
FAQs: why we don’t have them - robin_reala
http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2013/07/25/faqs-why-we-dont-have-them/
======
rwmj
If a (software) FAQ is well-written, I like to read them. They answer the
problems I'm likely to find when I use the software, while providing
interesting information on corner-cases.

Here are a few examples of good software FAQs which are entertaining to read
in themselves:

[http://ffmpeg.org/faq.html](http://ffmpeg.org/faq.html)

[https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-
US/Fedora/13/html/SELinux_...](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-
US/Fedora/13/html/SELinux_FAQ/)

[http://libguestfs.org/guestfs-faq.1.html](http://libguestfs.org/guestfs-
faq.1.html) (NB: I wrote this one)

~~~
eterm
FAQs are a good fit for game manuals, where often layers of rules have strange
interactions which make a FAQ to settle a few rule questions or "gotchas"
important and interesting.

But FAQs for a web application I think is a bad fit, it is generally more
useful to have a forum (so you can get real feedback on what is frequently
asked) where common questions will bubble to the top more often.

Or if you're big enough, a stackexchange which handles genuinely frequently
asked questions better still.

~~~
jimmaswell
The FAQ is supposed to be so people aren't wasting time on the forum asking
the same question a million times. The project I'm on has a very useful FAQ
with questions that got asked all the time when it wasn't there. It made them
asked less, but people still don't read it sometimes.

------
Peroni
Not sure I agree with that concept. There are a number of companies/industries
websites where I navigate directly to the FAQ in order to get a straight
answer to my question without having to give a second thought to searching for
appropriate phrases, keywords, etc.

The likelihood of building a site designed in such a way that my answer is
immediately obvious within one or two clicks is a far reaching concept.

A recent example is the FAQ on the UK's Bike to Work Scheme website -
[http://www.bike2workscheme.co.uk/index.php/faqs](http://www.bike2workscheme.co.uk/index.php/faqs)

Rather than click through the site to find answers to specific questions I
went directly to the FAQ and instantly spotted the questions I needed
answered.

I get the whole concept of "if you've left questions unanswered from your
users then you haven't done a good enough job" however I don't see how an FAQ
page could be considered a lazy or ineffectual solution.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
If you're knew to a particular thing then FAQs often help by asking the
questions you don't yet know you need to ask too. Perhaps that was implicit in
your comment but I felt it worth elucidating.

------
crazygringo
I couldn't disagree more.

There are all sorts of pieces of useful information about a site/product/etc.
that simply can't be structured well. That aren't important enough to belong
on an about page, or whatever -- where each individual thing is something that
only 0.5% of your users will care about, but each thing is a different 0.5%.

Implementing a FAQ cuts _drastically_ on the number of e-mails you receive,
which all keep asking the same rare questions -- the "long tail" of questions
and content, which aren't important enough to users to be in the main
about/etc content.

There's no reason your FAQ can't be structured -- it _should_ have headings
and subheadings. Although a lot of information really is just inherently one-
off, and hard to structure. That's reality, not laziness.

There is _very_ much a need for a kind of "miscellanea" long-tail about page,
which is exactly what a FAQ is.

Plus, some people find the Q&A format to be extremely useful for locating
information, much more so that structured product pages. I personally learn a
lot from reading FAQ's from start to end.

------
radiowave
It's worth bearing in mind that FAQs originated in places where people go to
ask questions (usenet, mailing lists, forums) to avoid the same quesions being
asked over and over again, and in that context they still make a lot of sense.
The blog post is talking about FAQs on web sites, which I'd accept as being a
different context.

------
iNate2000
It seems that FAQ often stands for Frequently _Anticipated_ Questions. For
example, this question from [http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/messaging-
internet/media-e...](http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/messaging-
internet/media-entertainment/att-net-faq.jsp)

"What content will I find browsing with att.net? att.net allows you to access
the real Web by searching keywords or ..."

I just can't imagine anybody asking that question. Perhaps I lack empathy.

~~~
chiph
FAQs should never be written by the marketing department. They should be
driven by the support staff.

~~~
dragonwriter
A FAQ is a set of bug reports for the staff responsible for documentation. Who
writes it is less important than understanding its role.

------
egeozcan
Isn't this blog post working like an FAQ? As I understand, to them, "Why don't
you have an FAQ" is an FAQ.

~~~
ttctciyf
Yes.

Did you notice "Why we don't have FAQs" starts with: "we're often asked ..."?

------
JangoSteve
I read the article, and I get what they're saying, but I still don't get the
rationale for simply not having FAQs. The fact is, some people prefer them. Is
the author simply arguing that those people are wrong and shouldn't prefer
them?

I guess my question to the author would be, why not both? Add an FAQ page for
the people who prefer that format, while continuing to do what you do now.

You could argue that maybe they don't have time to write them, but then again,
they did take the time to write this article. As someone else in this thread
pointed out [1], they've already written the FAQ of why they don't have an
FAQ, so start there.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6102292](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6102292)

~~~
nadaviv
They did mention that they're against duplication of information and why
(under "They lead to duplication")

------
timthorn
Sarah (blog author) was on The World at One on BBC Radio 4 this afternoon
talking about language usage. Approx 40 mins in:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037706m](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037706m)

------
mikhailt
It all depends on what you use it for. For the Gov.uk site, they don't need an
FAQ, their design works great to categorize most of their information in a
consistent pattern and I agree, they don't need one, it worked great for me.

However, dealing with complex datasets that can't be categorized well (like
some data can exist in multiple categories), or dealing with multiple apps and
multiple platforms, things goes chaos and the Gov.uk's design may not work at
all.

As for folks who mentioned search, search technologies are not by default
accurate like Google. They require a LOT of work to get it right and more
likely to fail than work the more complex your datasets get.

