SP&L FAQs and stickies
Discussion
Agreed. The one thing missing from SP&L is a wide selection of saaby93-authored FAQs. The forum has no credibility without the provision of such invaluable advice, written by this otherwise unheralded legal genius.. It is unbelievable to most that PH seems ambivalent to this generous offer.
A set of comedians 
It's the nature of the beast though, PH not saabs.
We all know something, we all don't know other things. Until someone comes along and asks about something we don't know or hadn't considered then we aren't aware that we don't know it.
Whilst realising this post has something Donald Rumsfeld-esque about it, this is a genuine problem.
It is impossible, imho, to write a comprehensive FAQ on many of the issues in SP&L simply because of the complicated nature of the issues, some of which, in reality, would come down to the interpretation of a court. Which means that, with all due respect to the many more knowledgable than me posters,, nobody has a 100% cast iron guaranteed knowledge on a particular subject.
Even in my professional speciality, (nothing to do with SP&L nor PH for that matter) every day is a learning day. As Dara O'Briain said in one of his stand ups, "science doesn't know everything, if it did, science would stop."
Now add in the popular myths and misconceptions that crop up, e.g. "The copper who lasered me wasn't wearing his hat, can I get off the speeding ticket?" In a FAQ it's very likely that the author wouldn't consider all questions of that 'quality' as subconciously one just ignores daft stuff like that as obvious.
However ignoring daft stuff like that is wrong, as that is exactly the sort of issues that crop up time and again and cause people to go "aaarrrrggggghhhhh," and then dash off a response which might be a bit sharp in tone.
Until actually trying to do a FAQ, I never realised how hard it was to do, how much editing Bill would have to do to remove all the crap and once it's edited how inappropriate all the remaining chatty stuff is now it's completely out of context.
There is a right way to do it in my mind, but do any of us have the time to do it properly.
1. Decide on a subject.
2. Start olpen thread, thrash the subject to bits.
3. Someone on that thread agree to do a first draft.
4. Thrash the draft to bits.
5. Drafts 2,3,4 until final agreement.
Then two options.
6a Put the FAQ draft into a FAQ thread, lock it, and store it in FAQ section. Put a link to the FAQ in a stickied thread at the top of SP&L.
6b either lock the discussion thread or delete it and destroy evidence of how we got to the FAQ
Or much simpler, said not knowing how difficult editing threads on PH possibly is:-
7. A mod delete everything in the discussion thread apart from the final agreed draft, then store / link as in 6a.
Personally I'm prepared to pull my weight as and where I can, and do promise not to be such a grumpy old fart.
Happy Easter.
It's the nature of the beast though, PH not saabs.
We all know something, we all don't know other things. Until someone comes along and asks about something we don't know or hadn't considered then we aren't aware that we don't know it.
Whilst realising this post has something Donald Rumsfeld-esque about it, this is a genuine problem.
It is impossible, imho, to write a comprehensive FAQ on many of the issues in SP&L simply because of the complicated nature of the issues, some of which, in reality, would come down to the interpretation of a court. Which means that, with all due respect to the many more knowledgable than me posters,, nobody has a 100% cast iron guaranteed knowledge on a particular subject.
Even in my professional speciality, (nothing to do with SP&L nor PH for that matter) every day is a learning day. As Dara O'Briain said in one of his stand ups, "science doesn't know everything, if it did, science would stop."
Now add in the popular myths and misconceptions that crop up, e.g. "The copper who lasered me wasn't wearing his hat, can I get off the speeding ticket?" In a FAQ it's very likely that the author wouldn't consider all questions of that 'quality' as subconciously one just ignores daft stuff like that as obvious.
However ignoring daft stuff like that is wrong, as that is exactly the sort of issues that crop up time and again and cause people to go "aaarrrrggggghhhhh," and then dash off a response which might be a bit sharp in tone.
Until actually trying to do a FAQ, I never realised how hard it was to do, how much editing Bill would have to do to remove all the crap and once it's edited how inappropriate all the remaining chatty stuff is now it's completely out of context.
There is a right way to do it in my mind, but do any of us have the time to do it properly.
1. Decide on a subject.
2. Start olpen thread, thrash the subject to bits.
3. Someone on that thread agree to do a first draft.
4. Thrash the draft to bits.
5. Drafts 2,3,4 until final agreement.
Then two options.
6a Put the FAQ draft into a FAQ thread, lock it, and store it in FAQ section. Put a link to the FAQ in a stickied thread at the top of SP&L.
6b either lock the discussion thread or delete it and destroy evidence of how we got to the FAQ
Or much simpler, said not knowing how difficult editing threads on PH possibly is:-
7. A mod delete everything in the discussion thread apart from the final agreed draft, then store / link as in 6a.
Personally I'm prepared to pull my weight as and where I can, and do promise not to be such a grumpy old fart.
Happy Easter.
Agreed it is more than difficult FiF
My turn to brave the flames
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/xforums/topic.asp?h=0...
I'm ok with posters giving their opinion or giving their experience.
What I'm not ok with is 'I'm particularly well built I am right, yow are wrong'
Or posters from one end of the scale taking the trouble to say 'thats rubbish' without saying why in their opinion it is rubbish or their opinion of what would not be rubbish so it can be added to the thread.
Or asking what do you do in the rest of your life
However it is a forum.
Is there some way of flagging a post that neither adds or subrtacts from an opening post i.e. where it's just someones opinion on a particular poster?
What about a post that merely says 'good post'
My turn to brave the flames
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/xforums/topic.asp?h=0...
I'm ok with posters giving their opinion or giving their experience.
What I'm not ok with is 'I'm particularly well built I am right, yow are wrong'
Or posters from one end of the scale taking the trouble to say 'thats rubbish' without saying why in their opinion it is rubbish or their opinion of what would not be rubbish so it can be added to the thread.
Or asking what do you do in the rest of your life
However it is a forum.
Is there some way of flagging a post that neither adds or subrtacts from an opening post i.e. where it's just someones opinion on a particular poster?
What about a post that merely says 'good post'
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 7th April 09:40
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff