Designing a good FAQ!

[DavidY]

The first and main bit of rubbish being, of course, that since the site is only recently launched, they can't have received enough Qs to decide which ones are FA or not.

The abuse of a powerful tool like an FAQ, which is supposed to be a compilation of useful answers to common questions, gets my goat. More and more, I see these being used as a rephrased marketing tool.

Typical FAQ: "I want more of your wonderful product - how can I pay for it?" Grrr....

So do you know Scott Adams then?
Today's Dilbert cartoon

[El Salsero Gringo]

The first and main bit of rubbish being, of course, that since the site is only recently launched, they can't have received enough Qs to decide which ones are FA or not.

Would it improve your experience of the website (I'm starting to talk like 'one of them' now...) if it were labelled something like "Questions we Anticipate" instead?

[David Bailey]

Would it improve your experience of the website (I'm starting to talk like 'one of them' now...) if it were labelled something like "Questions we Anticipate" instead?

No. It'd maybe improve my experience if the site was professionally designed though.

If you want a title for that specific mess of a list, then something like "More details" would be better. But really, that whole long list should be subdivded into sections, or at least have some of this newfangled navigation stuff added.

OK, I'm boring myself now...

[El Salsero Gringo]

No. It'd maybe improve my experience if the site was professionally designed though.

If you want a title for that specific mess of a list, then something like "More details" would be better. But really, that whole long list should be subdivded into sections, or at least have some of this newfangled navigation stuff added.

OK, I'm boring myself now...

I'm sure it was professionally designed. It certainly wasn't designed for free. Do you mean instead something that's better designed?

Tell you what, I'll introduce you to the guy who designed it, next time I see you both in the same venue, then you can give the feedback where it will have the most effect. (Although what effect, I can't wait to see!)

[David Bailey]

I'm sure it was professionally designed. It certainly wasn't designed for free. Do you mean instead something that's better designed?

Blimey, hark at Mr Picky.
Yes, that's what I meant, I was using "professional" as a synonym for "well". Happy?

Tell you what, I'll introduce you to the guy who designed it,

Tell you what - how about no. I'm a chicken, cluck cluck. (But I bet it was a graphic designer...)

[El Salsero Gringo]

Blimey, hark at Mr Picky.

Dear Pot,

Thank you for the following letter, which I have read with interest:

If you want a title for that specific mess of a list, then something like "More details" would be better. But really, that whole long list should be subdivded into sections, or at least have some of this newfangled navigation stuff added.

Yours as ever,

Kettle.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Ah, I see this little subthread has just been moderated into it's own thread, so no one will ever have a clue which website DJ was talking about. It's even moved to a different part of the Forum.

Oh well.

[LMC]

In that case, there's nothing else for it... we need to take it completely off-topic.

Game of Mornington Crescent anyone?

[David Bailey]

Errr... where'd this thread come from?

OK, I'll bite.

To design a good FAQ, you first need lots of questions. Ideally these questions should be taken from all the feedback forms you, as a clever business operator, will have been sending your customers, and possibly from a list of common complaints and other queries your customer service people have received.

If you haven't been actively collecting and recording customer feedback, you're kind of stuffed at this point (and yes, this is one of the reasons why I bang on about Feedback Being Good - so I'm consistent, so sue me).

So, you've now got your questions.

Next, work through them, order and categorise them, and see how many similar questions come up frequently.

Next, put these into a list, preferably with the most-frequently-asked being put first. And your work is done.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Errr... where'd this thread come from?

Er, well, actually you started it! (in a roundabout way)

So now there are two people on the forum who pose their own questions and proceed to answer them at length - and we all know who the other one is....

[David Bailey]

Oh, and while we're on the topic of slagging off websites (say, for example, www.ceroc.com/storm ), let's look at how it does with the definitive list of website mistakes for 2005:

• Legibility Problems - tick
• Non-Standard Links - tick
• Flash - tick
• Content That's Not Written for the Web - tick
• Bad Search (in this case, no search!) - tick
• Browser Incompatibility - hmmm, it actually works in Mozilla, no tick.
• Cumbersome Forms - tick
• No Contact Information or Other Company Info - damn, another no-tick
• Frozen Layouts with Fixed Page Widths - tick
• Inadequate Photo Enlargement - no-tick.

