Highlighting the Q&A

[igelkott]

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?

• The "Q&A" link in the page header -- one link of many unknown topics
• The "Categorized Q&A" link in the Sections nodelet -- an even longer list and possibly not the most obvious name to a newbie
• Within the PerlMonks FAQ linked at the top of The Monastery Gates (when anonymous) -- rather discrete but it's there. This page has only a passing reference to the Categorized Questions and Answers (under Advanced PerlMonks Topics) and nothing under Searching PerlMonks (I'd consider this a "manual" search).
• When they eventually reach The Perl Monks Guide to the Monastery, there is a clear reference to Q&A but this suggests that it be used when the op thinks "I'm sure this has been solved a thousand times before" -- not really a strong advertisement.

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

• "Categorized Questions and Answers" and "Q&A" could have a better names. My favorite would be "Perl FAQ". That's obviously been taken ... but so what? Why not share the name? (Blasphemy?) There are links to the official perlfaqs (both PerlDoc and local).
  OK, maybe this is too wild. A second choice would be simply "Frequently Asked Questions" and "FAQ" in the header and nodelets. The "Perl" part is implied by the theme of the site.
• Whatever the name for the FAQ is, the pointer to it at the Monastery Gates should be made more clear; obvious even. If we want to avoid some of the most common questions, we should at least give them every opportunity to easily locate the FAQ. Of course this won't eliminate the common questions but it might reduce the occurrence and make it perfectly justified to respond with simply "check the FAQ" (and maybe provide the node, search word or section).
• May also be good to shorten the text at the top of the Q&A page. This seems to be internal PM details so could possibly be replaced by a link to the appropriate section of the PM FAQ.

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.

[Fletch]

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?

[igelkott]

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.

[menolly]

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.

[apl]

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.

[GrandFather]

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

[Gavin]

Spell checking is also a good idea.

[apl]

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...

[hossman]

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.

[tye]

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.