The FAQ web site for this group has been updated

[cwdjrxyz]

The FAQ for this group at http://winefaq.cwdjr.net/ has been updated
to include the new information for New Zeland as recently posted here
by Mark Lipton. Since the url remains the same, you do not need to
enter a new book mark.

[cwdjrxyz]

On May 25, 5:22 pm, cwdjrxyz <spamtr...@cwdjr.info> wrote:
> The FAQ for this group athttp://winefaq.cwdjr.net/has been updated

> to include the new information for New Zeland as recently posted here
> by Mark Lipton. Since the url remains the same, you do not need to
> enter a new book mark.

I noticed that an "a" in "Zealand" was missing in this post. However
it is correct in the updated FAQs.

[Ken Blake]

I've said this here before, but I'll say it again. In almost every
newsgroup, a FAQ is generally useless. the only people who know it
exists are those who follow the newsgroup regularly, and they are
those who don't need it. With very few exceptions, those who need it
never saw the post (or posts) telling them where it is.

I don't object to its existence, since there's no real downside to its
being there. But I do object to the effort that you, or anyone else,
puts into creating and maintaining a generally useless web page.




--
Ken Blake

[cwdjrxyz]

On May 25, 7:13 pm, Ken Blake <kbl...@kb.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:22:17 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz
>

> <spamtr...@cwdjr.info> wrote:
> > The FAQ for this group athttp://winefaq.cwdjr.net/has been updated

> > to include the new information for New Zeland as recently posted here
> > by Mark Lipton. Since the url remains the same, you do not need to
> > enter a new book mark.
>
> I've said this here before, but I'll say it again. In almost every
> newsgroup, a FAQ is generally useless. the only people who know it
> exists are those who follow the newsgroup regularly, and they are
> those who don't need it. With very few exceptions, those who need it
> never saw the post (or posts) telling them where it is.
>
> I don't object to its existence, since there's no real downside to its
> being there. But I do object to the effort that you, or anyone else,
> puts into creating and maintaining a generally useless web page.

I really do not mind keeping the FAQ site up and updating it. It now
takes very little time for me to update the code when needed. It costs
me nothing, as I have 2 domains which can include dozens of sub
domains such as the FAQ for this newsgroup. There is a huge amount of
bandwidth, so I never get close to having to pay extra for heavy
usage. However it requires a lot more time for Mark Lipton who writes
the FAQs with the input from many who have much knowledge about
specific types of wine and wine related subjects. Although, as you
suggest, some may miss the FAQ. A link to the FAQ is given in the
posts from several users of this group. Also many regulars in this
group will reply to a question with a link to a specific section of
the FAQ to not have to write an answer to a frequent question over and
over.
The recent update of the New Zealand section of FAQ is a good example.
A person going to New Zealand asked for some information. He was given
the link to the New Zealand section of the FAQ, but was told the
information there was a little old. He was given more recent
information. The individual who wrote the New Zealand section of the
FAQ kindly updated it, and Mark Lipton posted the revision in this
group. I then made the revision on the FAQ site.

I think that many non-regulars of a group will not bother to take the
time to read the FAQs even if they have the FAQs link before them in
large, flashing red text. It is so much faster to just post a
question. Some groups post a link to the FAQs on a regular basis,
depending on how active the group is. A few regular users become
rather testy if the question has been answered in the FAQ, but this
does not seem to help much. And one is more likely to get an answer if
a regular can give a specific reference to the FAQ rather than give a
sometimes long answer that requires considerable time.

[lleichtman]

On May 26, 4:49 am, Mike Tommasi <nob...@tommasi.org> wrote:

> On 26/05/2012 02:13, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:22:17 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz

> > <spamtr...@cwdjr.info>  wrote:
>
> >> The FAQ for this group athttp://winefaq.cwdjr.net/has been updated

> >> to include the new information for New Zeland as recently posted here
> >> by Mark Lipton. Since the url remains the same, you do not need to
> >> enter a new book mark.
>
> > I've said this here before, but I'll say it again. In almost every
> > newsgroup, a FAQ is generally useless. the only people who know it
> > exists are those who follow the newsgroup regularly, and they are
> > those who don't need it. With very few exceptions, those who need it
> > never saw the post (or posts) telling them where it is.
>
> > I don't object to its existence, since there's no real downside to its
> > being there. But I do object to the effort that you, or anyone else,
> > puts into creating and maintaining a generally useless web page.
>

> The FAQ tends to be difficult to access.  OTOH with a small effort it
> could be made more visible on the net. We would also need to complete
> it, I for one have not contributed what I promised years ago, mainly
> because I forgot the FAQ existed...  If completed it could even be the
> base for a very informative and intellectually stimulating book on wine,
> a compendium of writings by people who like to get their palates wet.

So how would it be made more visible as Goggle controls how the group
information is presented?

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:47:16 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz
<spam...@cwdjr.info> wrote:


> I think that many non-regulars of a group will not bother to take the
> time to read the FAQs even if they have the FAQs link before them in
> large, flashing red text. It is so much faster to just post a
> question.

