Laying out Blog and tutorial style posts

[TerryE]

I've been thinking about this one in the background for some time, and what has triggered this article is Hagar de l'Est's post Tutorial for Spell check and Language configuration. The same approach could apply for a blog-style entry.

If an author wants to post an N section article, then this should consist of the initial topic plus N dummy replies all submitted by the author. The first N entries can then be updated with the N sections of the article. Post N+1 is basically a change log. Posts N+2 onwards are the normal reply and answer banter from the wider audience one the topic.

The reason that I suggest such an N+1 layout is that the originating author should be free to develop and improve the article in the light of feedback, but just so that people can see what is going on the convention should be that the N+1 post is used to maintain a change log of material changes. Hence in the case of the simplest kind of tutorial, the topic post would contain the tutorial itself, the second post the change log, and posts 3 onwards the commentary and discussion on the article.

[acknak]

Sorry, but I have to ask the obvious question: why not use the OOo wiki for longer articles?

There are several obvious disadvantages to squeezing an article into a forum structure.

And, to answer my own question, I guess if the author doesn't want to use the wiki, we should have some structure in place to make it work well here.

So, why might an author prefer not to use the wiki?

[Hagar Delest]

So, why might an author prefer not to use the wiki?

Good question. I also agree with you acknak. I wrote this article because :

• I couldn't wait posting something in this brand new forum
• I've tried to adapt it on the wiki page (I've even registered and actually changed the wiki page) but IMHO, it needs a deep reorganization : do you really believe that for a problem with spell checking the user will scroll to the far bottom of a page talking about formatting (whis has no relation at first sight for new users) ?
• I'm not very fond of FAQs. As a user, I prefer such threads inside the place where I'm wandering, that's all.

I think there is still an issue with the OOo documentation. There is a FAQ and the user guides. The online user guides are derived from the paper version. Now that internet access is so common, I think that the energy should be put in a single online help very effective so that it becomes a clear reference and then, make a paper version as a second target. Today there are 2 communities of authors. In the end, perhaps users are lost and come more easily to a forum.

[TerryE]

why not use the OOo wiki for longer articles? There are several obvious disadvantages to squeezing an article into a forum structure.

Yes, and the same can be said for wiki's. I say this from the perspective of some who uses and authors in both. The average Joe Blow user is far more comfortable with the dialogue in a forum paradigm than in Wiki discussions. The originator (plus the moderators) also maintains overall editorial control of the first post in the topic. At the moment people come to forum looking for help, though this may tip.

The sort of article that I am talking about here is that we all see the same Q coming up again and again, and you feel that a structured response is needed to pre-empt more of the same. That not to say that after your had the first wave of cut and thrust that you can then write up the article / move into the wiki. At work we've sort of adopted this paradigm. We use email DLs for collaboration, and sometimes a Q will kick of a whole stream of interesting dialogue. The etiquette that we've evolved is that is the dialogue has generated that much interest, then the originator is sort of beholden to write it up an post it to our collaboration Wiki.

Also you can do the sort of evangelism blog type article in a forum, but it doesn't work so well in a wiki.

[acknak]

Good points all. Thanks; let's go.