As apl recently responded to an op:
If you had done your due diligence, you'd have found dates and times in Categorized Questions and Answers.
On reading this, I felt that I too should remember to refer this sort of question to the "Q&A". But then I wondered, how easy is it for newbies to locate this great information resource?

Besides complaining (and possibly risking excommunication for my blasphemy), what could be done?

Hope I haven't been too far out with this suggestion. I know I've spent way too much thinking about this but I've been ill a couple days now and am starting to get bored.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Highlighting the Q&A
by Fletch (Chancellor) on Mar 12, 2008 at 13:59 UTC

    I don't like FAQ or any variation thereon myself (that niche being quite solidly occupied by perlfaq* and reusing the name would be confusing ("You should have looked that up in the FAQ?" "I did, I used supersearch and everything!" "No, the real FAQ. perldoc -q "weasel ears". Geesh. *noob*")).

    Perhaps change the link from "Q&A" to "How do I ...", emphasizing the fact that it's a problem-solution driven section?

    The cake is a lie.
    The cake is a lie.
    The cake is a lie.

      Perhaps change the link from "Q&A" to "How do I ..."

      That sounds like a good name -- certainly better than mine.

      A variation on that could be "How-To", or whatever the fashionable form is now a days.

        If it wasn't a book title already, I'd suggest "Perl Cookbook"; I see "cookbook" used this way fairly often. "PerlMonks Cookbook"? "Monastery Cookbook"? "Code Cookbook"? None seem quite right, but maybe someone will have a better idea.
Re: Highlighting the Q&A
by apl (Monsignor) on Mar 12, 2008 at 16:57 UTC
    I like the notion of differentiating Perl FAQ (or How-To, or whatever) from Perl Monks FAQ.

    By the way, I wasn't trying to be snarky when I responded to the op. When I first came here, I did what I try to do whenever I enter a new forum (and as suggested at the Monestary Gates): I read the site documentation.

    I get upset when I read posts asking for homework solutions, who don't use <code>, who don't Super Search first, who don't do a Preview before posting... in spite of hat the site documentation says.

    My response was an attempt to be both helpful, and to point toward a useful resource.

      A preview is good. It often picks up typos like <code> instead of <code> for example. ;)


      Perl is environmentally friendly - it saves trees
      Spell checking is also a good idea.
        You should suggest the addition of a spell-checker, then.

        BTW,

        in spite of hat the site documentation says
        (rather than the what I meant) would pass such a test... 8-)

        But that's nit-picking, as opposed to suggesting the FAQs actually be read...

Re: Highlighting the Q&A
by hossman (Prior) on Mar 12, 2008 at 22:14 UTC

    I see nothing wrong with changing links to Q&A so that they say "FAQ". Once users click that link and get to Categorized Questions and Answers there is some nice verbage there that explains what it is and distinguishes it from the official perlfaq.

    Cleaning/improving that verbage might make sense to help guide users (adding a search box specific to Q&A could certainly help that page) but highlighting Q&A by linking to it as "FAQ" seems like a good course of action regardless of whether they ultimately link away because they want the official perlfaq.

Re: Highlighting the Q&A (FAQs)
by tye (Sage) on Mar 12, 2008 at 22:43 UTC

    Although there are not insignificant problems with the Cat Q+A section, changing the link label would be a good idea. "Perl FAQs" is what I would suggest, with the resulting page including links to other sources of Perl FAQs (not just the links to the "Categories") including to the FAQs included in the standard Perl documentation and to our own Tutorials.

    The label "PerlMonks FAQ" should be reserved for questions that are frequently asked about the PerlMonks site.

    - tye