1

There should be no reason to have and maintain as a living tag. Certainly not to continue pasting a boilerplate into questions themselves explaining the tag's usage.

Yes, it spawned out of wanting to create community FAQs, but this is already served by the frequent tab which is driven by links and references from actual use. Not by decree or one person but by the Super User community.

is also redundant when you look at all the questions that are on the frequent tab.

The tag's use is also primarily for those who want to look for a master question to mark duplicates against. As such, it's not useful for new users as a point of reference. A new user would not search for "community-faq" when their problem is about low battery usage. They'd search for "battery" or "batteries".

If we need to track which question(s) best cover or explain whatever problem is out there, then it should be part of the tag wiki.

The virus tag wiki has been made one of those kinds of examples. A use case designed for such.

It's of the community and of the site and not just a dump explaining what the tag is, but how to best use the tag. And here, one of the best uses of the tag is the drill down over to the master reference list that duplicates might be caught as.

  • 2
    That virus tag wiki is an excellent example of a good useful tag wiki. All the community-faq does is pull together some completely disparate questions together so that they can be used to close new similar questions and as such is the definition of a meta tag. It serves no other purpose that I can see. It's pointless to new users who want answers to their problems. If we've been culling meta tags for being too vague, undescriptive and unhelpful (to "normal" users) then this should go with them as it sits in the same bucket. – Mokubai Mar 22 '15 at 10:44
  • 1
    I'm for killing this, the tags have remained untouched for years. I was one of the people who were for this, but now it's just lying in ruins – Sathyajith Bhat Mar 22 '15 at 17:51
1

Canonical Q&A

It doesn't make sense to not have a collection of canonical Q&A that is easy to find, and easy to find the specific question within. It would be great if newcomers to the site could access the information in an intuitive way to see if their question is already answered. Short of that, more experienced users should be able to find these to suggest a starting point for the OP and to close duplicates. It would be great if access to this was through a tab on the main page. But we don't have this.

What we have is an arcane index system that no newcomer would understand and only the most experienced users are fluent at using. It requires a coded, multi-parameter search, often followed by reviewing numerous questions to find the applicable one.

Community-faq

Community-faq was an attempt to at least label the canonical Q&A, and since there aren't that many entries, it isn't too hard to scan through them (or add another search parameter). However, there aren't that many of the common questions that have received definitive answers and been tagged. So community-faq is not a good solution, at least now (and never will be if we close it).

Frequent Tab

The "frequent" tab is pretty good. But it exists only for tags, not for search terms. I have no idea what "links" means, and can't find a definition (citations? views? identified as a duplicate?), but it conveys a general sense of relevance. It can't be combined with search terms.

Search

For search terms, you could use the "votes" tab to get close, although there is a lot of noise because definitive answers aren't always heavily upvoted, and the oddest posts often become wildly popular.

Tag Wiki

Using the tag wiki, like the virus example, could eventually be useful, at least for experienced users; no newcomer would think to look there. But until most of the canonical Q&A is listed in the wikis, nobody will bother to look there. Plus, this is tied to single tags, which are often much broader than search terms.

Conclusion

So getting back to community-faq, yeah, it's a lousy meta tag. It's the worst solution except for all of the others. And it does have several advantages. You can combine it with other search terms, and it is easy to add questions to the collection using the existing infrastructure.

Recommendation

Right now, we don't have a good solution implemented for canonical Q&A. My suggestion is to pick a solution and develop it. In the meantime, encourage building the community-faq collection, like DragonLord recently started to do. When we have a good solution, the community-faq will be a ready-made collection to populate it.

  • 1
    With how you describe the use of the tag, how would that not be the same as "you must read this list before going further into the site"? If a user wants the answer to securely wiping an HDD, why should they care that it has a meta tag, when the quality of the Q&A would show if it's worth reading or not? – random Mar 23 '15 at 13:07
  • @random: I agree that a new user isn't going to use a meta tag to find canonical answers. Short of an easy access tab for easy to find standard answers, there isn't a good solution for new users. Searching for those answers can be a challenge for any user who isn't fluent in using the search options. Right now, we don't have a great solution for most users, new or otherwise. My suggestion is to delay closing community-faq until a good solution is in place, and encourage building the collection there; it's a way to more quickly ID those answers without re-reviewing many relevant ones each time. – fixer1234 Mar 23 '15 at 16:16
  • 1
    Part of the discussion is to put a stop to adding more questions under the tag. Eventually to remove it, but to say we shouldn't delete the tag as we work out a better solution, to then go and add boilerplates and tags to more questions seems like creating clutter for later on. – random Mar 23 '15 at 16:24
  • @random: A little more clutter later, but a better working solution until then. It's a tradeoff. Plus, we will then already have identified/created more canonical Q&A to populate the eventual solution. – fixer1234 Mar 23 '15 at 16:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .