anything but wonderful -- being non compliant and a remaining a fire hazard.

another -- the replacement Gates engine belt - JTSO and also Westerbeke master distributor's opinion -  there's a better choice (Dayco Top Cog.)

stanchions -- "Polysulfide is the only way to go."  I think many could take issue with that.

air intake - "Alum Honeycomb mesh $38"    Stainless Steel scrubbie available @ Dollar Store - $1.00

If FAQs were on the wiki they could be edited/updated w/ newer info or dissenting "opinion".


Ken

[Noah]

How about a "Nit-Picky-Wiki" section?

[Stu Jackson]

Noah,

There's a long history of just how the FAQs came to be.  When the website was first started, there was NO forum software.  Everything was static.  We had an old email LIST, and many of us got together and started SAVING all this material because it was priceless and never appeared in the Mainsheet Tech Notes, which were a completely different method of communicating C34 fixits.  These resulted in the FAQs and Projects pages.  They grew over time.

Once the Forum software was installed around 2001 (holy cow!  15 years!!!) the static pages remained just that.  We all thought that the material remained valid, although there are always better ways to do things and new materials and experiences occur all the time.

After the Forum software became our way to communicate daily with a great search engine, another handful of volunteers took it upon themselves to develop the C34 Tech wiki, which is exactly what you suggested:  documents that CAN be edited by anyone.  As you may have seen, I've done some of that editing myself.

You asked:  would it be appropriate to put the FAQs on the TW, preferably in the appropriate locations (topics) or at include a link to the appropriate wiki section in each FAQ answer?

It's simply too much work to do, but see below.  There are far more wiki articles now than there were when we stopped adding to the static FAQs and Projects.  There is far more information in the Forum, with it's excellent search engine, to warrant bothering do that.  The FAQ already is linked on the main Tech wiki page.

The reason I put it here was a reminder that it exists, because there are so many new skippers with older boats to which that content is invaluable.  I discussed it in the sticky topic: A Quick Start Guide... http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,5260.0.html

Our Site Improvement Committee has met twice and we're on the cusp of introducing some site improvements.  I think there might be a way to morph the old static pages like the FAQ page into something that could be edited. We're always lookin' for volunteers.   

[Noah]

Hey you are preaching to the choir (and are explaining to the wrong guy). It wasn't me who "found fault" with the old FAQs. I appreciate any and all info.

[Stu Jackson]

Noah, sorry.  It was just Ken, complaining again.   

[KWKloeber]

Stu,

Actually I'll take heat/blame for the question, unless Noah wants to share it. 

There's two ways I was thinking it could be done....

1)  Add a new heading to each wiki section, maybe "Old FAQs"   (how original, 'eh?)
a) Open the FAQ
b) Cut/paste the FAQ under the appropriate wiki heading;
c) Delete the FAQ
d) Save the Wiki. 
Voila'.

It's not hard -- just takes a little time being a one-at-a-time operation (ways to reduce time below). 
There's what, maybe 100 FAQs?  give or take.  5 minutes each = 500, say 10 hours total over "X" weeks doing it.  Divide by 5? volunteers (hopefully) and voila' -- completed in just over an hour's commitment.

2) Make a Word file containing each wiki topic and its appropriate wiki page link.  Include under each heading a standard wording (modify the disclaimer at the bottom of most of the FAQs??)   
a) Open the FAQ
b) Copy/paste the appropriate wiki link and updated disclaimer into the FAQ.
c) Save the FAQ.
Voila'

Again, not "hard", just (JUST - I get it) time consuming -- but again, if it's just over an hour's commitment for a handful of volunteers, it's easily accomplished.  Putting our engineers' hats on you and I know it's a lot of effort to invent wheels -- If the method and tools are provided to the volunteers -- then it becomes a standard procedure -- an easy process to follow -- and is "just mechanical" -- thus reducing everyone's work/effort/commitment necessary.

I'll raise my hand if others will join (presuming it meets with the committee's goals)

kk

[Stu Jackson]

Ken, if you feel it would help, why not just go do it?  We've laready done all the heavy lifting, like for the past 20 years.  It's all there because we did.

[KWKloeber]

Ken, if you feel it would help, why not just go do it?  We've laready done all the heavy lifting, like for the past 20 years.  It's all there because we did.