So, that's committing 7 / 10 of the worst design faults for website. Not bad.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Oh, and while we're on the topic of slagging off websites (say, for example, www.ceroc.com/storm ), let's look at how it does with the definitive list of website mistakes for 2005:

• Legibility Problems - tick
• Non-Standard Links - tick
• Flash - tick
• Content That's Not Written for the Web - tick
• Bad Search (in this case, no search!) - tick
• Browser Incompatibility - hmmm, it actually works in Mozilla, no tick.
• Cumbersome Forms - tick
• No Contact Information or Other Company Info - damn, another no-tick
• Frozen Layouts with Fixed Page Widths - tick
• Inadequate Photo Enlargement - no-tick.

So, that's committing 7 / 10 of the worst design faults for website. Not bad.

yes, but are you going to go on the weekender, or not?

[Lynn]

No Contact Information or Other Company Info

This really bugs me - why do some companies do this? Its like they have two routes to contact them - phone or web - and if you are going the web route then you have to email them - no looking at the website then daring to want to actually speak to someone!

[David Bailey]

yes, but are you going to go on the weekender, or not?

I think I'd get lynched if I did

[Franck]

Ah, I see this little subthread has just been moderated into it's own thread, so no one will ever have a clue which website DJ was talking about. It's even moved to a different part of the Forum.

Oh well.

My moderation, DavidJames' comments are still in the original thread, so everyone will know his views on it, but the discussion had moved well away from The Storm Week-ender at Camber, and become a topic of its own.

[El Salsero Gringo]

My moderation, DavidJames' comments are still in the original thread, so everyone will know his views on it, but the discussion had moved well away from The Storm Week-ender at Camber, and become a topic of its own.

That seems entirely reasonable.

Sometimes moderations like this seem a little "Deus ex machina", if you know what I mean. Would it be unreasonable to ask that who ever splits a thread puts a new first post at the top of the new thread explaining where it has come from? I realise that there are time constraints on you all but how often do you split threads, and how long would it take?

[Gadget]

:phew: I thought someone was going to be slagging off this forum's FAQ

To design a good FAQ, you first need lots of questions.

I dissagree: you only need four questions - What Is? Where is? Who Is?, How Do I?
After that, you simply fill in the blanks with termanology that is (fairly) unique to the subject matter.

(It also helps to get good feedback )

[Dreadful Scathe]

I longed for a good FAQ on the Forum, it was ages before Gadget gave me one.

Of course I could write my own 'serious fact' with the questions people are really asking.

Q: Why do people not give me rep?
A: Your patter sucks and your posts give off an unwelcome 'zoo'-like smell.

Q: I got negative rep - whats my recourse?
A: Report them to the moderators - for a small fee we'll go round to their house and 'have a word'. For a larger fee, we'll kidnap them and dump them in a mission in south america dressed as a nun.

Q: How can i help the forum improve?
A: Send Dreadful Scathe any spare change, computer gadgets and cuddly toys you have lying about. It will encourage him to post less.

[David Bailey]

I dissagree: you only need four questions - What Is? Where is? Who Is?, How Do I?
After that, you simply fill in the blanks with termanology that is (fairly) unique to the subject matter.

That's fine if you're calling it "about this site" or "more details" or "how to use". But if you're doing a document entitled "Frequently Asked Questions", the standard methodology is (or should be) to put in answers to questions that people ask frequently.

You should try to avoid bias towards any idea of what customers "should" be asking - that way lies the "How can I buy more of your product?" type of question.

Calling something an FAQ when it's just a disguised marketing document is twisting a very useful concept to suit short-term business aims. In the long term, this approach will degrade your customer's trust in the information and the products you provide.

I'm happy to say that our Forum FAQ is wonderful, though. And well-edited, I thought

[El Salsero Gringo]

Calling something an FAQ when it's just a disguised marketing document is twisting a very useful concept to suit short-term business aims. In the long term, this approach will degrade your customer's trust in the information and the products you provide.

Are you quite sure that most people actually know (or care) what FAQ actually stands for? (How many people no longer know - or care what CC: stands for in an email context?)