If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ for rec.skiing.backcountry
All,
I have 'maintained' an FAQ for rec.skiing.backcountry over the last few years. Many may not know it exists, but it can be found at http://www.math.utah.edu/~eyre/rsbfaq Life's committments have pulled me away for the group and from properly maintaining the lists. I am wondering if anyone has an interest in the lists, and what should be done with them given my lack of effort. From my perspective, the following are possible. 1. The lists simply remain inactive on my site. I can leave it there indefinitely. 2. Someone else can take them if there is an interest or need. (I think the latter is the real question). 3. Parts of the list could be offered to other sites for more widespread use. For example, the hut list is very valuable, but it requires a lot of care and maintanence. I haven't done that in the last few years so some of the links are out-of-date. http://www.math.utah.edu/~eyre/rsbfaq/huts.html I personally think the list should go to one of the web based discussion sites. It has been stolen a few times and can be found elsewhere anyway, but it would be more widely available at other sites. Given how hard it is to get a hut for a full group, I'm not sure that is a good thing though . In my opinion, content is still good for a beginning backcountry skier. But the topics are largely covered in many other locations on the web. The advantage of moving them is that maybe someone will put some tlc into them again. The disadvantage of moving them is that they currently are highly ranked on a number of web search engines. For example, they come up as the 4th entry on a Google search for 'backcountry skiing'. IIf the moved, they would be harder to find for the people that are using them. The last time I looked at the stats they had a pretty steady hit rate of several thousand a month (not a lot, but some). Any thoughts. Anyone care? David |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for setting up those pages and maintaining them for so long, Dave.
There really is a lot of good stuff there. Many may not know it exists My reaction is that the average internet user nowadays is more likely to find your FAQ pages than they are to find this newsgroup itself. So if you want to have the title of "rec.skiing.backcountry FAQ list" _mean_ anything to most people, you better put some links on those pages to news:rec.skiing.backcountry (and perhaps also links to some archive locations) -- and nowadays most internet users would need explanations of the terms "newsgroup" and "Usenet". they currently are highly ranked on search engines. That's another valuable aspect of those FAQ pages. Apart from the question of what to do with the content on the pages, that could be leveraged by putting links on the page to other good resources -- including locations of future updated versions of the FAQ by someone who wants to nurture it. My advice about the content is to introduce and "frame" it with some comments like you just made in your post. That you don't have the energy to maintain them any more, and they are what they are as of July 14, 2002 or whatever date. Maybe take out things you think might incur legal liability. Then the pages would become like a normal published work. And they'd continue to be very valuable to the community and to new skiers as just that. I personally think the list should go to one of the web based discussion sites. Makes a lot of sense. But I don't think putting it up somewhere else is a reason to take down your copy. Anyway my experience is that there's very little connection between discussion and static web content. A person posting to a discussion has negative interest in wanting to learn that somebody else put up a web page three years ago that already addresses that same topic five times better than their current post. Ken |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Roberts wrote:
Thanks for setting up those pages and maintaining them for so long, Dave. There really is a lot of good stuff there. Many may not know it exists My reaction is that the average internet user nowadays is more likely to find your FAQ pages than they are to find this newsgroup itself. So if you want to have the title of "rec.skiing.backcountry FAQ list" _mean_ anything to most people, you better put some links on those pages to news:rec.skiing.backcountry (and perhaps also links to some archive locations) -- and nowadays most internet users would need explanations of the terms "newsgroup" and "Usenet". Hi Ken, This is exactly why I'm asking if there is interest. I can add a link or two, but 'maintaining' it is another issue. they currently are highly ranked on search engines. That's another valuable aspect of those FAQ pages. Apart from the question of what to do with the content on the pages, that could be leveraged by putting links on the page to other good resources -- including locations of future updated versions of the FAQ by someone who wants to nurture it. My advice about the content is to introduce and "frame" it with some comments like you just made in your post. That you don't have the energy to maintain them any more, and they are what they are as of July 14, 2002 or whatever date. Maybe take out things you think might incur legal liability. Then the pages would become like a normal published work. And they'd continue to be very valuable to the community and to new skiers as just that. Great idea. Would you be willing to help a little? I think a link to rsb on every page is a good idea. I can do that. I also think a new chapter with links to internet resources would really help. Would anyone be interested in hosting and maintaining that? The rsb page could link to that site. David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Switters wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:17:24 GMT, allegedly wrote: Great idea. Would you be willing to help a little? I think a link to rsb on every page is a good idea. I can do that. I also think a new chapter with links to internet resources would really help. I maintain the FAQ for rec.skiing.snowboard, having taken over from Mark Wallace a few years back. It's interesting that the "REALLY IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER STUFF" is practically the same for both of us. I suppose that both were derived from the original alpine FAQ and the text copied verbatim. Glen Baker maintained the original rec.skiing FAQ. It dates to the late 80s. I haven't seen his name on a post in a long time... In terms of links to the newsgroup, I did this for the front page and for one of the questions, so it's visible when someone visits the front page but didn't require me to go and change things all over. I was thinking that I could do this with a script that would search for rsb and add a link to the group. In terms of links to other resources, I found this a labour intensive section. People remove their sites, new ones pop up all the time or the content changes to something that you don't necessarily want to recommend. For me, I'm winding down that section, with links to the CSAC and a few others that I hope won't move. It's now down to 5 links. At the end of the day, google is a better resource for stuff like that. IMHO. Yep. The hut list is the same. When the list was originally composed, time dated information was intentionally avoided. Links turn out to be very fluid. For maintenance, I tend to update it once or twice a year when sat in airports waiting for a flight. Keeps me out of trouble. There's an idea! David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The posted information is very useful and should not be lost. Thank you to
the poster Perhaps a backcountry equipment seller could help out some way on the financial support end.. I know there is a lot of work in maintaining a web site; but the solutions to the problems are in the hands of the web-engineers. In my experience, few backcountry skiers are able to edit web pages. Anyway my experience is that there's very little connection between discussion and static web content. A person posting to a discussion has negative interest in wanting to learn that somebody else put up a web page three years ago that already addresses that same topic five times better than their current post. Ken |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , Kurt Knisely wrote: In article , shields says... In my experience, few backcountry skiers are able to edit web pages. I guess it depends upon where you live and who you ski with, but many of the BC skiers I know are Software Engineers and design web pages and backend systems for a living. It's not rocket science. David, I'm willing to help, but it would be nice to get a better consensus as to what everyone wants? _ Do we really even need a FAQ any more? There's not much very frequent about anything on this group.... _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBQ3ux0GTWTAjn5N/lAQF8uQQAkHUu1l76fd7mCHpXWhrrvSdB8Q3VWA+B 4wkbKy72PYNl0nYNNvs4MosQMDsWXAP567fQraWBWt3YgT8OHK beWgc+kQZbgRpA 5FxMWyBNBw/DwAcU78OyH7IUbyEnCt195KAFdiceMmO1kBqzM+a2/XxqLqujv/4p taPRd8kJa4g= =hRXw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
shields wrote:
Perhaps a backcountry equipment seller could help out some way on the financial support end. ... few backcountry skiers are able to edit web pages. It just takes time, which is in short supply. Kurt wrote David, I'm willing to help, but it would be nice to get a better consensus as to what everyone wants? Thanks... Booker wrote: Do we really even need a FAQ any more? There's not much very frequent about anything on this group.... The bottomline question. I think Ken's suggest to link the newsgroup to the page is good. I also think his suggestion to leave it as published content is good and that doesn't take any effort from anyone. The only page that I use but can't keep up is the huts page. I offered it to Mitch, but I haven't heard from him. David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|