------
toyg
FAQs are a poor man's search engine. Once search technology becomes cheap and
simple enough to be successfully included in every website, nobody will need
them. In this sense, Richards' position is absolutely spot-on.

~~~
jseliger
This is somewhat true, but good FAQs often answer questions that I don't have
sufficient knowledge to formulate. In this respect they are like books.

To search, one needs some level of initial knowledge or inquiry, and in many
realms people lack that initial seed of knowledge.

~~~
weego
This is a similar point to the one I was going to make.

A search engine input gives you a blank slate. Sometimes you have a nebulous
idea of what you need to know but don't know how that fits into the source, so
blank slate searching becomes clumsy and hit & miss. FAQs conversely give
direction and clarification so can run the dual role of guiding and forming
what the user is trying to search as well as being an end point or gateway to
the actual knowledge they seek.

This kind of orientation can be valuable if the language of a site is heavily
domain based.

------
drcube
I often read FAQs in order to get a sense of what I _should be asking_ about a
product or service I'm unfamiliar with. It helps put things into context.

Sure, I could get that information other ways, but I don't see anything wrong
with including a FAQ in your "about" section, or "tutorial" or "documentation"
or wherever the rest of your information is, along with handy links to get
more information. FAQ or no, you should have a starting point for people with
zero information to learn more about what you're offering.

------
rantanplan
Very insightful opinion.I wish the government in my country had the same
rational in their digital(and not only) services. At one time I was thinking
about forming a company in UK and I was blown away with the clarity and
conciseness of their requirements. I truly had my questions answered and
didn't need and FAQ.

Still, I am not sure if you really can apply the same logic in a deeply
technical document. I have yet to find something that validates that assertion
but it is an interesting premise and it will be a welcome surprise.

------
gnud
I agree that the question format is often a poor fit, and the questions often
seem forced.

How about a "FRI" \- Frequently Requested Information, with useful content on
a simple, well-organized page.

------
dreen
It is valid perhaps for the website she is maintaining, but I think she is
totally wrong in applying this to _ALL_ websites.

Her premise is that if someone is looking for information and has not found it
- it prompts a question ie. "Where is the information I am looking for?" and
that indicates your failure to successfully provide that information. Which is
true.

However, often-times questions are a result of critical thinking, and their
lack shows lack of true understanding of subject material. On other occasions
questions are simply technical problems with edge cases of procedures outlined
on the website. Such edge cases should not be part of procedures themselves
because they would distract 99% of people who do not encounter them.

------
babuskov
Looks like she's never heard of Google.

I maintain the open-source DBMS Firebird FAQ website at
[http://www.FirebirdFAQ.org](http://www.FirebirdFAQ.org). There are some users
who browse the website and read the common issues (esp. Newbie section), but
98% of the traffic comes from Google Search. Just use proper page titles and
headings and people who want something answered will type it in Google and get
your page with an answer.

This works so well, that I even removed my custom search functionality and
placed a Google site-search box right at the center of home page.

~~~
babuskov
Although down-voting is a way to show you disagree with me, I'd prefer some
arguments ;)

~~~
ximeng
Didn't downvote but from the article sounds like she knows what Google is.

"That problem really shows in search, where you will end up with duplicate
results competing for attention. You are fighting with your own content. That
can’t be efficient for you or for users.

"This is actually a problem GOV.UK is experiencing. The content in our support
pages is now appearing in search, so we’re stripping away all of the support
content we don’t need and making it easier for users to get straight to the
things they’re looking for."

~~~
babuskov
Thanks. Looks like I missed that. However, I still fail to see what's wrong
with duplicate results.

The entire article seems like a written excuse explaining that they are not
lazy, but have valid reasons not to write and maintain a FAQ section. I guess
it was posted to get some mass approval here on HN and show that HN community
supports their POV.

------
ollysb
It's not that they don't need an FAQ, more that the site is basically one
giant FAQ. There isn't really an effective way to organise that much
information into clickable navigation, particularly as the users will likely
use the site less than once a year. This is why they're focusing so much
attention on search. This way they can monitor what people are searching for
(some real detail on the most FAQs) and make sure that the results match up.

------
MasonBall
I understand where they are coming from, but not sure I totally agree in
concept. Yes, many FAQ's are flawed, but that doesn't mean they can't be done
well, and they can't be very easy and helpful to the user. I've gone to sites
with immediate and obvious questions that the FAQ answered for me in three
seconds. Perfect experience. It's up to the company to understand what people
need to know, and simplify the answers.

------
mmuro
As someone who supports his own WordPress plugin, FAQs are like sanity pills.
You can only repeat yourself so many times before you get tired of it, even if
you have a canned response.

Having an FAQ allows you to let the user help themselves, which most are
willing to. If not, you at least have an answer you can point them to.

------
runemadsen
This idea that you can create software that people _just_ understand, is so
flawed.

------
shyn3
We implemented a FAQ for a phone support system. People listen to answers to
about 10 different questions. The number of support calls has dropped by about
10% over the last 6-weeks.

~2 out of 10 users pick the FAQ instead of choosing support directly.

------
d23
> But they’re more work for readers – questions take longer to scan and
> understand than simple headings and you can’t take any meaning from them in
> a quick glance.

Really? I find them easy to scan -- hell, I _prefer_ them.

------
Kiro
So what should you use instead?

~~~
seabee
Informative writing and good structure.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
FAQs carry meta-data. They aren't just information they're filtered as being
relevant to a significant cadre of users.

That said they're probably not useful on a site with such a broad information
base as gov.uk unless they're tagged and presented in an easily searchable
manner or confined to specific areas.

------
stefantalpalaru
Q: What does it mean when you find a tweet that perfectly shows your position?

A: It means that Twitter agrees.

