Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Having a FAQ section implies that some things are settled facts. As a community, we don’t generally agree on anything. Having a gatekeeper for a section will impart that gatekeeper’s own biases in that section.

Instead of the FAQ answering questions, how about just showing a list of links to previous threads about those subjects? 
 

I realize this just becomes a glorified search function, but it is obvious the new comers struggle with searching. And to that point, if they can’t find the search function, what makes you think they will find the FAQ function? 

FAQ sections are moderated.  Links to FAQs would appear as one thread at the top of each category, like the locked threads do. 

FAQ moderators represent long-time community members who are widely recognized as wise, fair, and having the best interest of promoting safety and welfare of Mooney pilots and their aircraft.  These wise and experienced moderators would agree to promote well worded answers to common questions to the FAQ. 

Adding a new category of "like" button such as "FAQ nomination", would draw the attention of moderators to a post for their consideration.  Of course some will use it in jest, but the moderators will figure that out easily.

High standards maximize utility of the FAQ.   Controversial answers don't belong in a FAQ.  An editor-in-chief adjudicates whether or not an answer is FAQ worthy in case disagreements arise, and potentially offer an explanation of the controversy to the community.

We have de-facto moderators on MS.  They regularly provide straight answers and work to promote facts and harmony.   But their work often becomes buried in threads that fall off the front page and become hard to find.    I have trouble finding good stuff that I read six months ago all the time, even using google to search.

Moderation requires work.  Some long-term members spend a lot of time moderating discussions and work continuously to set the record straight.  A FAQ section gives folks a place to go to seek really good, "peer-reviewed" answers to common questions, without playing "telephone" as @cliffy calls it.

As you suggest, FAQ answers can link to threads containing relevant discussion, and serve to show where controversies exist.  They could also link posts showing great information.   For example: "What is Mooney spar cap corrosion, and what does it look like?" might have a great answer posted by someone previously and link to photos showing examples.

I'd suggest FAQ titles should have the word "Mooney" in them.  If they are not Mooney specific questions, we probably shouldn't be answering them for the broader GA community, because we are not a broad community - this is a community of Mooney aficionados with collective expertise in all things Mooney.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

On 3/28/2021 at 4:03 AM, N201MKTurbo said:

Having a FAQ section implies that some things are settled facts. As a community, we don’t generally agree on anything. Having a gatekeeper for a section will impart that gatekeeper’s own biases in that section.

Instead of the FAQ answering questions, how about just showing a list of links to previous threads about those subjects? 
 

I realize this just becomes a glorified search function, but it is obvious the new comers struggle with searching. And to that point, if they can’t find the search function, what makes you think they will find the FAQ function? 

This reflects my general feelings regarding a moderated FAQ as well.   It adds a lot of work for people and doesn't necessarily clarify much, and they can get stale quickly.   There are authoritative sources for information regarding aviation, and none of them are internet forums.   Info here, regardless of how carefully or painstakingly curated, will never rise above "got it from an internet forum" status.   Any and all info here, or on any internet forum, should be taken for what it is, free internet advice.   Whether it comes from a moderated FAQ or a random thread doesn't make any difference.   The advice here that is the most useful, imho, are where a FAR or an AC or an AFM or SMM or POH or something are referenced or cited, or when none of that is available, best practices, which will always be subject to opinion and specific experience.

On sites I'm familiar with where a lot of technical data is shared where this has been an issue in the past, in my view it has been best handled with sticky threads, and if a sticky-thread topic comes up again elsewhere, people can be pointed to the sticky thread.   This also helps prevent multiple threads on the same topic, which aggravates searches, etc.  This way anybody can see the entire history if so desired, or just go to the end for the freshest data, or whatever.    The only moderator/admin overhead involved is making the thread sticky, and anybody can still contribute or criticize or correct or add or update new info, all of which can be helpful attributes that may not be available in a fully moderated FAQ.

