getmusicbee.com
General => General Discussions => Topic started by: hiccup on November 28, 2020, 05:58:19 PM
-
There is a large amount of questions and issues being posted on the forum that have been asked, addressed and answered many times before.
To this day it takes a lot of new MusicBee users time and effort to ask for help, and a lot of experienced and contributing forum members time and effort in answering, explaining, and providing a variety of links to related issues and solutions.
What—in my opinion—could be very helpful to make this easier both on new MusicBee users, and on experienced contributing members, is if there would be a forum board called something like:
MusicBee's Ultimate Resource of Common Questions, Issues and Problems, and their Answers and Solutions
Yes, a lot of words, but google-search friendly ;-)
There could be several dedicated threads residing under it, such as:
Album grouping issues
tracks of an album are split-up
folders not displayed correctly
Artwork display issues
wrong artists
wrong albumart
Audio issues
no sound
bad sound
loudness
audio formats
neighbours
Backup issues
save settings
restore settings
Layout issues
what's the skin layout on MusicBee's main page?
how to restore or save a layout
Library issues
missing files
count discrepancy
MusicBee installation
Store, Full install or Portable?
MusicBee update issues
Store version
Installer version
Portable version
Operating system questions
Windows
Linux
Commodore 64
Playback order issues
random is not random
Playlist issues
incorrect order
Portable devices issues
Android
Apple
Tags and tagging issues
custom tags
virtual tags
compatibility with other software
rating tags
Undesired behaviour of MusicBee
MusicBee altering files
MusicBee accessing internet
MusicBee flirting with my wife
Virus warning issues
Microsoft
Avast
Coughing
- - -
These are just some impulsively chosen categories and wordings, only picked to present the general idea.
If this gets any support, it would be good if a more sensible and complete structure could be decided on.
So...
The idea is to have a new forum board (MusicBee's Ultimate Resource of Common Questions, Issues and Problems, and their Answers and Solutions) containing separate threads per subject.
(such as the ones suggested above, printed in a bold font)
The start post of each thread should be dynamic, and updated to the latest available information and answers.
Thinking ahead; if this idea gets support and gets implemented, it would be good if the start post of each 'issue' thread could be edited and improved on by any forum member that has a certain experience/knowledge/track-record, and a drive to contribute and improve things.
I am not sure if SimpleMachines allows for this, but if it does, it shouldn't be difficult for the moderators to decide whether or not to grant such editing powers to a member. (or revoke it when thing turn bad)
The bar for members allowed to do this probably shouldn't be set too high either.
Anyone volunteering for this task is probably already on 'the good side'.
Thoughts?
-
A good idea. Since, as you say, we're seeing a lot of repeat questions. It would be like a MegaFAQ.
What I see as the main downside to this, aside from it being a massive project (IMO) is that it will be under utilized. Much the same as how almost no one looks the very helpful hint, when posting a message, that tells exactly how to include a screenshot. It's just not read. (Hmmm ... as much as I hate the <blink> tag in HTML, maybe we should use it for the screenshot hint.)
My feeling is that new users (especially) are in too much of a hurry to get MB working as they expect. And don't want to search the forum when they can simply create a post asking for help. Granted that with the MegaFAQ there exists the potential for the new user to get an instant answer. But they're just not going to search for it when they can post. (And then complain when they haven't gotten a reply in an hour.)
-
While phred is right that the typical new user is unlikely to go to this type of area for answers, it is still a great idea for the simple reason that it would give the rest of us the ability to just post a link to the complete, community-accepted answer in response rather than having to write a "new" response to the same question over and over again.
In other words, they probably still won't find it, but at least we'll know where the answers are and can easily link to them. As a bonus, repeated links to these accepted answers will raise their rank in Google as search results.
That is miles ahead of the current FAQ, where I don't think you can even post a link directly to an answer or even a section of it.
-
it would give the rest of us the ability to just post a link to the complete, community-accepted answer in response rather than having to write a "new" response to the same question over and over again.
Yes, a valid point.
-
You all realize this is exactly what the wiki is for, right? A centralized place for people to find or link to answers. It can be edited/updated by anyone so it can stay current and is much easier to search and navigate than the forum.
-
I've got pihole and never see them, but isn't the wiki a bombardment of advertising and tracking links? I know when I look at my pihole log after loading a page there it's a sea of red (blocked).
I think people, including me, are more likely to want to stay "in house."
-
You all realize this is exactly what the wiki is for, right? A centralized place for people to find or link to answers. It can be edited/updated by anyone so it can stay current and is much easier to search and navigate than the forum.
I don't think it would be the same as the wiki at all.
The wiki is a great source of information, and it is very valuable as a resource to find and learn 'how things work'.
I frequently consult it myself to find information that 'I forgot' and would take me a lot of time to search my brain or the forum for.
But I don't think it's main focus is 'solving and answering common questions and issues'.
And I don't think it's much community-driven.
That's not a negative. Better a single well-informed and focussed maintainer than a rowdy crowd.
My proposal for a new forum board is intended and targeted at users and members that are comfortable with, and used to the forum, and maybe are not aware, don't stumble upon, or are not able or motivated to contribute to the wiki.
Also, one of this proposed new board's objectives is to be some honeypot to catch the most commonly occurring questions, issues and bugs that have already been asked and answered many, many times, and have it provide well explained and up-to-date answers to them.
So both the wiki and this proposed board have their own specific value, usage, and contributors, and any information available in either still can and will be assimilated, strengthened and improved between the both of them.
edit:
This is an edited post that is different from what I originally posted.
The intention and thoughts behind it are the same, but I think it is better worded.
My apologies to frankz, who's response now is to a posting that is not here anymore.
(hopefully he still agrees... )
-
Yeah, I second that. I hope no one takes my Wiki comments as anything other than a criticism of Fandom itself. The actual content of the Wiki is and has been very useful.
Spitballing here - Wiki software is open source and available to use by everyone. Would the best-of-both-worlds approach be to have a Wiki area here at home base? Does anyone know if it's hard / time consuming to set up and maintain the code on a site. I did it a long time ago on my local machine to goof around with it and it didn't seem especially technical, but that was with one user (me) and very light demand on the system.
-
I think this is a good idea. It could be a board where regular users can't post new topics and only replies are allowed? The most active of us could manually scrape the established boards for topics that contain answers to common questions and send them as links under the various categories to the moderators to either move to this new board and/link to. Things would be immensely more tidy. Would there be a way to display a message for new posters (or display the message to everyone if not) to check the new board for an answer to the question, or else it will likely go unanswered?
-
I think this is a good idea. It could be a board where regular users can't post new topics and only replies are allowed?
Yes, usually with forums it is possible to appoint moderators that have rights to specific boards only.
So a global moderator could grant any member who is interested in contributing to this 'answers to issues' board moderating rights for that board only.
The moderators could discuss granting access to volunteers by means of PM with other 'senior' members and moderators.
But the principle should be that any member that volunteers for this and has at least some track-record of providing good answers and has some specific knowledge should be accepted as board moderator.
It should be a community driven resource and benefit from that.
The startpost of each thread in this board should aim to contain all available and recent information on the specific topic/issue.
So a user looking for answers and solutions to his issue should always only need to read the startpost.
I agree that only board moderators should be able to create new topic threads.
But all forum members should be allowed to reply and contribute to existing threads in that board.
Many will have good questions or suggestions and will provide useful additional information that is not yet available in the startpost.
