Nice one Sharky!


Well-known member
It's good to see that Sharky is always open to good ideas.

I don't know exactly how these web sites work but I am willing to do my bit if necessary.

Well done John for thinking of the idea and well done Sharky for not turning your nose up at it.
Certainly am RRG. I take it you're volunteering to be one of our mods for this section? Excellent, any others would care to come forward to tackle the task we've set ourselves in this thread concerning a comprehensive T2W FAQ:

If you're interested add your names to this thread - I think this will prove to be an excellent addition and resource for the site for new and experienced members alike!

Yes Sharky I am volunteering.

Just let me know what I have to do when the time comes.

All the best

In my original idea I wasn't thinking that things needed to be so formal. Like either Helen or Skimbleshanks said in the original thread too much organisation could ruin creative energies (probably wasn't either H or S and probably said nothing like that, but I'm just too lazy to check).

My suggestion was just create a Forum called FAQ with the same permissions as every other forum. Then if anybody feels the urge to start a FAQ then they get together all the information they need either from the boards, books or brain and then post it as a new thread. Anybody is free to add any comments that they like and the original poster is not allowed to edit them! It could be something like "excellent - no changes needed", "you have forgoten about xxx" or "utter tosh - I'm going to write my own faq". When the original poster has had enough feed back they rewrite their faq taking in all the suggestions. I think we can rely on peer pressure to make sure the FAQs progress in the right direction.

If somebody feels that a FAQ is so off message they can start one of their own. Should be fun deciding which one to use.

I think you can be sure that if any FAQ is not going too well, we will not be shy to point it out to the poster. We can also use the rate thread to distinguish between good and bad FAQs.

The only time a moderator is needed is to move a redundant FAQ to the FAQARCHIVE, to remove any posts which are reported to them and they agree need action and to moderate as to the structure of the FAQ as it grows.

Keeping it open like this will give it a life of its own and means that people do not have to make commitments and stick to it.

The only other role which might be worth creating, and I think you will like this one, is the Faq Controller. They have the authority to move threads to the FAQ archive and to structure the index page - affectively choosing which thread is the official FAQ if there is conflict.

Of course if you would prefer a little more organisation then do it. You're the boss.

Tend to agree with John on this one. The example site I gave works exactly as John has described.

By allowing this simpler format it is much easier to administer and also gives the flexibility of moving other posts to the FAQ if appropriate.
Sharky -
just in passing, Traders #3 turned up in the post today, so stop chasing them <g>
Hi folks,

I've been out of town this weekend (still am!), so sorry I've not been available to comment to the thread until now... John, I'm happy to proceed in the informal way you've talked about in order to manage the FAQ forum. Certainly lets give it a go this way and we can always change the way it works further down the line if need be.

Thanks then to rglenn, rossored and davelong for your offers to help manage the section - but to begin with we'll keep the job of moderators as they are. However I look forward to all your contributions in the new FAQ forum. I'll set this up tomorrow, so check back again then - I'll even try and kick the proceedings of with the first FAQ about posting on the site!