Re^2: Give a fish or teach to fish?

I think a closely related question to yours is "How good are our current FAQs ?"

A number of SoPW posts would seem to indicate that the poster hadn't read the FAQs at all. It doesn't matter how the document gets refined if it isn't read.

Comment on Re^2: Give a fish or teach to fish?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Give a fish or teach to fish? by spx2 (Deacon) on Apr 04, 2008 at 17:34 UTC
No. A good FAQ should always exist. ALSO, making it KNOWN to the users that the FAQ DOES INDEED EXIST is the problem at hand. So, put the FAQ FIRST in your documentation.That is my suggestion.	[reply]
Re^4: Give a fish or teach to fish? by apl (Monsignor) on Apr 04, 2008 at 17:50 UTC
I'm not arguing with you. Quite the opposite, I agree with you. What I'm saying (poorly) is that the top of each page of this site says Q&A. The Information bar on the right includes PerlMonks FAQ, Guide to the Monastery and Perl FAQ. More than a few posters have never taken the time to look at these resources before posting a question. How do you compel a visitor to the site to read the fabulous FAQ (RTFFAQ?)?	[reply]
Re^5: Give a fish or teach to fish? by spx2 (Deacon) on Apr 07, 2008 at 17:35 UTC
The current perlmonks layout is burdened with allot of "nonsense"-data to a new monk. That is why people DO NOT find the FAQs they are ACTUALLY looking for. This is a bad thing and it MUST BE corrected. If not,we risk to permanently and perpetually write the same stuff again and again and again instead of just pointing to a source of information(which should in time receive corrections and additions).	[reply]