Such contributions could be used to improve the content of the startpost by board moderators editing and improving the startpost.
But it should be clear that any reply that is not helpful to that thread, or perhaps lost it's additional value can and will be deleted without much discussion or explanation so to keep the threads clean and concise.
The first (locked) topic should probably be a listing (index) of all issues that have a specific thread in that board, with shortcuts directing to them.
-
Yes, usually with forums it is possible to appoint moderators that have rights to specific boards only.
So a global moderator could grant any member who is interested in contributing to this 'answers to issues' board moderating rights for that board only.
The moderators could discuss granting access to volunteers by means of PM with other 'senior' members and moderators.
But the principle should be that any member that volunteers for this and has at least some track-record of providing good answers and has some specific knowledge should be accepted as board moderator.
It should be a community driven resource and benefit from that.
The startpost of each thread in this board should aim to contain all available and recent information on the specific topic/issue.
So a user looking for answers and solutions to his issue should always only need to read the startpost.
I agree that only board moderators should be able to create new topic threads.
But all forum members should be allowed to reply and contribute to existing threads in that board.
Many will have good questions or suggestions and will provide useful additional information that is not yet available in the startpost.
Such contributions could be used to improve the content of the startpost by board moderators editing and improving the startpost.
But it should be clear that any reply that is not helpful to that thread, or perhaps lost it's additional value can and will be deleted without much discussion or explanation so to keep the threads clean and concise.
The first (locked) topic should probably be a listing (index) of all issues that have a specific thread in that board, with shortcuts directing to them.
Agree with all the above. Even temporary moderator access to trusted members for the process of moving common questions to the new board could work. There are currently four hundred fifty pages on the Questions board. If there were ten volunteers, forty-five pages could be split among each person in order to accomplish the clean up. In addition, moving relevant posts from the Bug Reports board could also be in play?
Honestly, my OCD has been itching for this kind of thing to happen for a while now. Lol
-
I am happy to set up such a board and assign moderators for the people volunteering. Let me know what you want it called and whether Tips and Tricks should remain a separate board.
-
Yes, usually with forums it is possible to appoint moderators that have rights to specific boards only.
So a global moderator could grant any member who is interested in contributing to this 'answers to issues' board moderating rights for that board only.
The moderators could discuss granting access to volunteers by means of PM with other 'senior' members and moderators.
But the principle should be that any member that volunteers for this and has at least some track-record of providing good answers and has some specific knowledge should be accepted as board moderator.
It should be a community driven resource and benefit from that..
When/if this structure is created, I would be happy to volunteer for this on the subject of radio streams. IMO Tips and Tricks should remain a separate board for now, subject to change as the new board fleshes out.
-
Maybe something like:
Answers and solutions to common questions and issues
Explanations on most FAQ's — not intended for asking questions!
I also think that Tips and Tricks should remain.
It's very useful for providing suggestions on how things can be done that are not problems or issues, and other users may never have thought of.
There will be threads in there that may be better suited for this new board. Perhaps over time those could selectively be moved to it. Or some of it's content used and copied to threads in the new board.
-
Can we be clear on what the boundaries are with the Wiki?
I see the Wiki as like a user manual where a new user can read and learn from scratch how to use MusicBee, where-as what is being proposed in this new board is a collection of common problems users have and what the solution might be.
How do others see the distinction?
-
Can we be clear on what the boundaries are with the Wiki?
This new board would have the main objective to provide answers and solutions to problems and issues that users have, which have been asked and answered at least a couple of times before, and seem (to become) common.
It should not be a gather-all source of broader and general information. (which is sort of what the wiki is like)
The board's subtitle makes that clear, and the board moderators should make sure it stays that way.
Surely there will be overlap between the forum and the wiki, but I don't see any problems with that.
There already is an enormous amount of overlap between the two, and information has been, and is being copied and pasted between the two.
I have never seen worries or complaints about that.
So both have their own value.
I am not much supportive of setting more 'clear boundaries' or restrictions.
P.S.
One way of how this board could grow and improve very rapidly is:
When a new member asks a question that doesn't yet have an answer/solution to be found in this board, the experienced member that is willing and able to answer it, then creates the answer in this new board, and then posts the link to it.
Or he finds the answer in an already existing post elsewhere, and uses that information to create an answer/solution in the new board.
This will be a much more dynamic and community-driven way of improving support and problem-solving.
edit:
One probably useful 'instrument' that would work as some filter to make sure that only suitable topics are created here would be to give the board a structure with categories and titles that are formatted in a way you should always be able to imagine the word 'issue' or 'problem' behind it.
e.g.:
Audio - streaming [issues]
Audio - volume [issues]
Albums - sorting and grouping [issues]
Lyrics - retrieving and displaying [problem]
etc.
If one intends to create a new post, but can't imagine the words 'issue' or 'problem' behind the title, it probably shouldn't be there.
-
In trying to make the most of the momentum we seem to have, I have taken my initial and very rough proposal for possible topics for this board, and tried to improve it by creating a better hierarchical structure for it, and improve it in some other aspects.
For one I tried to reduce the amount of main categories to an absolute minimum so that navigating will be easy and inviting, without the necessity for scrolling through the page a lot.
(or even scrolling at all, depending on your screen resolution)
For now I was able to restrict it to 10 topics.
It could be less if some could perhaps be integrated into one, and some may not even be needed if there are no common issues that justify them having a place in this board.
But maybe others feel it would be better to have a larger amount of main topics for separate issues instead of this more condensed hierarchical approach?
Some entries read a bit clumsy/may be somewhat inconsistent within the structure/may have spelling errors, etc. etc., but I think it is good enough to be helpful as a next step and gather more input and opinions to help improving it.
I am also sure I overlooked some categories that also have their commonly asked questions and issues.
So... ideas and suggestions?
---
The first one is not about issues, but it explains the board itself.
The others are for actual faq's on problems and issues.
The ones that would benefit from splitting/refining into child boards have those right under them after the > sign.
When you read and evaluate topics, do imagine the word 'issues' at the end of each line.
If you can't imagine it, it's probably not a good topic for this board.
About this board — it's purpose / contributing / good practices
Audio — playback and streaming
> audio playback — quality / formats / volume
> audio streaming — UPnP/DNLA / network
Layout and interface
> layout / panels / skins
> mouse / keyboard / interface
Library — audio files / library file
> audio files — importing / missing / duplicates
> library file
Music files — tagging / metadata / grouping / cd-ripping
> tagging / metadata / cd ripping
> artwork / play count
> Lyrics
> sorting / grouping
MusicBee program — installation / responsiveness
> installation
> updates
> cpu / network / harddisk / responsiveness
Operating systems — Windows / other OS'es
> Windows — system requirements / integration / files and folders
> Other OS'es
Playlists — formats / compatibility
Portable audio players — syncing / compatibility
Virus warnings — Microsoft / other
Web services — metadata retrieval / podcasts / scrobbling
> Podcasts
> Radio
> LastFM scrobbling
> Soundcloud
-
I will set something up on the weekend. I don't know exactly how to set up the permissions so certain members can edit posts on that board but have an idea
-
Can we be clear on what the boundaries are with the Wiki?
I see the Wiki as like a user manual where a new user can read and learn from scratch how to use MusicBee, where-as what is being proposed in this new board is a collection of common problems users have and what the solution might be.
How do others see the distinction?
Sounds like a good distinction to me.
I am happy to set up such a board and assign moderators for the people volunteering. Let me know what you want it called and whether Tips and Tricks should remain a separate board.