Stu,

Well, because, let me count the ways:

1) Reading the winds, the aroma is that I anticipated -- its more PC to preserve the past, than to improve for the future.  Reaction is precisely why I wouldn't ever consider "just doing it."
2) I simply asked a question - a "No" is fine -- Doesn't affect me -- it affects other members. No dog in the fight. No benefit to me to get any heartburn if it's nitpicking what works just peachy for everyone else.
3) If instead, it was desirable -- I wouldn't presume that I have the best idea and/or method to do it -- so threw it out for discussion by users and for the ctme to consider.
4) The ctme is working on improvements, and I'm not about to step on any toes w/o consensus.
5) I don't have access to edit the FAQs anyway.
6) If I did, I don't think it would be appropriate to edit/modify/relocate what wasn't done on the wiki -- it's work the assn has control over. So the ctme should pass judgement on revising.
7) I could go on....

If instead of "No," the answer was "it makes sense to do" -- I already said "I'm in to help" (not do it all.)  I would be happy to have led an endeavor to get some hands raised.  But would want a ctme consensus that it's the appropriate way, since the FAQs are in the webmaster's/association's domain, not created by or in the "public (ie.. wiki) domain."  A moot point, anyway.

more below

There's a long history of just how the FAQs came to be.  When the website was first started, there was NO forum software. 

Stu, I am cognizant of and appreciate the long effort and how and why -- and the result.  I said, I was NOT criticizing, nitpicking, or complaining about the past huge amt of work   But, that it was done before the forum/wiki -- you are precisely making an argument why (in part) it could be viewed as possibly needing a fresh look/makeover (as you say the ctme is doing anyway.)  So, I don't see that my question raised any new, divergent radical thinking -- compared to what (apparently) the ctme is already thinking?

My point again -- while NOT disparaging the huge effort involved and great info that there -- "FAQs" are usually viewed as the final word, expert opinion or answer, etc.  And if a new owner -- saw the FAQs as a well-vetted guide, s/he could be, well, "unintentionally misled."  Picture someone reading his/her sought after "FAQ answer" -- say, what to use to bed a stanchion. Why need they look further??  It's a "FAQ" for crissake.   

And so once complete, another member asks "Why didn't you instead do this or that?; It's a better method.  And it's ALL on forum or wiki if you look hard enough."   As a new, maybe ignorant, or unfamiliar with materials/methods owner, I'd kick myself for doing something "not the best way."

Maybe label them "Old -- many good, some possibly outdated, read-with-caution-FAQs" if they remain a stand alone entity?

Cheers,
Ken --improving, not complaining.

The historical method -- "If it works, don't touch it."
Deming's method -- "If it works, do make it better."

Let's just hang loose until the ctme completes it's thing. I'm looking for way to help improve, and as I said I don't need any more heartburn than I already have.......

Cheers
Ken

[Stu Jackson]

1) Reading the winds, the aroma is that I anticipated -- its more PC to preserve the past, than to improve for the future.  Reaction is precisely why I wouldn't ever consider "just doing it."   

Aroma?  Utter nonsense.  C'mon. We have spent tons of our volunteer time in beginning, expanding, improving and maintaining this entire website.  You have a lotta nerve.  The entire concept of ARCHIVING the entire history of what's been written about our boats and systems is only one of the basic concept of this website.   The others include new information shared by skippers in the forum and the wiki.   New material comes up all the time on the forum and the wiki.  Your comment is offensive and counterproductive.

I simply asked a question - a "No" is fine -- Doesn't affect me -- it affects other members. No dog in the fight. No benefit to me to get any heartburn if it's nitpicking what works just peachy for everyone else.

Usually, I avoid just saying "no" and try to explain why.  Sorry you don't like it.

If instead, it was desirable -- I wouldn't presume that I have the best idea and/or method to do it -- so threw it out for discussion by users and for the ctme to consider.
4) The ctme is working on improvements, and I'm not about to step on any toes w/o consensus.

What is ctme?

5) I don't have access to edit the FAQs anyway.

Sure you do.  Click on it in the wiki, click on any article and cut & paste away.  You can take that text and put it anywhere you want, just not in the original archived FAQ.  Gee, that's why it's archived.

6) If I did, I don't think it would be appropriate to edit/modify/relocate what wasn't done on the wiki -- it's work the assn has control over. So the ctme should pass judgement on revising.