I've been involved with FAQs before, and they generally don't live up to the intent or promise, regardless.   In this particular context I think they could be potentially detrimental.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 8:14 PM, EricJ said:

This reflects my general feelings regarding a moderated FAQ as well.   It adds a lot of work for people and doesn't necessarily clarify much, and they can get stale quickly.   There are authoritative sources for information regarding aviation, and none of them are internet forums.   Info here, regardless of how carefully or painstakingly curated, will never rise above "got it from an internet forum" status.   Any and all info here, or on any internet forum, should be taken for what it is, free internet advice.   Whether it comes from a moderated FAQ or a random thread doesn't make any difference.   The advice here that is the most useful, imho, are where a FAR or an AC or an AFM or SMM or POH or something are referenced or cited, or when none of that is available, best practices, which will always be subject to opinion and specific experience.

On sites I'm familiar with where a lot of technical data is shared where this has been an issue in the past, in my view it has been best handled with sticky threads, and if a sticky-thread topic comes up again elsewhere, people can be pointed to the sticky thread.   This also helps prevent multiple threads on the same topic, which aggravates searches, etc.  This way anybody can see the entire history if so desired, or just go to the end for the freshest data, or whatever.    The only moderator/admin overhead involved is making the thread sticky, and anybody can still contribute or criticize or correct or add or update new info, all of which can be helpful attributes that may not be available in a fully moderated FAQ.

I've been involved with FAQs before, and they generally don't live up to the intent or promise, regardless.   In this particular context I think they could be potentially detrimental.

 

 

I agree with much of what you wrote @EricJ.  The compromise lies between "freshness",  "accuracy", and "value" of the information.   Our fleet is primarily 30+ years old, and in many cases 45+ years old.  This argues that freshness not be the highest priority.   Ultimately, determination of accuracy is ultimately up to the owner.  Value is where a FAQ section can excel.  Valuable information belongs in a high-visibility location.   Having it hidden in random threads here and there greatly reduces its value.

If it doesn't belong in a FAQ, don't put it in there.   Some nuggets do belong there.  Often, the simpler the better.  Wise moderation required.

Add a response option to each post.  Make it a trophy symbol, or something like that, to select if the reader thinks that a particular post is FAQ worthy.   If a reader selects that response option, then add a quantity equal to that readers' combined presence and prescience, which would be something like log(community reputation*content count), to the FAQ worthiness score of the post.  After some time posts that accumulate many FAQ worthiness points get analyzed to identify a threshold.   After that threshold becomes set, posts exceeding that threshold get put forward as potential FAQ entries.  The topic of the post determine the FAQ.

If many of our most experienced users feel that something is valuable, we should acknowledge that collective power and use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2021 at 11:55 AM, Hank said:

WOW!!

You DO realize that Craig runs this site as a hobby???

Yes.  I'm not asking Craig to do anything other than add another option to the reactions in the lower right-hand corner.   If properly set up, what I propose represents a community activity.  A fun weekend at Bernie's kind of community subset activity, where the most wise and respected elders of MS decree items/posts FAQ worthy while sharing Pizza and Beer over Skype.  Once a year the posts with the most trophies (nomination to FAQ) are evaluated by @carusoam and linked to the FAQ.  He'll do it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 0TreeLemur said:

. . . . the most wise and respected elders of MS decree items/posts FAQ worthy while sharing Pizza and Beer over Skype.  Once a year the posts with the most trophies (nomination to FAQ) are evaluated by @carusoam and linked to the FAQ.  He'll do it.

Go Anthony! I'm a big fan of pizza and beer . . . . .

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pizza, beer, and Zoom...

What could possibly go wrong? :)

 

The world is getting pretty good with the Zoom style of group presentations...

On our way to 100 FAQs...

 

Let’s pick one...

Start with determining the most primary question and answer combination...  and where does it get posted..? How does it get found?

I deserve a beer for that...  :)

Best regards,

-a-

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, carusoam said:

On our way to 100 FAQs...

Let’s pick one...

Start with determining the most primary question and answer combination...  and where does it get posted..? How does it get found?

Whew! I was afraid you were going to say LOP . . . .

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Special section for some questions...

TFAQs... Too Frequently Asked...   :)

Somebody would need a real professional sense of humor to write this stuff...

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2020 at 10:57 AM, Davidv said:

Some ideas on FAQs that are sure to spur no debate:

1) Should I be running LOP or ROP?

2) Why did Mooney go out of business?

3) What could have Mooney done differently to sell more airplanes?

 

Dont forget

4) why doesnt Mooney make a 200K J again?

5) Are bladders better than resealing?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.