I'm also available to help move topics to the new board.
One way of how this board could grow and improve very rapidly is:
When a new member asks a question that doesn't yet have an answer/solution to be found in this board, the experienced member that is willing and able to answer it, then creates the answer in this new board, and then posts the link to it.
Or he finds the answer in an already existing post elsewhere, and uses that information to create an answer/solution in the new board.
I prefer the second approach, otherwise the new board could potentially become cluttered like the Questions board, which to me is more useful as a unique problem solving board, whereas the new one would be better off containing questions that have been asked over and over again.
For now I was able to restrict it to 10 topics.
It could be less if some could perhaps be integrated into one, and some may not even be needed if there are no common issues that justify them having a place in this board.
But maybe others feel it would be better to have a larger amount of main topics for separate issues instead of this more condensed hierarchical approach?
By "topic," do you mean "post?" If so, sounds good to me. "About this board" and the other categorized posts could be stickies. Are you thinking about moving common questions from the Questions board to the new board and then linking to them from the stickied posts? Or having the answers available within the stickied posts themselves?
-
Can we be clear on what the boundaries are with the Wiki?
I see the Wiki as like a user manual where a new user can read and learn from scratch how to use MusicBee, where-as what is being proposed in this new board is a collection of common problems users have and what the solution might be.
How do others see the distinction?
I agree with this. The wiki is more of a manual, whereas this would be more like a FAQ.
-
…
Here is a long text that I think answers your considerations. (I wasn't in the mood for juggling with quoting blocks ;-)
I don't think it is important what triggers a contributing board moderator to create a new post on a topic.
What is important, is that he doesn't create topics for more basic questions on 'how things work'.
His very first consideration for creating such a new topic should be:
"Is this a known issue/problem that users run into and ask questions about on a regular basis?"
If not, the question can be answered in the questions board, or by providing a link to the wiki or to another post.
About when to answer a forum member's question by creating a new topic in this new board:
These days I myself frequently see questions where I think, "I am not going to respond. That has been asked and answered too many times by now."
With this new board I think in such a case I might be motivated to create a new, relevant topic in this board, and then answer the member that asked the question by providing a link to that new article.
(and I am guessing—hoping—more contributing members will consider doing this)
Either by creating that post from scratch using their own words, or by copying a relevant post or article from another board or the wiki.
—
Board, topic, post, thread, article. Yeah, I suspect I do mix those up once in a while.
(is there perhaps an 'Internet Forums for Dummies' book someone can lend me?)
When I used these terms (possibly incorrect) I intended it in this context:
1. The forum's search engine is not very good. (I think that's a statement most of us will agree upon)
2. It is no fun for a user to scroll through many pages of topics to find the one that is relevant to his question or issue.
(I am amazed how many 'more modern' and 'sophisticated' forums do this. It's contra-productive and annoying as hell)
For these two reasons alone I think it will be good to have a compact and user friendly structure, and keep the number of topics per page limited.
I am not sure about the exact amount, but maybe something like 10 or 15, not much more.
If I recall correctly from my moderator days, and especially from the period were we were testing and experimenting on the
new (now current) forum, the way to do that was by using 'child boards'.
They were not too difficult to setup, so it could be a possibility to grant the board moderators rights to create and edit them.
I can't recall if a child board within a child board can be created though. Current moderators/administrator may have input on this.
By the way, the concept of a limited amount of topics on a page would not apply to the start post of each thread itself.
In my mind the start post would contain all relevant Q's and A's.
(in a well-designed and structured layout though…)
Since at least two levels of filtering already preceded it, I am estimating it wouldn't grow out of control easily.
But if it does, a new child board to split topics probably should be created.
—
But… this is obviously all a lot of theoretical dry-humpin' inside my own head.
In practice things may turnout quite differently, or may work better with a different strategy.
We'll work it out running?
-
With this new board I think in such a case I might be motivated to create a new, relevant topic in this board, and then answer the member that asked the question by providing a link to that new article.
(and I am guessing—hoping—more contributing members will consider doing this)
Either by creating that post from scratch using their own words, or by copying a relevant post or article from another board or the wiki.
Another option, which I've been doing some recently, is merging related threads. I think that's one thing that can help *some* with the forum search. If there are less red herrings for it to find, it might come up with the right answer more often.
-
Another option, which I've been doing some recently, is merging related threads. I think that's one thing that can help *some* with the forum search. If there are less red herrings for it to find, it might come up with the right answer more often.
Yes, that's probably a good thing indeed.
I am imagining that for this board especially, it would be essential that all contributing forum members (=board moderators) work together as bees in a hive.
Copying, pasting, merging, editing, improving grammar, improving layout, etc. etc.
- If somebody makes grammar mistakes, or if a Chinese or French contributor added a great answer, but used goooogle translate to share it, any native-English speaker should be allowed to edit mistakes or correct weird translations.
- If the answer is factually correct and worded without mistakes, but it would be much easier to understand if it was composed in a different way, another moderator should feel free to improve on that without much/any discussion.
- If somebody created a great answer, but his lay-out kinda sucks and it looks a bit messy, another moderator with a keener eye on such matters should be able to improve on it.
- If somebody uses some incorrect specific technical terminology, but the answer as a whole is good, a coder or a digital-audio expert should be able to make corrections on such specifics quickly without explaining or asking for consent.
etc. etc.
So, while it could be a bit difficult for some(me), ego's should probably be left at the door when entering… ;-)
-
Can someone suggest the name for this new board in 1 or 2 words? And description that fits on 1 line
eg.
Common Problems
-
Can someone suggest the name for this new board in 1 or 2 words? And description that fits on 1 line
eg.
Common Problems
MegaFAQ
SuperFAQ
More than Just a FAQ
-
Can someone suggest the name for this new board in 1 or 2 words? And description that fits on 1 line
eg.
Common Problems
WikiBeedia
FAQ/Help Beginners
FAQ/Help Intermediate
FAQ/Help Advanced
-
It's probably better not to use 'FAQ' in the new title?
There already is an FAQ and it could lead to confusion when somebody then would say: 'go see the FAQ'
---
edit…
Just before clicking 'Post' for the above observation, I suddenly realised that I never gave the existing FAQ any thought at all in all this.
But I think we should.
While I don't think any content overlap between this new board and the wiki will be problematic, conflicting overlap between the new board and the existing FAQ could very well become an issue.
So here is a new thought.
It may be a bit rigorous and perhaps controversial to some.
The new board could become the new and extended FAQ.
So not only addressing problems and issues, but also all other and more general FAQ's.
It would then probably be good to transfer the contents of the current FAQ over to the new board, and disassemble the current FAQ.
There would be no rush to do that, but I am sure it wouldn't take a lot of time with some combined effort of the community and moderators.
When that is completed the new forum board could be made the official FAQ, and have all existing FAQ links refer to it.
Then this new forum board could just be titled: FAQ
-
When that is completed the new forum board could be made the official FAQ, and have all existing FAQ links refer to it.
Once the transfer of the 'old' FAQ to the new MegaFAQ is complete, why not just delete the old FAQ? I can only think of two places where it currently exists - the Wiki and the website.
Then this new forum board could just be titled: FAQ
That certainly meets Steven's criteria for one or two words.
-
I think keeping the wiki FAQ but converting it to links would be the most effective approach. I'm always trying to send people to the forum for help anyway.
