= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Morendil comments on Attention Less Wrong: We need an FAQ - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (108)
I remember the last time we had this discussion, my conclusion was that we needed "better newcomer orientation".
An FAQ is a (possibly) necessary, and (probably) not sufficient, component of a set of solutions leading to the outcome "better newcomer orientation".
What we are planning is, by the way, not literally an FAQ. The Lurkers thread didn't reveal frequent questions people had that we're not answering, or that they have trouble finding the answers to.
It did reveal a frequent observation, namely that people find the site intimidating.
I suspect that no amount of answering frequently-not-asked questions (in an out of the way page) is going to fix that.
I do believe that more discussion of which kinds of top-level posts and which attitudes in the comment stream encourage or discourage participation could fix that.
We should talk about this. We should also just write an FAQ. We don't need to postpone the latter for the former.
The Lurkers aren't who the FAQ is for- if they've been lurking a while they've probably figured a lot out. But when new users show up who haven't been lurking the same topics have come up repeatedly.