[MUD-Dev] META: FAQ and Thread Summaries

[coder at ibm.net]

On 03/12/97 at 09:18 AM, Adam Wiggins <nightfall at user1.inficad.com> said:
>[coder at ibm.net:]
>>   1) That the list should have a FAQ and FAQ maintainer.

>Nice idea.  The trick here would be to make the FAQ short and readable,
>while aquinting the reader with the list enough that they can hop right
>in.  Ideally it would also appetize...

Agreed.  A problem that will have to be skirted is that anything that
approaches compleatness will also tend to be overwhelming.

>>   2) That <someone> should produce a summary of each thread once it is
>> done for addition to the list achives.

>Urg...with the length of the posts and threads on this list, I don't find
>it surprising that we've had as few summaries as we have.  *I* certainly
>would not want to attempt it.

Quite.  Similarly with the number of threads which die and are then
ressurected far later under different topics, or arise again later under
from a new/different vantage.  Neighborhoods was a good example of both
these last.

>> Observation:  New members to the list are having an increasingly hard time
>> getting up to speed.  Some never make it.  Some never are overwhelmed or
>> over-awed and never try.  

>I've noticed that most of the new members seem to hop in, post a few
>barely-relevant or at the very least uninformed posts, then disappear. I
>hadn't thought about it up until now, but I imagine that's it.

Yup.  We're also starting to get new members who are looking for traffic
on a particular/specialised area, fail to find that discussion, and then
abandon for that reason (usually without trying to foster discussion on
that topic).  This is a shame as usually those areas have been partially
discussed before, the current membership has a lot to offer there, or it
is an area worth re-visiting.  The last chap left as he wanted more
discussion of server design internals and less MUD meta chat.  (Most of
the early members will recall that server guts was almost the entirety of
the early lists' content)

>> Deduced reasons:  Partly it is as trivial as vocabulary (we have evolved
>> our own terminology and connotation frame), partly it is reference frame

>People are getting confused by constant references to Bubba? :)

Coitoinly.  <sic>

Bubba is the very model of a modern MUDder general...

>> (we all have a fairly decent idea of each other's projects, design goals,
>> and base approaches), and partly it is sheer discussion history
>> (scenarios, named topics, etc).  

>I think that's the most important thing.  As I mentioned above - people
>hop in and start talking about a subject that we beat into the ground
>just two months ago.  

That actually is something I both welcome and encourage.  It gets old as
you say when the last go round of that area was mere weeks ago.  Let the
area drift out of recent memory and often those re-hashes can (and do)
spark new life and ideas.  Its also one of my major tricks in getting the
list back to life when traffic falls off -- I just go back 4 - 5 months
and find an old post I have something new to add to.

>In some cases, it's the same thread - just that
>thread has already evolved into a more complex topic.  They, of course,
>look at it and come up with the same things that were broached earlier in
>the thread.  I tend to ignore those posts, which I suppose doesn't much
>help, but I don't feel like repeating myself (or worse, repeating
>others).

Sooth.  I oft do the same.  "Get with the program!"  

I wonder if an early concentration might not be spent on thread summaries,
but on merely a date indexed catalogue of threads?  The list of things
discussed here is enourmous.  A simple tagging of the items hit and their
date ranges might be very useful, as well as less labour intensive than a
summary.

>> I'm not interested in launching a "make the list easy for twinks"
>> campaign.  I am interested in seeing that we don't become a cliqueish
>> closed system without external inputs, propagation, or feedback.  I'm also
>> interested in seeing that the (very valuable) ideas and concepts broached
>> on this list don't die, buried and lost in the archives amid all the other
>> megabytes of verbiage.  Datum: The list averages over 2Megs of traffic
>> (not encluding headers) per month.

>What's the membership like these days?  

Bouncing along just over 50.

>It seems to me that the number of
>regular posters stays about the same; people seem to fade off and others
>appear to replace them.

Yup.  The sheer volume of traffic has been costing up some good members
(Brandon IV (or was that VII) to name one).

>> Specific questions I have:
>>   1) Should we have a FAQ?

>I think so.  Maybe less a FAQ and more of an orientation guide.  The
>Newbie Handbook, as it were.  

Agreed.  I've toyed with growing the welcome message to contain that sort
of thing, but it qould quickly become huge and unweildy.

>Maybe we should include a map of Midgaard
>and a training dagger as well?

I'm toying with a loose structure:

  Purpose
  Requirements
  Style
  Membership and their pets
  Scenarios and their pusposes
  Thread catalog

>>   2) What should be in it?

>Overview rather than Q&A.  Maybe about twenty well-written pages summing
>up the attitudes and direction of the list, plus some data on
>terminology, past scenarios, and a "Who's Who" (which can be short - a
>paragraph for each major poster/project should only come to a couple
>pages).

Yeppirs.

>>   3) Who should own it?  Volunteers?

>I'd be happy to draft the original.  Whether I will feel like maintaining
>it is another thing; if it's as small a job as I think it should be (a
>few modifications each month as people come and go, threads resolve, etc)
>then I could probably do it all myself.

Thanks, but lets hold off a little until we have a statement of product.

>>   4) Should we have thread ownership?

>The idea is appealing to me, but I tend to think that it just wouldn't
>work.  The mutation rate is too high, and putting responsibility on
>someone's shoulders for watching after and attempting to keep such a
>beast in line is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

The classic problems:  threads are long and deep, threads cross each other
regularly, threads fission into new threads rapidly, many thread postings
actually reference multiple thread topics, etc.

>Plus, I like to go off on tangents, so I imagine this would give me a lot
>of trouble...

Which is something to be encouraged as it adds a layer of
cross-pollination, tho I'd like to encourage making those tangents in
seperate posts (multiple replies to the same article, each reply with a
different point).

>>   5) Should we have an official thread summariser per thread?

>No opinion.  As I said, I won't do it, but if someone volunteers, fine.

I suspect it is a good idea which would should remain precisely that.

>>   7) Should any of these participation rules be mandated as part of list
>> membership?  Should they instead rely on internal feedbacks/measures? 
>> What?

>Hum, I'd hate to see this list get all official.  As it is its much more
>like a bunch of friends chatting than scientists exchanging data through
>articles and counterarticles in a science journal.

Touche.

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
----------(*)                              Internet: coder at ibm.net
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...