-
I think keeping the wiki FAQ but converting it to links would be the most effective approach. I'm always trying to send people to the forum for help anyway.
Just for my understanding (it is admittedly a bit unknown territory for me),
I navigated to the FAQ by using the forums 'Help' button at the top.
That page seems hosted on MusicBee's website.
But I now see the FAQ on the wiki and it contains the same info, but it is probably hosted on fandom?
So they are probably dynamically linked and synced?
edit update:
So if I read you correctly, you would support having an all-comprising FAQ on the forum?
And, it could be that Steven would prefer to have some compact FAQ on the website.
We'll see…
-
After digesting and processing the most recent feedback and information; here is a new proposal for a possible structure for this new issues/FAQ board.
It is based on earlier suggestions, but tweaked for the possibility that this new board develops into some 'MegaFAQ'.
And I sprinkled it with some less-is-more seasoning.
Notice that therefor each topic is titled curtly.
Helpful descriptions to each topic can and should be added, but I am not stretching my brain for that at this moment.
There are a couple of things I have doubts about and some topics such as cd-ripping and file format conversion need a place, so input on improvement is welcome.
Each arrow represents a deeper hierarchy (child board)
---
FAQ
> About MusicBee
> About this board
> Frequently asked questions and issues
> MusicBee program
> Installation and system requirements
> Updating
> Languages
> Additional features
> CD ripping
> Format conversion
> Addons and plugins
> Audio
> Bugs
> Interface
> Layout
> Display modes
> Panels
> Skins
> Library
> Audio files
> Library file
> Operating system
> Windows
> Other
> Playlists
> Portable audio players
> Suggestions and requests
> Tagging
> General
> Artwork
> Lyrics
> Technical issues
> Terminology
> Virus warnings
> Web services
> Podcasts
> Radio
> Last.fm scrobbling
> SoundCloud
> Other
-
For me, especially without a reliable search behind it, the structure above has too much stratification with too much drilling down required. For example, are there really enough Soundcloud or Last.fm issues for any one of them to be considered common or frequently asked?
Does virus warning need to be broken out from technical or program? Aren't the warnings always related to either installing or updating?
IMO each plugin and addon does or could already have its own dedicated thread that's already a clearinghouse for questions related to it.
Sorry to have not been more involved to date. It seems I'm being critical and I don't want it to feel that way. I'm slammed under IRL. IMO this should be way flatter. We can always break things out later if the seem to become cross populated with unrelated issues. If it starts out complicated it will be less likely to be be widely adopted.
-
For example, are there really enough Soundcloud or Last.fm issues for any one of them to be considered common or frequently asked?
The structure I suggested is how it could develop if this FAQ becomes filled with a lot of contributions.
I don't mean all these child boards should be created from the get-go. Most of them are probably never needed.
I used them
A. to imagine myself all the sorts of subjects that theoretically could reside in this board.
B. to help myself and others imagining what subjects each higher level topics would cover, so not to possibly oversee something.
C. as keywords that can be used for the subtitle/description of the main boards.
So it could look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/2xBfVxl.png)
Or are you also skeptical about even having a structure of such boards under the main FAQ board at all?
Just have everything flat without any hierarchy?
-
No, no I think having sections is smart. I just think they should be fairly broad and relatively few for usability purposes.
Imagine you're a newer user who doesn't have a problem yet but does want to learn as much as you can about how other people are actually using Musicbee. You go into the "Web Services" area (for example) that you have in your mock-up above. You're presented with some threads that show exactly what seasoned users think is important about the web services MB offers, including workarounds for common issues others have already run into. That's really fun and informative vs. having to drill down into specific granular topics to get to information. Drilling down requires specific interest, while browsing/scanning threads on a topic you're broadly curious about can inspire interest.
-
Too many child boards surely can be counter-productive, but too few can also make it more difficult for a new user.
If he has an issue with podcasts, he would probably be happy to see a child board named 'podcasts'
Or if he has an issue with lyrics, he would start singing if he saw a child board named 'lyrics'
But obviously that is not a realistic option for all possible topics.
The attempt here is to try and find some sensible middle ground.
Here is a suggestion for a more compact initial hierarchy. It conforms with my earlier notion that the amount of topic boards on one page should probably best be limited somewhere around the number of 10 so they are all in view on a computer screen without the need for (much) scrolling.
FAQ
> About MusicBee
> About this board
> Frequently asked questions and issues
> MusicBee program
installation – updates – virus alerts
> Additional features
cd ripping – addons & plugins
> Audio
quality – loudness – formats
> Layout
display modes – panels
> Library
organisation - playlists
> Portable audio players
> Tagging
custom & virtual tags – tagging standards
> Terminology
> Web services
podcasts – radio
Obviously other choices for categories and topics can be made.
This is still a phase of some juggling around with ideas and terminologies, and it will need some improvement and refining for sure.
For example I am not sure with this version where issues with e.g. keyboard-shortcuts, lyrics, artwork retrieval should go.
Any alternative proposals would be interesting to see…
edit:
What is also a factor to consider, is that in my mind the endpoint of these boards is always a thread that in theory only contains one post that contains all issues and answers on the topic. So that post would be constructed and maintained similar to a single document.
That is why in some cases an extra child board will make good sense.
E.g. if there was to be a board called 'Additional features' as above, it would make sense to have it containing two child boards: 'cd-ripping' and 'addons & plugins', because it would be a bit weird to have their answers and issues on them combined in one single post.
-
That's much cleaner, although I'm not sure that "Terminology" needs to be there as all terminology that would be used would relate to one or another of the bolded board topics.
I disagree that each board should ideally only be one post, but maybe I don't understand fully what you're considering a "topic." For me, a topic is an issue. Like under web services, there was an issue a while back about problems with Last.fm integration after changing one's user name. For me, that's a topic. Also, sometimes people have issues with scrobbles not being recorded back in MB correctly. For me, that's another topic. Then there's the question of what fields get sent to last.fm. That's a third topic.
So in my mind it's Web Services as a board
Post: Cannot scrobble after changing last.fm user name
Post: Discrepancy between last.fm scrobbles and synched scrobbles
Post: Unexpected information being sent in last.fm scrobbles
Each of these returned as its own results in Google when searched with relevant keywords. Of course, other topic or issues related to other web services would be mixed in.
It sounds to me like you want
Board: Web Services
Child Board: Last.fm
Post: Common Last.fm problems
Or, after your revision -
Board: Web Services
Post: Common Last.fm problems
I think these will yield what you want when it comes to us being able to copy and paste or point to an answer, but it will not accomplish much in regard to people being able to easily self-serve an answer coming in from the outside without our involvement.
-
I disagree that each board should ideally only be one post..
I imagined it that way because then you would have one single article on a matter that contains all related issues.
And it can be written and designed in a way that makes it easy to read and learn different aspects on the matter without the need to leave that post and find another one that is only pertaining to a single issue.
It could make it a nicer and more informative reading experience compared to finding one of many posts.
Google search can be a factor, but I am not so sure results will be better on separate article titles.
If there is one single post that is complete in addressing all related issues, and therefor will get much more hits and views than separate posts, it will probably be much higher in ranking.
edit:
And a third possible advantage is that this board will be maintained and populated by a couple of board moderators. (a lot I hope)
When there is one post that contains all relevant issues, that post will be viewed and reviewed a lot.
Chances that one of the moderators sees something in that post that can be improved on, by editing mistakes, adding content, improving the layout, etc. are high.
