AIWS, the sections in the all-in-one user guide include, but are not limited to, sections about site UI, special pages, tagging, what is appropriate as a question and as an answer, how to write a good title, how to format properly, what correct typography looks like, and what meta and chat are for.
I don't have a good vision of what FAQ's for veteran users will look like, but they'd contain a lot of links.
They'd prolly introduce useful sites and pages they didn't know of, and some meta.SE or meta.SO pages on how to do cool stuff.
The 'Hidden points of editing' meta post was a success, and the tips are actually very good.
It's pretty clear what the meta post for writing canonicals will look like. It will follow dainty bounce's style.
Questions that fit a certain criteria, but are too broad, will be candidates for canons.
The last option that just occurred to me is inspired by a situation we have on ELL.
To make a long whining short, ELL's tagging system is a hell.
So I thought of fixing it, but whenever you retag a question with a bad tag, another bad tag pops up.
That made me think, and I have a vision of a post, a series of posts or whatever that can contain info that contains the vision we have of tags.
How broad or narrow should they be?
If we're to allow few meta tags, what will those tags distinguish?
They are questions a clear mind on tags will answer.
And with such a vivid outlook, no bad tag can easily sneak in and gain popularity.
It's a very strong answer to most tagging problems in the future, but since it'll be a first, we need to first figure out how to pull such a thing off.
Do we want a tag hierarchy?
Do we want a system of a few large tags that the smaller tags redefine and specify?
50 mins ago, 42 minutes total –
52 messages,
3 users,
0 stars
Bookmarked just now
by M.A.R.