| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 47120 | 2004-07-16 10:01:00 | Sticky: How To Get Effective Help on PF1. Comments Please. | Murray P (44) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 252825 | 2004-07-18 01:54:00 | > The most important thing now is to get an OT area. If > the FAQ can have it's own area, then why can't OT's. FAQ's end up linked to the FAQ section when they are tagged as a FAQ. But if someone replies to a FAQ you will notice that it will appear on the main page. It will make its way down the page with all the rest of the threads but at the same time, will stay listed under the FAQ page. Think of the FAQ page as just as a search summary of all the FAQ tagged posts, but they are actually located amongst all the other regular threads. If you go looking way way back in the thread pages you will find them in the position date/time when they were last active. So, in reality you cannot have a OT section because this forum is not set up like that. Tagging a post as OT will not prevent it displaying in the main section. Hope that all makes sense. |
Jen C (20) | ||
| 252826 | 2004-07-18 04:10:00 | > I have never ever used the search function when seeking > help, only use it for advice type questions . But even then, > many of the advice is outdated, e . g . motherboard options, > etc . FAQ wise, I have never found what I wanted in there . Well SY, we should never lose sight of how far we have travelled, and how we used to feel when situations, now dealt with without second thought, caused us grief and we didn't know where to start . You too have come a long way, as many of us will remember, and a lot of your earlier issues were related to plenty of enthusiasm allied to a lack of knowledge and not reading/following the advice given . I am not criticising you for any of that, but don't forget that the desperate need for help doesn't always happen when the appropriate expert is on-line . However, anybody who is on line at the time can refer them to the FAQs or search facility for the accumulated wisdom and advice in the entire PF1 archive . If they choose not to use those resources, that is their business and so are the consequences, but that is no reason not to provide these features for those who are able to read for more than two minutes without losing interest, or to take the time to search for information be it on PF1, Google or even other forums . Logically, a common theme for almost all posters on PF1 is the existence of a problem they don't know how to solve, or a need for advice . Not all hardware or software used is leading edge stuff, so the relevance of the archives is not significantly lessened by age, and FAQs by their very definition are virtually ageless . If they dated that quickly they would be PAQs instead . We also have those persons here whose response to an oft repeated question is to post "Not again" (or words to that effect) but offer no help at all . Remember the spoofed email thread that was stickied for a while? It would be so much more productive and helpful, as some did, to refer such posters to the appropriate FAQ . Speaking personally, I am disappointed at the negativity and insularity shown toward Murray's efforts to provide an easier path to computer knowledge and assistance for those who wish to take advantage of it and the readiness with which the critics forget the purpose of PF1 . It is right there on your keyboard, remember? Press F1 for help . Cheers Billy 8-{) :| |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 252827 | 2004-07-18 05:15:00 | Me? I'm for it but you all knew I would be anyway. :-) | Elephant (599) | ||
| 252828 | 2004-07-18 05:17:00 | > Speaking personally, I am disappointed at the > negativity and insularity shown toward Murray's > efforts to provide an easier path to computer > knowledge and assistance Comments were asked for and now because they differ from personal opinion they are deemed to be negative. Those sort of comments don't do much to encourage frank discussion, or help to get some sort of Posting Guide developed which is both practicable and usable. I don't believe either have been achieved at this point but it is possible. |
Jim B (153) | ||
| 252829 | 2004-07-18 05:47:00 | >Comments were asked for and now because they differ from personal >opinion they are deemed to be negative. The lad see's things in the negative,forgive him for he knows not what he does. |
Old Tom (5871) | ||
| 252830 | 2004-07-18 06:43:00 | > I don't believe either have been achieved at this point but it is possible . Hi Jim, got any suggestions for me? Since posting, it has been tweaked a little . If there is nothing else forthcoming that adds to the function or info in the next day, I'll launch it . Cheers Murray P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 252831 | 2004-07-18 07:41:00 | > Hi Jim, got any suggestions for me? > > Since posting, it has been tweaked a little. If there > is nothing else forthcoming that adds to the function > or info in the next day, I'll launch it. No offence to anyone. But I'd say launch it. It seems to me that comments that we are offering are not valued. Hence I have not found the need to put in extra. We seemed to be told -"...your not the target audience..." Ok, fine, go find your own target audience. I think we have repeated suggestions enough times that nothing is being done. |
~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054) | ||
| 252832 | 2004-07-18 08:24:00 | Sy what's up? Have I said once that I do not value your comments? I have asked for comments so, I want comments, preferably constructive ones . Cheers Murray P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 252833 | 2004-07-18 08:50:00 | > Sy what's up? Have I said once that I do not value > your comments? No, sorry Murray . It wasn't you I was talking about . |
~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054) | ||
| 252834 | 2004-07-18 09:01:00 | Hi Murray Like Sy, I have given up on this post, not based on any of your efforts, but when you consider : > Speaking personally, I am disappointed at the > negativity and insularity shown toward Murray's > efforts to provide an easier path to computer > knowledge and assistance such comments that attempt to take the moral high ground with emotive language discourage further comments on this post. The feedback so far (including that from supporters), and on the other thread, is "too long". That is a fact. Take a look at Bruce Buckmans rules - they are easy to read and as a Press F1 Newbie who is computer literate, I read Bruce's rules but I would not read this. To all the knockers, this is real feedback from a targetted individual. Proposed solution : maybe there should be 2 versions - the sound bite version for those of us who don't read EULA's and the long-form version for those who do - each could be referenced to the other. Good luck Murray. ;) Over and Out. |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||