So I am guessing the quality of the content would be(come) higher compared to when there are many different posts where you could miss some overview and not all posts will be viewed and redacted as frequently.
edit2:
My last brainfart for the day: separate posts might increase chances on duplicate or very similar posts, and perhaps more overlap with Tips & Tricks, Questions.
-
Well it'd be up to the editors to prevent duplicates and overlap.
I'd thought that the point was to be able to link users directly to the answer to their specific question. This sounds more like linking them to a post that lists every issue related to that topic, among which is the answer to their question or issue. That's only one step more granular than the monolith FAQ.
Now that I understand better what you're trying to accomplish, I've got to say that I agree with psychoadept that a wiki format would be better than forum posts to perform this function. At least on a wiki you can section it out with links to each section. Not saying the fandom wiki in particular because of the problems I listed before with the ads and tracking on that site, but a local wiki that only approved moderators could edit.
It's your baby, though, and I'm very interested to see how your vision turns out. Whatever format it takes, It'll be miles better than typing "it's a false positive" every few days. :)
-
It's your baby, though…
It's not my baby yet ;-)
It is still just considering putting one on this planet.
With the understanding that there are limitations to how well I am able to oversee all aspects and implications.
Yes, with the implementation that you are thinking of you could create a shortcut link to one specific post that focuses on one specific element of a larger matter.
With my suggestion the link would lead to a larger article that contains the answer. It will ask a little bit more effort for the person looking for the answer, but at the same time he gets presented with much more possibly interesting and useful information on the same matter.
And, the one creating the link can easily include the title of the paragraph or some relevant keywords from that article.
Both approaches will have there pro's and con's.
But... we shouldn't do this at all if the enthusiasm and the confidence in it is low and people that would have to do the job see lots of bears on the road.
It will need to be a community driven effort, and at least a couple of influential and active forum members will need to be enthusiastic and motivated, and have their noses in the same direction.
Maybe it just isn't such a good idea and we should drop it.
-
I have created the board and assigned frankz, psychoadept, phred and hiccup as moderators of that board. Anyone else who want to contribute let me know
-
Unless I'm totally misreading the situation here, transferring 4 page 4 year old threads wholesale is not the intended purpose of this new section.
I thought we were supposed to post answers and solutions, not the entire sausage making process.
-
If you're talking about the virus thread, I can't think of a better candidate for a "common issues" board, especially since that particular one seems to get equally divided between questions and bug reports. Exactly how to handle it is debatable, maybe the first post needs to be updated. And we don't have any child boards yet to file it. But duplicating it completely seems silly.
-
IMO no matter what board or child board the "Virus Alert" post goes under, it should be something like:
==
If you downloaded Musicbee from the official site or from a link provided by the developer or a forum moderator, it is sure to not contain a virus. Any alert you may receive is a false positive.
Musicbee contains binaries from the Bass Audio library. Because of the way these DLL files are compiled, they frequently cause "false positive" results with various virus scanners at various times.
If you are having trouble installing or updating Musicbee due to these false virus warnings, try white-listing the entire directory where your MusicBee installation resides in your anti-virus software. Consult the individual anti-virus software's documentation for instructions on how to do this in your situation.
==
Wording to taste, but copying a 4 page back-and-forth forum thread to the "Answers" board and calling it a day seems antithetical to the mission here.
-
I completely agree with frankz's interpretation here--a blanket covering the whole "but my antivirus said.." issue in one concise post. Suggested inclusion:
"If you downloaded Musicbee or one of its update patches.."
-
@sveakul I have also added you as a moderator of the new board
-
Nice
-
Hmm, that complete copy of a long existing thread is also not what I would do.
This is a chance to create something new that is much cleaner and conciser.
-
I haven't really been following this and never got around to writing a proper reply.
But I see the new forum has already been created, so...
My first thought was that it won't help because people are already asking questions which have been asked many, many times before.
It's rarely a case of them not being able to find the information - they're just too lazy to look in the first place, or they make one half-arsed 30 second search attempt before reposting the same questions.
So it could end up just creating admin work for little benefit.
On the other hand, at least it does it provide an easier way to answer those questions, if it means someone can just post a link to the relevant thread.
Is it possible to make it a read-only forum? I think the best use of the new forum is as a reference only, otherwise what should be your handy dandy go-to response to each question will just become another jumbled mess of updates and answers specific to each new user's set up. The order of the questions will also keep changing, as new posts are made in each thread.
If, after reading the FAQ response, people still think it doesn't cover their specific situation then they can ask in the other forums. If enough people keep asking variations of a question already in the guide, that would be an indication it wasn't answered there properly and should be revised or expanded.
As it is, all you're really doing is giving people a new place to keep re-asking the same questions.
FAQ might not be broad enough as a title, based on the suggested topics. An FAQ is usually a series of questions, each with one short, correct answer. But a lot of things in MusicBee can be approached in multiple ways, depending on each user's specific needs. N00b questions about setting up a library etc. would belong better in something with a name like a MusicBee Beginners' Guide which could have more detailed answers or instructions.
(Also there are now separate forums called FAQ and Questions. A newcomer with a question is not going to know which of those is their best place to start.)
Hmm, that complete copy of a long existing thread is also not what I would do.
This is a chance to create something new that is much cleaner and conciser.
Having seen the new FAQ forum, this is what I actually logged in to write.
That first post there about false virus alerts is an example of the wrong way to do this.
The new forum should be a curated list of the most commonly asked questions, with clear, concise responses to avoid it becoming another seemingly random collection of threads that just looks like every other forum. Otherwise, users with questions still won't be able to find the answers they need and end up just posting the same questions again.
Imagine you're a new user who has just downloaded MusicBee and gets a virus warning.
You're smart enough to know that's probably not right, and find your way here to check.
You see a forum called FAQ and decide that's a good place to start.
So far so good.
There's a thread with virus/trojan in the title. Awesome. That's what I'm looking for. Yay me for finding it. I am awesome. *click*
Hmm. The first post is from 2016... How do I know this information still applies to me in 2020 (and beyond)?
Maybe if I read to the end.. Whoa. This goes on for three pages! I don't have time to read three pages.
I'll just ask again and see if someone can give me an up to date answer...
Aaand we're back we started. :-\
-
Is it possible to make it a read-only forum?
It is read-only.
(well, it should be, could you perhaps test if you can post something in it?)
Only volunteer FAQ board moderators (I see they are titled 'editor') can create and edit posts.
Any forum member that is motivated to contribute so to extend and improve on the FAQ is welcome to request having these rights to this board.
-
Frankz's version of "Virus Alert" is good, very good, however for a genuine newbie experiencing problems, or a new user simply wanting to play their music library, it could create a whole range of questions relating to terminology and how can they resolve the issue in plain and simple steps, with diagrams...
If that can be achieved in one compact section / page / board, then i recon you have a win-win situation..
Freddy
-
It is read-only.
(well, it should be, could you perhaps test if you can post something in it?)
Only volunteer FAQ board moderators (I see they are titled 'editor') can create and edit posts.
Any forum member that is motivated to contribute so to extend and improve on the FAQ is welcome to request having these rights to this board.
I wasn't sure if that was just because the one topic was already locked, but you're right, I can't post a new topic there either.
-
Obviously I'm a little of the mark here. I'll put the other thread back, if no one has yet.
I'm not sure how a post mentioning viruses and trojans would be more scary here than anywhere else in the forum, through. Especially if it was retitled something like "Virus and Trojan alerts: false positives" and the first post was updated with frankz' message.