Again, not true.  The wiki is open for editing.  That's why it's a wiki.  It's NOT "controlled by the assn."  You completely miss the point.

7) I could go on....

If instead of "No," the answer was "it makes sense to do" -- I already said "I'm in to help" (not do it all.)  I would be happy to have led an endeavor to get some hands raised.  But would want a ctme consensus that it's the appropriate way, since the FAQs are in the webmaster's/association's domain, not created by or in the "public (ie.. wiki) domain."  A moot point, anyway.

more below

There's a long history of just how the FAQs came to be.  When the website was first started, there was NO forum software. 

Stu, I am cognizant of and appreciate the long effort and how and why -- and the result.  I said, I was NOT criticizing, nitpicking, or complaining about the past huge amt of work   But, that it was done before the forum/wiki -- you are precisely making an argument why (in part) it could be viewed as possibly needing a fresh look/makeover (as you say the ctme is doing anyway.)  So, I don't see that my question raised any new, divergent radical thinking -- compared to what (apparently) the ctme is already thinking?

My point was that all you're suggesting is a LOT MORE WORK for little reason.  The material is there and marked as old, and there are any number of ways to update the information, but NOT in the FAQ which is the very reason it is clearly labeled ARCHIVED.  What don't you get?  No one else has ever questioned this. 

My point again -- while NOT disparaging the huge effort involved and great info that there -- "FAQs" are usually viewed as the final word, expert opinion or answer, etc.  And if a new owner -- saw the FAQs as a well-vetted guide, s/he could be, well, "unintentionally misled."  Picture someone reading his/her sought after "FAQ answer" -- say, what to use to bed a stanchion. Why need they look further??  It's a "FAQ" for crissake.   

And so once complete, another member asks "Why didn't you instead do this or that?; It's a better method.  And it's ALL on forum or wiki if you look hard enough."   As a new, maybe ignorant, or unfamiliar with materials/methods owner, I'd kick myself for doing something "not the best way."

"Well-vetted guide?"  You have to be kidding.  Skippers with individual opinions write ALL OF THIS INFORMATION.  It is not "vetted" by anyone.  I don't intend to spend the rest of my life removing every single reference to SILICONE and replacing it with Bed-It-With-Butyl by Maine Sail.  Never have considered it and never will.

An FAQ is a Frequently Asked Question, NOT a final word.  You seem to misunderstand the concept, yet again.

Maybe label them "Old -- many good, some possibly outdated, read-with-caution-FAQs" if they remain a stand alone entity? 

The FAQ page includes this:  Note: This FAQ Page is no longer being updated, and is now part of our archives. These projects have all been moved to the Tech Wiki . The Tech Wiki is frequently updated and contains these projects and many more.

Isn't that enough?

The historical method -- "If it works, don't touch it."
Deming's method -- "If it works, do make it better."

Lovely.   We upgrade the website constantly, make it a DESIGN GOAL to archive the old material, incorporate BOTH a lively forum with daily searchable updates PLUS a wiki that can be edited, and all you can do is complain?

Let's just hang loose until the ctme completes it's thing. I'm looking for way to help improve, and as I said I don't need any more heartburn than I already have.......

Neither do we.

[KWKloeber]

Stu,

Yes, Stu, I know what's a wiki, and the C34 wiki is, and how it works, and have provided content and edited content.  And you are aware of this -- and you know I have "contributed" -- so why post childish comments like that I have no idea how to edit a wiki page?  But i cannot edit the FAQs page. 

1st point -
The FAQs is NOT editable.  You provided the link below -- I didn't 
http://www.c34.org/faq-pages/faq.html

-- click on it and explain how it's editable. It's a static webpage page, not editable by someone without admin right to the static webpage.  You said as much so yourself -- the old FAQ content is "static."

2nd point -
You keep referring to the past -- what hard work was done, what has brought it to where is it.  I never ever disagreed with that and never ever disparaged the hard work that was done by you or anyone else.  Point to an example if you have one,  You know better, and that was uncalled for -- let's look forward and not backwards.