Yes, I agree completely. That's another reason why I think FAQs are
generally worthless.

But if you don't mind creating and maintaining it, I have no real
objection to its existence, as I said.


--
Ken Blake

[Sheila Page]

In message <iht1s7h53ailtl43c...@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
<kbl...@kb.invalid> writes

I strongly disagree. I follow this group regularly, but if I am
planning a visit to a wine area which I do not know I find the FAQ very
useful. Even if I kept every relevant comment about every place I might
some day visit, I would have to re-organise them and re-index them (some
information is under unhelpful subject lines). I am grateful to those
who keep it up to date and host it.

I find the comment that 'FAQs are generally worthless' rather silly, as
well as offensive.

Sheila
--
---
Sheila Page

[cwdjrxyz]

On May 26, 5:49 am, Mike Tommasi <nob...@tommasi.org> wrote:
> On 26/05/2012 02:13, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:22:17 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz

> > <spamtr...@cwdjr.info>  wrote:
>
> >> The FAQ for this group athttp://winefaq.cwdjr.net/has been updated

> >> to include the new information for New Zeland as recently posted here
> >> by Mark Lipton. Since the url remains the same, you do not need to
> >> enter a new book mark.
>
> > I've said this here before, but I'll say it again. In almost every
> > newsgroup, a FAQ is generally useless. the only people who know it
> > exists are those who follow the newsgroup regularly, and they are
> > those who don't need it. With very few exceptions, those who need it
> > never saw the post (or posts) telling them where it is.
>
> > I don't object to its existence, since there's no real downside to its
> > being there. But I do object to the effort that you, or anyone else,
> > puts into creating and maintaining a generally useless web page.
>

> The FAQ tends to be difficult to access.  OTOH with a small effort it
> could be made more visible on the net. We would also need to complete
> it, I for one have not contributed what I promised years ago, mainly
> because I forgot the FAQ existed...  If completed it could even be the
> base for a very informative and intellectually stimulating book on wine,
> a compendium of writings by people who like to get their palates wet.

I posted this info yesterday in response to another person, so I will
try again since the post still has not appeared - at least on Google
Groups.

I have Webalizer installed on the servers that my 2 domains are on
including the sub domain that has the faq for this group. When a user
agent such as a computer browser, player, bot, or spider and the
server first connect, there is an exchange of information between them
that is much information. Webalizer keeps track of all of these header
exchange data and generates weekly and monthly reports. Much of this
information is of interest only to the owner of the site, but there is
some information about the faq for this group that may be of interest
to some. For the month of April 2012, the group faq site had 2059
hits. There were 301 different sources of these hits. There were many
hits by bots and spiders that collect information for search engines.
These are the usual suspects such as Google and Bing as well as search
engines in China, Korea, India, Italy and several other countries. In
some cases this may lead some to our group when they use a search
engine.

Since our group is rather specialized we can not expect the number of
posts and hits to the faq site that a more general group might have.
After viewing the Webalizer reports for several months, I conclude
that there are enough hits to justify my making updates to the site
when others write the updates.

[st.helier]

"cwdjrxyz" wrote .........

>
> there are enough hits to justify my making updates to the
> site when others write the updates.

Thanks CWD Jr. your advice does encourage one to continue contributing to
the FAQ.

I had planned to revisit Australia in October, and was going to update the
Australian section.

But, I have accepted an invitation to participate in the 70th anniversary of
the battle of El Alamein in Egypt (my father was a combatant) - so the Oz
trip is on hold until 2013.

Are there any vineyards in Egypt to be reviewed?

st.helier

[cwdjrxyz]

On May 28, 12:57 am, "st.helier" <alphabet...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:

Perhaps various types of dates in different locations :-). Date wine
has long been made in that part of the world. Since Egypt's neighbor
Israel produces some grape wine, it is likely that Egypt has produced
some grape wine at some time. Of course many in Egypt do not approve
of drinking wine, so that could be important.

[st.helier]

"cwdjrxyz" wrote

>
> Perhaps various types of dates in different locations :-).

Yes, I have adventurous taste - I would be into date wine.

> Since Egypt's neighbor Israel produces some grape wine, it is likely
> that Egypt has produced some grape wine at some time.

Hmm - I don't think I shall find any Ch. Musar in Egypt, but I will try to
uncover Cleopatra's long-forgotten cellars :-)

> Of course many in Egypt do not approve
> of drinking wine, so that could be important.

Yes, I need to acquaint myself with the dos and don'ts of drinking in that
part of the world, lest I become the late Lord St.H

[lleichtman]

Watch out opening some of the amphoras. They may have old organs and
not wine.

[st.helier]

"lleichtman" wrote .........

But I like music :-)

[cwdjrxyz]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_wine for a discussian of
both ancient and modern Egyptian wine. There is a bit of dry red,
white, and rose grape wine made. I don't know how recent events in
Egypt may have changed this. You should be able to taste most of the
more drinkable wines with one or two meals. There are only 3 important
wine companies. One of the companies imports grapes for making wine.