I mean, even if all the posts are current now, eventually they will be older and the same issue of "is this current?" would arise. That's why I got in the habit of labeling wiki pages with the version used when they were created or updated.
Anyway, I'm not going to be much help right now so I'll step out.
-
Anyway, I'm not going to be much help right now so I'll step out.
We can't do much anyway at this moment.
First the structure of child boards will need to have been setup.
After a structure is agreed on by us we can ask Steven to activate them.
(I briefly looked for it but I don't think we have rights to create/edit child boards)
Then we can start populating them with appropriate articles.
-
@sveakul I have also added you as a moderator of the new board
Thanks Steven I'll help where I can.
-
I have currently configured the FAQ board so users cannot start a topic but they can reply to one created by a board moderator eg. perhaps they want a clarification on something. If it doesnt work out, I can easily make the board read-only to users
-
I have currently configured the FAQ board so users cannot start a topic but they can reply to one created by a board moderator eg. perhaps they want a clarification on something. If it doesnt work out, I can easily make the board read-only to users
That is what I myself in principle would find undesirable for the board I had in mind.
As I wrote before, in my imagination this FAQ board would be a very different experience from the rest of the forum.
In principle there would be no discussion threads in these FAQ child boards.
Each child board would only contain one well-composed and informative article covering the range of issues related to the child board's title.
Similar to the current FAQ:
https://getmusicbee.com/help/faq/
Allowing replies in each child board might be a good idea to get some wider forum participation so to help improve and built it.
But note that I already did create the following board for that exact purpose:
https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=33739.0
Each article in the FAQ child boards would have a link to it. (e.g. at the bottom as a footer).
And it would be in the second post right after each principle article with some explanation.
And it would be in the FAQ's 'about this board' board.
So to be honest I am not very enthusiastic about this.
If replies are going to be allowed in all child boards, instead of in the 'contribute to the FAQ' board, it could be made clear that replies are welcome, but as soon as they are evaluated and possibly used to improve the main article, they will be deleted so to keep the board as thread-less as possible.
I am curious to learn if the other editors and interested forum members share this vision that I have for this board. If not, please speak out.
It would be good if all noses get pointed in the same direction on this.
-
And to say this in less words:
I would like it if this board gets a lot of edits.
I wouldn't like if it needed moderation.
-
I would like it if this board gets a lot of edits.
I wouldn't like if it needed moderation.
Fair enough - I have removed the reply permission for users. It will help keep things clean and on topic.
-
To those invested and interested and trying to imagine how I was imagining things to turn out:
(roughly)
https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=33740.0
This is how I was envisioning more of an 'article' approach, contrary to a 'topics/posts' approach that we obviously all are more used to on the forum.
-
If, after reading the FAQ response, people still think it doesn't cover their specific situation then they can ask in the other forums. If enough people keep asking variations of a question already in the guide, that would be an indication it wasn't answered there properly and should be revised or expanded.
I don't remember if I mentioned this before, but another "NOTE" should be added saying something to the effect of, "If your question is commonly asked and the answer is in the FAQ, it will not be answered (or removed)," when a user goes to make a post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common threads could and should be moved from other boards into whatever their respective threads end up being in the FAQ. This could be done by moving each and every thread to their respective FAQ board, or combining threads with the same question into one thread and then moving it (my preference.) The main priority of the new board is stopping the influx of same question after same question, obviously, but cleaning up the other boards would also make things less of a mess.
-
I hope you new mods don't decide to just ostracize a new member for asking a question, instead of them jumping directly to this part of the forum.
Coogan
-
I hope you new mods don't decide to just ostracize a new member for asking a question, instead of them jumping directly to this part of the forum.
Not including Steven, there are five people allowed to populate the new FAQ section. All are knowledgeable and seasoned users of MB. No forum member will be ostracized for asking questions. If what they're asking is in the FAQ, they will be told to check it. Personally I don't provide links because if/when a person is too lazy to look on their own, I'm not going to do the work for them. This assumes I know the topic is definitely in the FAQ.
-
Common threads could and should be moved from other boards into whatever their respective threads end up being in the FAQ. This could be done by moving each and every thread to their respective FAQ board, or combining threads with the same question into one thread and then moving it (my preference.) The main priority of the new board is stopping the influx of same question after same question, obviously, but cleaning up the other boards would also make things less of a mess.
I thought this was part of the point, too, which is why I immediately thought of the Virus/Trojan thread. It's one that has already been merged a few times to reduced the clutter.
-
IMO Hiccup has obviously thought this through, has a vision for it, and has spearheaded it. While I have made my objection to the proposed format clear, and while I still maintain those objections, I think the sheer amount of work he has put into it affords him the space to see it through in the way he wants to see it through. That vision doesn't include making it a repository or archive for old discussions that a user has to wade through to find their answer.
If it isn't working as intended once he gets it running the way he sees it, at that point I'm sure he'll be open-minded enough to adjust.
-
IMO Hiccup has obviously thought this through, has a vision for it, and has spearheaded it. While I have made my objection to the proposed format clear, and while I still maintain those objections, I think the sheer amount of work he has put into it affords him the space to see it through in the way he wants to see it through. That vision doesn't include making it a repository or archive for old discussions that a user has to wade through to find their answer.
If it isn't working as intended once he gets it running the way he sees it, at that point I'm sure he'll be open-minded enough to adjust.
Agreed.
-
Thanks guy, that's very nice and supportive of you.
But honestly: from the beginning of this I realised it was only an idea that could have complications I couldn't foresee.
It even started with only regarding 'Common issues' and it is now potentially becoming a much more encompassing FAQ.
I am only important here for having brought up an idea, and trying to think things through and discuss them to see if they would work and get accepted.
But I don't want to be responsible for any changes to the forum, nor for setting limitations or restrictions that others are not comfortable with.
I always understood it could not happen at all, or very differently from how I imagined it.
If a different implementation is decided on it's o.k. with me.
Even if the idea just gets dropped, and changes to the forum reverted, it's o.k. with me.
I won't be mad or sour in any way.
But I do think I have presented and explained my ideas on all this more than enough, and anybody invested has plenty food for thought on what to do next, so for now I am going to put energy in other things.
Anything that is going to be done is fine. Really.
-
Common threads could and should be moved from other boards into whatever their respective threads end up being in the FAQ. This could be done by moving each and every thread to their respective FAQ board, or combining threads with the same question into one thread and then moving it (my preference.) The main priority of the new board is stopping the influx of same question after same question, obviously, but cleaning up the other boards would also make things less of a mess.
I thought this was part of the point, too, which is why I immediately thought of the Virus/Trojan thread. It's one that has already been merged a few times to reduced the clutter.
I too thought that old threads would be moved and combined under a new FAQ item. This would ensure that when searched for, the FAQ thread would be the main result found, rather than several posts scattered throughout the forum.
Especially if the older threads could be archived and only accessed from a link (maybe labelled as 'Read previous discussions here') within the corresponding FAQ entry.
-
Common threads could and should be moved from other boards into whatever their respective threads end up being in the FAQ. This could be done by moving each and every thread to their respective FAQ board, or combining threads with the same question into one thread and then moving it (my preference.) The main priority of the new board is stopping the influx of same question after same question, obviously, but cleaning up the other boards would also make things less of a mess.
I thought this was part of the point, too, which is why I immediately thought of the Virus/Trojan thread. It's one that has already been merged a few times to reduced the clutter.