3rd point -
I asked a question whether doing something (w/ the FAQs) would result in a better end product for users -- to help improve something.  What's offensive actually, is that, instead of a reply (paraphrasing you) 'the Committee (CTME) is looking at that and other improvements and there may be a way to "morph" the FAQs info into the wiki." (by the why isn;t this exactly agreeing with what I had asked?), I am accused of complaining, nitpicking and generally being the bane of mankind, trying to raise holy hell and make your existence miserable.  Was that really necessary?  Really, Stu?  Even after I made it perfectly clear that i WAS NOT commenting on the hard work that brought the site to the great state where it is. 

You know yourself that i am trying to get the "other" assn to model a wiki after C34 -- if it were so bad as you implied to the rest of the forum that I was making it out to be -- why would I try to replicate this site and wiki? Really? 

4th point -
My point about a simple "No" was that, there was no need to elevate a question to a personal level/attack when I made it very clear that I was asking a question relative to improving, not disparaging anyone/anything that had been done IN THE PAST.  Now isn't that what "improvement" is all about?  When it's taken as an attack on one's work or effort, one needs to step back and reread the message before throwing out barbs.  I never said, "this is crap, there's no value in the FAQs" -- Yet defense of what I clearly wrote that I WAS NOT SAYING was the tone (aroma) of the replies.  Is it nitpicking, complaining when asking a single question re: possibly improving something?  Really?  Really, Stu? 

Apologies if you can't accept a question about improving something, without inferring that it's a personal attack on prior good and valuable effort.  I never have anything but praise -- both on the forum and privately -- for the work you do and others do -- and never meant that -- and I clearly stated such.  To imply otherwise publically -- maybe to bolster some position or objection against the suggestion re: the FAQ -- is simply factually incorrect and you know that.  Take time to carefully reread my question.  The examples supplied were simply examples to support why the FAQ content might be merged once and for all into the wiki, and then removed from as  stand-alone page -- and all examples were factual.  No personal attacks and they warranted no personal attack in return.

I DID NOT stated that YOU or anyone represented or implied that the FAQs was vetted or anything of the like.  I said that (users) typically INFER that FAQs are vetted and the final definitive word -- that's a 180 degree difference and a 180 degree distinction.  ... You know yourself that, no matter how many times you preach something -- somebody won't listen or misinterprets -- my (let's call it a suggestion disguised as a question) would (IMHO) help eliminate or reduce that possibility.  If I disagreed, I would simply disagree --instead of turning it into an attack for making a suggestion.  Especially when in the next breath I agreed with the suggestion, AND that there was indeed a method to accomplish what was suggested (I believe "morph," was your word?) 

Y'ah know, the more I regurgitate what was replied, the more the ridiculousness of this whole thing comes to light.
In one breath, I'm attached for a suggestion about the FAQs as complaining and unnecessary -- and in the next breath agreed with, that the FAQs are outdated. 

And in one breath poo-pooed for a suggestion that's WAY too much work (without considering would someone like me take this on -- which I said I would help with), and then in the next breath, reminded that there's a way to "morph" the FAQs into the wiki.  Now, step back -- and isn't that EXACTLY what I suggested?   

So looking at the dichotomy in the replies -- illustrates why this the attack is ridiculous: Which is the real reply?
Unnecessary nitpicking -- or -- can it use improvement? 
Too much work -- or -- there's a way to "morph" it in? 
Surely you can see what I'm saying about this being ridiculous -- when we're both saying the same thing from the get-go?

Can we just agree that "Yes, it could use improving, and yes, there may be an easy way to do it (morph it into the wiki)" ??? I'll even give you credit for already thinking about it before I asked the question. 
Or do you want to continue to argue about a distinction without a difference?

cheers
ken

[Lance Jones]

Geeeeeeze. As the great leader Sergeant Odd Ball once said, "Cut with the negative waves!" I'm with Stu on this.

[KWKloeber]

Geeeeeeze. As the great leader Sergeant Odd Ball once said, "Cut with the negative waves!" I'm with Stu on this.

Ok thanks Lance,  It's good to see that you agree with us, since Stu and i were saying thing the same (maybe differently) about incorporating the FAQs.

This whole thing was so blown out of proportion and the initial reply to a sole question should have been taken offline if there was some misunderstanding, rather than it becoming a public spectacle. 

Cheers
kk

[SPembleton]

Personally, i want to thank you for reminding me of these.  I have a lot to learn and i dont know what i dont know, so i just peruse these when the weather is bad and i cant sail.