Comments | lj_userdoc: site

burr86 in lj_userdoc

site_nav

Jun 24, 2006 20:43

No content changes were harmed in the tweaking of these FAQs. And pardon the slightly snarky commentary. *g*

FAQ132: removed the extraneous "here's where to find the 'browse options' link, despite the fact that we already gave you this link two lines up" paragraph. Cleaned up the organization a bit, too.

FAQ186: de-assed the FAQ entirely, removed ( Read more... )

faq60, cat-notifs, cat-features, status-resolved, cat-accounts, faq249, cat-customize, faq132, faq264, faq186, faq159, faq70, cat-entries, faq47

Comments 9

0vary June 25 2006, 01:53:00 UTC

thanks for de-assing the FAQ 186 :x

jai_dit June 25 2006, 09:17:36 UTC

Hmm, maybe move all the security level stuff to 49 and just mention "memories can have security levels" as a link to it or something?

The Tags FAQ category only has 4 FAQs. It might work to make a Memories FAQ cat and split up 47+49 into about 4 or so (basic what are mems, adding, editing/deleting, mem categories), or possibly to combine them with the Tags cat as something like "Finding Old Entries" (yes, I know that's a horrible title. maybe someone more creative can come up with something. "Tags and Memories" might work, too.)

burr86 June 26 2006, 02:50:32 UTC

Heh, and I was actually thinking of consolidating the Tags FAQs into one or two. Your first suggestion is closer to what I was thinking of, though.

bridgetester June 26 2006, 04:18:12 UTC

It might be worth it to have a "security levels" faq in general, with examples of how that applies to to-do, memories, entries, tags? :/ Hmm. that could get long though.

bridgetester June 27 2006, 13:41:16 UTC

The main way to fix the Memories FAQ is to change the way memories work. ;)

ymf June 27 2006, 08:00:38 UTC

out of curiosity, what was that bit on not stealing other users' interests again?

burr86 June 27 2006, 08:28:06 UTC

something like, "please don't steal people's interest unless you're actually interested in it".

FAQ 47 wyntarvox June 28 2006, 10:32:34 UTC

Do we really need the comment and calendar view sections under adding memories? Don't most (all?) styles have permalinks (link to an entry's comment page that appears regardless of whether or not comments are enabled) these days?

Do we really need to have the manual method of adding memories? That seems a little over-the-top to have in the FAQ. As a comparison, we don't document the manual URL for adding a friend, so. I guess the argument to keep it is that some S2 styles might not have the add memory button. If we keep it, does the first exampleusername under that section need to actually be a lj-user tag? It would make more sense to leave it as exampleuser to me, because that's what you're replacing in the URL, not a lj-user tag.

I like the idea of moving the securities to 49. With that gone, and tidying up the above, it'll make the FAQ less gross. I'm not really sure what else we can do.

Re: FAQ 47 wyntarvox June 28 2006, 10:33:40 UTC

Err, pretend I said exampleusername.