Search Results

History (in case you hate your eyeballs that much): FAQ Rewrite edit round 1 Voting on the FAQ rewrite, round 2 FAQ Rewrite - Round 3 …

The Words and links below have been incorporated into the FAQ The proposed FAQ has been officially rejected by the power that be. They had an interesting choice of words for the previous edit. … The second question is "What should our FAQ contain?" which give minuscule guidance on FAQ content. The blog references Super User's FAQ for exemplifying the issues specific to your website. …

Meta-regulars have been working on a draft text of a new FAQ for ServerFault for the past couple of weeks. … If "Yes, good enough" votes have a 2/3rds majority this FAQ will be posted as-is by StackExchange staff (after simple copy-editing, if needed). …

Since the FAQ as-written was not accepted, we get to have an edit round. The below is a grammar/spelling/punctuation checked version of the FAQ. … An answer to preemptively approve the FAQ as written can be submited, but will require a score of 20 for acceptance. …

After a successful edit round, it is time to vote on the results. The text below is the edited text we've worked on for the past week. This will be open until UTC 0:00 Friday (3 days!) to gather vote …

As we learned during the FAQ rewrite process last year, the StackExchange staff consider the FAQ to be the welcome pamphlet we pass to newcomers, and soundly vetoed the rather more specific version we … As we found out during the rewrite process, it's impossible to contain all of the nuance we need to include in such a document. …

No exceptions in the FAQ rewrite. So, having checked on superuser, their FAQ states that questions relating to issues specific to corporate IT support and networks are off topic. …

Those who were involved in the last FAQ rewrite will remember how painful and ultimately damn near pointless it all was. …

One thing to really keep in mind is that FAQ in StackExchange-land is two things: That thing with FAQ in the URL The Meta questions tagged faq Of the second point, we do go into this: "Server Fault … is for system administrators... in a professional capacity" This is before the big FAQ rewrite, but provides clarification on what the bit after the ellipsis means. …

Our FAQ currently says "Information Technology Professionals" -- this was arrived at after much debating during the great FAQ rewrite (sffaq) because we did not want to exclude members of our target audience … Along the same lines, we have had many discussions on Meta about the requirements of a "professional", but those are not articulated anywhere in the FAQ. …

I seem to remember the first big push-back was the FAQ Rewrite but I think culturally it had been gaining momentum for some time. …

But, as we learned during the previous aborted FAQ rewrite process there are certain UX guidelines we need to stay within to improve readability. … to make the bolded professional capacity text a bolded link to a FAQ-tagged question that breaks it down. …

If the issue presents as a pattern then we should probably discuss with the user about the FAQ and what other sites exist. … The last time the Great FAQ Rewrite came up there was significant discussion on how to restrict our audience based on job classification. …