discuss: the good the bad and the ugly
Subject:
Re: the good the bad and the ugly
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
23 Nov 2003 18:56:39 -0000
Message-Id: <20031123185606.GA386@lafn.org>
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:47:17AM -0700, doug jensen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:40:22AM +0530, rahul wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 November 2003 08:42, Tabatha Marshall wrote:
> > > There are many components that make up a good document.
> >
> > Technical reviewing is much more harder because it is likely to diversified.
> > So we will have to rely on public feedback. We need to work on getting more
> > feedback. This is what a content management system or wiki would give us. It
> > would enable us the framework to receive very quick feedback. Today I dont
> > have a way to determine the quality of these docs. No statistics. which of
> > the docs are being read more?. which of these docs are ignored. How do users
> > feel about it. They will have to email the author for feedback which isnt the
> > quick way to do it. We need the framework and we need it now.
>
> How about making a symlink for documents at tldp site that are under review.
Does HTML have symlinks? Symlinks are for Linux file systems. HTML has
links of course but they are not symlinks. Most people use HTML that
visit our site.
> Instead of going directly to the document, there would be an short
> interm page that asks that the user send feedback to tldp, then have a
> link from there to the real document. The symlinked page could be
> something like:
> This document is currently under review by The Linux Documentation
> Project. As part of the review process, your feedback is needed.
> After reading the document, please write a short but informative
> review and send it to ####@####.####
There is so much review work to do that it's important to take shortcuts
in reviewing, especially for new submissions. Sort of like with Al Devs
stuff, we should just take a sampling of it. I know we didn't call this
a review but it was at least a sampling review. If the density of
mistakes (mistakes per page, etc.) is too high, then it should go back
to the author for rewrite. If it looks good, then the reviewer would
read the whole document.
Wouldn't an informative review be longish rather than short? The review
needs to be sent to the review team rather than discuss. Perhaps just
to one person who volunteers to handle these.
> On the subject line of
> your email please put "User Review: <name of document>". Reviews
> that concentrate on the technical accuracy of the document will be
> the most useful. The review period for this document will end on
> << some date >>. Thanks for your help.
>
> << link back to real document >>
For existing docs, there is no set review period. For a new doc, it
needs to be published just as soon as it passes review which also means no
set review period.
David Lawyer