I too thought that old threads would be moved and combined under a new FAQ item. This would ensure that when searched for, the FAQ thread would be the main result found, rather than several posts scattered throughout the forum.
Especially if the older threads could be archived and only accessed from a link (maybe labelled as 'Read previous discussions here') within the corresponding FAQ entry.
I honestly don't understand why anyone would have thought that considering the mission laid out in the OP (edited version below).
What—in my opinion—could be very helpful to make this easier both on new MusicBee users, and on experienced contributing members, is if there would be a forum board called something like:
MusicBee's Ultimate Resource of Common Questions, Issues and Problems, and their Answers and Solutions
Yes, a lot of words, but google-search friendly ;-)
There could be several dedicated threads residing under it, such as:
[...]
The idea is to have a new forum board (MusicBee's Ultimate Resource of Common Questions, Issues and Problems, and their Answers and Solutions) containing separate threads per subject.
(such as the ones suggested above, printed in a bold font)
The start post of each thread should be dynamic, and updated to the latest available information and answers.
Thinking ahead; if this idea gets support and gets implemented, it would be good if the start post of each 'issue' thread could be edited and improved on by any forum member that has a certain experience/knowledge/track-record, and a drive to contribute and improve things.
-
But that specifically says the start post of each thread, which implies there would be other posts. Although on further thought I don't think there's a way to make a thread sort by anything other than date, so it would only work to merge new posts, unless we were going to take over and rewrite old posts. (There is a per-user setting to show newer posts first, though.)
Actually, in terms of keeping the start posts up to date I'd think it would be helpful to merge in new posts, because it would move the thread up (which would offset the "stale thread" problem to some degree) and because it would prompt the person doing the merge to add or change information as needed.
-
What's most effective at:
A. providing quick answers to common issues
B. cleaning up the board so common issues can be easily discovered
...without being time consuming as well?
I'm inclined to think navigating among various child boards as a new user would be a bit tedious and slightly negates point A, so I like what's already been done so far by @hiccup and @phred. We should expand on that, having as few child boards as possible and keeping the number of "issues" between one (preferable) to two pages. Important and common questions, like the annoying anti-virus alert one, could be stickied and then all threads related should be merged underneath @phred's blurb. And again, a big, beautiful note before posting a new topic specifying one should direct their attention to the FAQ before posting or their post will go ignored (or deleted.)
It's not that many of the answers to novice user's questions aren't here - they are! Hundreds of them! All these answers' accessibility is where things get hairy and what should be the point of the FAQ.
-
Important and common questions, like the annoying anti-virus alert one, could be stickied and then all threads related should be merged underneath @phred's blurb.
As psychoadept already point out, this is not currently possible to do. The forum software sorts in date of creation only. So if we were to merge all the existing thread on the false positive AV (for example) my post would fall to the bottom. Our choices here are to rewrite to already posted threads (not efficient) or add to the FAQ topic post a link to (all? some?) of the already posted threads.
And again, a big, beautiful note before posting a new topic specifying one should direct their attention to the FAQ before posting or their post will go ignored (or deleted.)
That would be a waste of pixels. Look, for example, and the nicely created NOTICE near the top of the edit box for a post or reply. The one that gives instructions for adding a screenshot. And how often do you see posts where the user states, I wanted to add a screenshot, but I don't know how. And the comment for the Tips & Tricks section that says "no questions please." People are too lazy to read when they can just type away with their questions.
-
As psychoadept already point out, this is not currently possible to do. The forum software sorts in date of creation only. So if we were to merge all the existing thread on the false positive AV (for example) my post would fall to the bottom.
Ok, I understand more clearly now. I thought he was referring to something else. The bloat of same question topics still could be moved to their respective child board?
That would be a waste of pixels. Look, for example, and the nicely created NOTICE near the top of the edit box for a post or reply. The one that gives instructions for adding a screenshot. And how often do you see posts where the user states, I wanted to add a screenshot, but I don't know how. And the comment for the Tips & Tricks section that says "no questions please." People are too lazy to read when they can just type away with their questions.
Precisely why those people shouldn't be indulged or enabled (either by ignoring their post, moving it to the new board or removing it.) If they can't figure out something extremely simple - like applying a screenshot on their own, especially with a well-written, fully thought out and complete guide (compliments to @psychoadept) - and are unwilling to put three words - this kind of crap (https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=33763.0) - into DuckDuckGo or (ick...) Google, tough. I'm willing to help those who have unique or semi-unique issues, but - if the new board is ultimately the future of the forum - a heavier hand applied to people who ignore the new process should go along with it.
-
I'm willing to help those who have unique or semi-unique issues, but - if the new board is ultimately the future of the forum - a heavier hand applied to people who ignore the new process should go along with it.
That's what makes this forum great. The older, established users are more than willing to help. But the novice needs to do a little work first. Search the FAQ, search the forum. Still not found? Ask. The users who post "I just downloaded MB and it doesn't work" aren't going to get much sympathy. Or help.
-
Each child board would only contain one well-composed and informative article covering the range of issues related to the child board's title.
Similar to the current FAQ:
https://getmusicbee.com/help/faq/
Huh. There's already an FAQ page? I missed that one somehow.
It already looks better designed for Hiccup's original suggestion as I understand it.
My new question then is, why aren't the FAQs under consideration just added to the existing FAQ page, instead of trying to shoehorn them into a forum format that may or may not work? (and creating what is now the third online resource to address them)
I also skimmed over some discussion about whether someone asking a question that is covered in the FAQ forum (or FAQ page or wiki or wherever) should get a response or a cold shoulder.
Of course they should still get a polite answer - it won't be a great look for MusicBee if n00bs are ignored because they didn't use the secret knock.
I see the benefit being that the seasoned forum pros that answer the bulk of those questions can set up a little cheat sheet so they can just copy and paste a link to the response instead of having to retype an answer every time.
-
Huh. There's already an FAQ page? I missed that one somehow.
My new question then is, why aren't the FAQs under consideration just added to the existing FAQ page, instead of trying to shoehorn them into a forum format that may or may not work? (and creating what is now the third online resource to address them)
Probably for the very same reason that you, and others, being long-time forum people, didn't know there was a FAQ
I also skimmed over some discussion about whether someone asking a question that is covered in the FAQ forum (or FAQ page or wiki or wherever) should get a response or a cold shoulder.
Of course they should still get a polite answer
Absolutely agree one hundred percent. All users should get a reply. Be it pointing to the FAQ or something more specific. And as is currently the case, -any- forum user can reply. We'd like as much help as we can get.
-
Huh. There's already an FAQ page? I missed that one somehow.
It already looks better designed for Hiccup's original suggestion as I understand it.
My new question then is, why aren't the FAQs under consideration just added to the existing FAQ page, instead of trying to shoehorn them into a forum format that may or may not work? (and creating what is now the third online resource to address them)
...so they can just copy and paste a link to the response instead of having to retype an answer every time.
That FAQ is sourced from the wiki and is updatable by anyone at any time: https://musicbee.fandom.com/wiki/FAQ
"Copy and paste a link" was the vision for the wiki from the start, but frankz is the main person I've seen using it that way. I can't keep it up to date by myself and everyone else seems to be attached to the forum format (yes, Fandom has a lot of ads; I haven't seen one in years thanks to the magic of ad blockers). Anyone using virutal tags in MusicBee has done more advanced coding than wiki markdown. If it would actually help I'd be happy to write a guide on working with the wiki, but I gave up on trying to push people in that direction.
