kamara

It's time for editing of *that* FAQ again. here.

Blah blah. New style live. Variable Flow. Needs adding to FAQ 171. I can do it. But plz to be reviewing this. And especially pay attention to what I'm gibbering on about at the bottom plzkthx.

( Read more... )

Problematic categories.
Variable flow has some options that FAQ 171 lists as only being available to paid accounts, when in VF they're available to free users. These are:
ENTRY BOX RESIZING

This has happened before with userpics on recent view, which is *still* showing as a paid only feature. When in fact some S2 layouts support the display for free users. In the past this has been discussed but because no suitable phrasing or markings (# for you need paid account to do this option, and @ this is a paid account layout). There needs to be an option of something like "&" to denote that "Only paid users can use this particular feature in this particular layout. But others in this list allow it for free users! So check it out!!111" kinda thing. That make sense? Want me to make this a new post? :p

mercuriosity

[	mood	|	tired	]
[	music	|	what good this deafness~trans-siberian orchestra	]

So FAQ 95 (What are keywords? How do I use a different user picture?) was recently updated to reflect the existence of user picture comments, and now contains the following sentence:

If you wish to credit the creator of a user picture, you should do so in the user picture's comments, not its keywords.

Maybe it's just me, but as a creator of userpics myself, this sentence bothers me.

First, it could be confusing: it doesn't explain why giving credit in comments is preferable, unless you follow the "Further Reading" link to FAQ 206. And by implying that giving credit in the keywords is, for some reason, undesirable, it could puzzle a lot of users who can't yet use comments. (Worst-case scenario: It could lead to users not crediting at all, rather than credit in keywords, although I should hope most people would be smart enough not to do this.)

(And in any event, I've never noticed that crediting in the keywords is terribly difficult, even with the new restrictions; it only takes up one keyword to say "by exampleusername." But that's beside the point.)

Second, and IMO more important, it appears to take control away from userpic creators. Most icon artists have something to the effect of "Credit in the keywords" in their rules of usage, and the FAQ basically says not to do that. True, many artists will probably revise their rules as comments begin to be used, but at the moment there's a disparity. Furthermore, I think artists should still have the prerogative to set rules for the use of their icons, including where to give credit (although I'm sure most, like myself, will embrace the usefulness of comments). And again, it could confuse the reader: "X says to give credit in the keywords, but the FAQ says I'm not supposed to! Wah!"

I know that this is hardly a major issue, but I'd really appreciate anyone taking the time to consider it. Perhaps a bit of context would help explain where I'm coming from: I'd been looking at several icon journals, and seeing "Please credit in the keywords" all over the place, so when I read FAQ 95 and saw the above sentence, I said, "Whoa, what?" It seemed to imply that icon creators were doing something wrong by asking users to credit in the keywords, which disturbed me.

I think we could do without the sentence, but I understand why it was added, so here's my suggested revision.

( Read more... )

What think you?

livredor

OK, so this is my first ever attempt to write a FAQ. There seems to be some debate about whether this is even needed, and I know it needs a lot of editing. It's way too verbose; it needs to be rho-ified, for a start! But hopefully it will get the ball rolling, and I'm thick-skinned when it comes to criticism.

( draft FAQ )

Edited to add: Can someone write an abusey bit, please? I want to say something about 'We can't necessarily do anything about it if someone is being mean to you. The Abuse team will only deal with violations of the terms of service.'

teshiron

• [link] Title of FAQ 184 changed to "How do I play a phone post? What are Ogg Vorbis files (.ogg)?"
  
  
• [link] FAQs 5 and 38 combined into a new version of FAQ 38, "What are the different account types?" FAQ 56 rewritten to make it much more useful for users who don't have a clue what LiveJournal is.
  
  
• [link] FAQ 119 updated with new, revised text, making it clearer and more concise. Title was changed to "How do I edit or delete an entry in a community?"
  
  
• [link] FAQ 131 updated to list which features are available to all paid accounts, and which do not apply to paid community accounts.
  
  
• [link] FAQ 80 updated to remove a confusing sentence instructing maintainers of a closed community to change to a moderated or open community to add members. Sentence was replaced with a suggestion that they invite the user.
  
  
• [link] Title of FAQ 14 changed to "Why can't I use scripting languages (such as JavaScript) or embed objects (such as Flash) on LiveJournal?" to clarify what the FAQ covers.
  
  
• [link] A redundant link to FAQ 2 was removed from FAQ 40. During the edit, the FAQ was also changed to "further reading" format.
  
  
• [link] In FAQ 125, the link to /news.bml was replaced with a link to the userinfo page for news.
  
  
• [link] The paragraph in FAQ 104 stating that you can provide the links to your journal to friends or put them in profiles, but also disclaiming LiveJournal Support's responsibility for assisting with such, has been removed.
  
  
• [link] FAQ 156 was changed to basically state that comment times are not consistent across journals, and also vary by style system.
  
  
• [link] A few sentences explaining the restrictions on /tools/emailmanage.bml were added to FAQ 19.

aajwind

Seeing as FAQ 61 is on my list of assigned FAQs to simplify/modify, rho contacted me about modifying it according to recent discussions and simplifying it in the process. I am also posting this here because there are changes that require The Huddled Masses to look over and discuss as opposed to exlusively simplification-related changes. I included a list of the modifications I made, as is custom with our policies elsewhere, so you can disregard it if it confuses or annoys you. :) All input is welcome and encouraged.

( FAQ Draft )

Edit: As per rho's comment, I've rearranged a bunch of stuff and added a bunch more stuff. Not documenting these changes because I don't wanna. :)

( Changelog )

jayo

For example, the News journal (http://www.livejournal.com/news.bml) is a closed shared journal to which only staff may belong, but anyone can and should watch it, because its entries announce events and issues that are relevant to the entire LiveJournal community.

lj_test

• helpscreening's description as "a place where people without Support privileges can post and ask questions to get advice and feedback" is misleading. The community isn't just for screened volunteers, interims post there too if not to support_interim. I also believe the description should clarify that advice and feedback will only be given on your answers or other support policies, and that policy clarifications and helpful hints on how to respond to issues are also posted there by supporthelps.


• "* howto: Contains tutorials on customizing the journals of both paid and free users using overrides and styles using the S1 style system." Wow, that sentence looks icky. Barring objections, I'll reword it (similarly for the s2howto description) to (Edit 19:15) "Contains tutorials on how to customize the journals of both paid and free users, using overrides and custom styles within the S1 style system."

calliste

This FAQ links to FAQ #2 twice in a row ( see for yourself )

Why not put it like this, or something along those lines? ( suggested change )