Mozillazine Knowledge Base inventory part 2

[maj...@gmail.com]

In my first thread, I've asked people to give examples of articles
they think are well written, and articles that they think can still be
better. In this thread I'd like to be more objective. What articles
are missing information, or contain wrong information? What articles
are good examples of having complete information? I think I'd like to
tackle the issue of how much information is too much in this thread,
although it's probably going to come up in both. Which articles
should be merged, which should be split (if any)? Also, are there any
articles missing entirely?

I'll use http://kb.mozillazine.org/Lost_bookmarks as my example of a
complete article. Any reason for bookmarks to be missing is
referenced, explained, and a solution is provided or linked to.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Bookmarks should probably have explanations
of the different types of bookmarks, as well as a reference to
microsummaries.

[Jason Barnabe (np)]

I'm not sure which of the four threads you want replies in...

[maj...@gmail.com]

On May 14, 10:43 am, "Jason Barnabe (np)" <jason_barn...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> I'm not sure which of the four threads you want replies in...

Please reply here :)

[Jason Barnabe (np)]

Some criteria I think we should look for in quality support articles:

Entire article:
-Information is up to date. Currently in the KB, the cut-off for
Firefox info is "the latest 1.5.x and all 2.0 versions".
-Does not unnecessarily include overly technical details

Title and categorization:
-User-oriented article name and category that relates to the symptoms
of a problem rather than the solution

Example: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Links_to_local_pages_do_not_work
(rather than http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_checkloaduri_security_policy
)

Intro:
-An explanation of the problem, including exact error message text if
applicable (good for searching)
-Any alternate articles that users may want to see instead

Example: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_hangs

Troubleshooting/diagnosis:

-Goes from most likely and least destructive to least likely and most
destructive
-Allows users to quickly determine whether a possible diagnosis
applies to them. For example, starting a sentence with "If you use
Norton Internet Security..."

For steps:
-A brief explanation of what the user's about to do and what effects
it will have
-Bullet points for steps to follow
-Images of the steps, if applicable
-Keeps alternate paths to minimum

Example: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_new_Firefox_profile_on_Windows