-
If it would actually help I'd be happy to write a guide on working with the wiki, but I gave up on trying to push people in that direction.
Be advised they're changing their platform soon (https://community.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:MisterWoodhouse/The_first_migrations_to_the_Unified_Community_Platform)...again. There's a notification of it at the top of their site so it must be imminent.
I'm not married to the forum format for this, by the way, especially the utilization proposed here. I'm more married to the "in house and under MB admin control and not subject to the whims of a third party" aspect of this proposal.
-
Yeah, I'm curious to see what will be involved in that. But it's happened before and not been a huge deal. It would be a worse sign if they never updated their software. A few years ago I did a lot of research on it and concluded that Fandom (still Wikia then) was the best bet for free wiki hosting, in terms of both feature set and long-term stability.
I get your concern about having something under MB oversight. On the other hand, given the occasional trouble Steven has had with web hosting, even the forum isn't iron clad. That happened to another forum/wiki I was involved in. The forum went under but the wiki remains (and continues to be fairly active). [Added: to say nothing of the MusicBrainz forum which should have been ironclad but still went up in smoke.]
-
Well there must be some reason people who seem to have no problem spending multiple hours a day writing here about Musicbee refuse to update it and peope with questions or curiosity about Musicbee who could benefit from the information there refuse to refer to it. Why do you suppose those things are true?
-
Well there must be some reason people who seem to have no problem spending multiple hours a day writing here about Musicbee refuse to update it and peope with questions or curiosity about Musicbee who could benefit from the information there refuse to refer to it. Why do you suppose those things are true?
It's funny, I also see complaints there about the inaccessibility of the forum. People are using it, there's just not a lot of overlap with forum users. Boroda and redwing did a lot of work on guides and plugins, before this site had its own section for skins and plugins. And endeavour1934 did the theme. But they've all dropped off the forum for the most part.
I think their WYSIWYG editor may be one tripping point. I can show anyone with an account how to disable it so you just get a text editor. Then you can do most formatting you might want to do with about 5 characters.
Added: another thing that crosses my mind is that responding to support requests on the forum is a very different animal from editing the wiki. On the forum you're responding to a particular situation, whereas the wiki is, as suggested, more of a manual. Ideally you're answering ALL the questions, though if course that's never 100% possible.
Also, on the forum you've got the back-and-forth of interacting with the user seeking support, which while sometimes frustrating, I suspect is also the most gratifying for us when it goes right. The wiki is not at all set up for that kind of conversation, which is why my response to anything more than the most basic questions is "ask on the forum" (to the point that I created a shortcut for linking to the forum in my responses). Relatively speaking, wiki editing is a solo endeavor and if you don't enjoy it for its own sake there's not much payoff.
-
I can show anyone with an account how to disable it so you just get a text editor. Then you can do most formatting you might want to do with about 5 characters.
Might that be a sticky post on the forum? Certainly not in the new FAQ, but somewhere.
-
I can show anyone with an account how to disable it so you just get a text editor. Then you can do most formatting you might want to do with about 5 characters.
Might that be a sticky post on the forum? Certainly not in the new FAQ, but somewhere.
I can add it the wiki thread when I get a minute.
-
FWIW, I've learned a lot just by reading through questions and responses in the MB Questions forum.
I recall when computer programs and packages used to be released with DOCUMENTATION. I recall a statistical analysis package manual that was released in a loose-leaf binder so it could be updated periodically by the developer/owner. Admittedly, this was a long time ago, and only hardware seems to come with guides these days. I think MB today is more elaborate, sophisticated than that statistical package was.
FWIW2, I would value a PDF user guide --which could be in any format that developers preferred and considered most doable and valuable, that I could read and search, with my Nitro Reader or other PDF reader, on my various devices.
MusicBee is a great package that deserves great documentation to document and further illustrate its excellence.
-
Let us know when you finish it - sounds like a good read!
-
Let us know when you finish it - sounds like a good read!
That already exists.
Send me your credit card details and I will send you a copy:
(https://i.imgur.com/GrTbJ7f.png)
-
This is really great!!! A tip of the ol' phred hat, hiccup.
Let me know how many orders you get from the unsuspecting and amazingly thick.
-
Let me know how many orders you get from the unsuspecting and amazingly thick.
Just for the record: The use of the word 'Dummies' here is in no way meant in a condescending way.
These book series are really quite good, and I learned a lot from them myself.
But it's funny how it's always a bit difficult to recommend them to someone without him/her thinking you are taking a p1ss at them.
-
Nice. Actually, somebody did a pdf guide based on the wiki some years ago, but it was out of date like the next week, lol. If there were a way to quickly get the wiki in pdf format that would be great, bit I don't think it is.
-
Let us know when you finish it - sounds like a good read!
That already exists.
Send me your credit card details and I will send you a copy:
(https://i.imgur.com/GrTbJ7f.png)
Faaabulous, hiccup! Love the clever, creative response ;D
I'll look for availability of the kindle version...
-
So...
-
What does everyone think of the way MP3TAG Forums (https://community.mp3tag.de/c/howto/faq-frequently-asked-questions/9) handles their FAQ board?
-
That would not be possible with this forum without someone writing some custom handling. There isnt much flexibility with adapting this forum software to a FAQ type style
-
That would not be possible with this forum without someone writing some custom handling. There isnt much flexibility with adapting this forum software to a FAQ type style
Sorry, I was unclear. I didn't mean the formatting of their forum, but they have several primary subjects and then commonly asked question about those subjects are answered within the thread. Like here (https://community.mp3tag.de/t/tags-and-editing-of-metadata/965) for example.
-
Hi everyone, kudos to you seasoned forum members for all your effort trying to improve the FAQs and consolidating commonly asked forum topics 8)
Personally I use the wiki a lot and although my own contributions have been minimal i would very much like to see it maintained and improved with up to date information in line with the vision Steven has.
Can we be clear on what the boundaries are with the Wiki?
I see the Wiki as like a user manual where a new user can read and learn from scratch how to use MusicBee, where-as what is being proposed in this new board is a collection of common problems users have and what the solution might be.
For new (and not so new) users, a wiki/user guide is a commonly understood format, and in my opinion should be the first port of call for 'how to' documentation. Psychoadept has done a great job documenting a complex piece of software and with a bit more support it could be really good.
As a comparison I like the depth of information and clear examples given on the Audacity wiki (https://manual.audacityteam.org/ (https://manual.audacityteam.org/)) - although navigating it is a really poor user experience.
With reference to the MP3TAG FAQs I think it is only partially effective at what it aims to do. It resides in the 'How To' section and collects together answers to common tasks that users want to achieve. In this way i would say it is more similar to the MusicBee wiki than an FAQ resource. When i've used it in the past I found the format a bit unstructured and not that easy to find the answers i was searching for. I would rather search in a wiki or a more structured form of documentation.
As for the discussion about which parent topics to have in the new FAQs, and how many levels of hierarchy is acceptable my advice would be to take a bottom up 'card sorting' approach and start by identifying the topics where there are a lot of similar forum posts and make them all top level categories. As more topics are added you will be able to see when it makes sense to combine similar topics under a new parent. This is likely to result in an information architecture that is more commonly understood by most users rather than trying to impose a top down structure from the get go.
-
For now I have moved FAQ to a child-board of Questions as it currently doesnt have enough input to justify it's own board