Re: Interactive Doc Comments - Their Future? - Mailing list pgsql-www
| From | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Interactive Doc Comments - Their Future? |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwe_kSGiAuweUF+HUu0ZDH9nOnQkKiR6iZLmMQxAAJGcw@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Interactive Doc Comments - Their Future? ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: Interactive Doc Comments - Their Future?
(Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Interactive Doc Comments - Their Future? (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
| List | pgsql-www |
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Jonathan S. Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
We have a section on our website for "interactive" documentation, where people can submit their comments on the documentation, and a moderator will go and approve them. Somehow I've become the de facto moderator, which I have no problem with. However, I have noticed an interesting pattern with the doc comments that are submitted - they all tend to fall into a few categories:
1. Document spelling / indexing corrections
2. Feature Requests
3. Requests for clarification
4. Advice for the reader
5. Statements that are just plain wrong
In my experience, a lot of othem fall under either #5, or under the category of repeating something that's already on the page.
The only guidelines we have for submitting interactive docs are as such:
"Please use this form to add your own comments regarding your experience with particular features of PostgreSQL, clarifications of the documentation, or hints for other users. Please note, this is not a support forum, and your IP address will be logged. If you have a question or need help, please see the faq, try a mailing list, or join us on IRC. Note that submissions containing URLs or other keywords commonly found in 'spam' comments may be silently discarded. Please contact the webmaster if you think this is happening to you in error."
Currently I try to handle these scenarios as such:
#1, sometimes #3 - relay to someone working on docs
#2, #5 - reject
#4 - approve if it seems relevant, otherwise reject
So this begs a few questions:
* What are the goals for having the interactive docs around?
* Are they actually useful?
*Is it something we wish to maintain on the website?
* If we do remove them, do we want to have better guidance on the static docs on where to submit corrections / feature requests / etc?
My personal thoughts from reading what is submitted is that the doc comments are not that useful and should be removed, but we should be able to make it easy for people to submit thoughts to -docs or other avenues to get submissions in, particularly when they are on a particular document page.
But of course, I think this would make for a good discussion :-) So - what, if anything, should we do with the interactive docs?
They're not particularly interactive today. They're a one way submission, and then a moderator.
Perhaps what we could do is replace them with something that works like the bug report form. So instead of submitting a comment into a static space, they turn into an email to the -docs list, which can then get discussion around it and eventually turn it into a modifications for the actual docs?
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/