Family Historian User Group

For comparison, I develop Ancestral Sources which is used by hundreds/thousands of people and I give it away for free although I do ask for donations. In terms of actual physical costs of development, I have to find around £100 a year for the digital certificate I use in the software as security software tends to block the download otherwise.

Rather than covering costs, I see the donations I receive as a thank you for the work I do in providing this facility and saving people huge amounts of time when entering their data, and a lot of these donations include messages expressing that.

I have spent literally thousands of hours developing Ancestral Sources. I have a full time job and do a lot of programming as part of that and I do find that my enthusiasm for developing AS (and researching my family history) sometimes goes through dips. These donations definitely act as an encouragement to me to keep going.

So I don't think anyone should be thinking of the FHUG donation as being just to cover costs, it is also to thank Jane for creating this site in the first place, keeping it updated and continuing to provide a hub for users of Family Historian to meet and exchange ideas and support. If she loses enthusiasm for it the site could just disappear so the more donations she receives, the more she will be encouraged not to do that!

I'm conscious that we've diverted into talking about £££, and we should go back to the original topic: What can we do to make information more discoverable around here?

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

16 Aug 2022 15:31

I think the length of the original post (TLDR !) indicates the scale of the task and Helen is right to compare it with achieving world peace.

However I do have some sympathy with David's point that even though a plugin exists which provides the solution to his problem its existence can't be discovered by searching the Knowledge Base. ...

Trying to take stock before the next draft of the "peace treaty"!

1. The financial cost of running the FHUG (Forum, Knowledge Base etc.) needs to be considered and the link from the home page (top right in red on black for me) will take you via a KB page to Jane's professional site (she runs course on FH amongst other things). That gives you an auditable trail to a secure page for making credit card donations.

2. The time cost of running this set up is also probably more than we understand and is shouldered by the moderators with Jane and Helen I think taking the lions' (lionesses? they are the more active and successful sex?) share of the IT support. We probably don't understand enough to thank them sufficiently.

3. For the rest of us there is value from the support we get and satisfaction when we are able to give support.

We should however occasionally pause to ask a question that is close to "is it worth while?". I fully expect the answer to be yes, but is it being done in a way that makes most effective use of money, time and goodwill? I am not looking for financial efficiency (taking Helen's point about the lack of friendliness of some other support networks), but a number of the heavy lifters have mentioned the load over the last few months and we cannot exhaust their goodwill.

Taking a break (to have lunch 16:00 BST UTC+1 !) .. to be continued.

davidf wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2022 15:01

2. The time cost of running this set up is also probably more than we understand and is shouldered by the moderators with Jane and Helen I think taking the lions' ... share of the IT support. We probably don't understand enough to thank them sufficiently.

It mustn't be overlooked that Colin (Valkrider) is part of the technical team for the KB!

davidf wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2022 15:01

Taking a break (to have lunch 16:00 BST UTC+1 !) .. to be continued.

Back to Knowledge Curation

The knowledge base has undergone massive change and looks and feels better, but has all that effort lead to it being more helpful to users and taken some of the weight off the heavy lifters?

Quantitative Measurement

That is hard to measure quantitatively but for instance analysis of web-logs might indicate whether we have fewer abandoned searches than before.

When you click your click usually gets logged usually with where (page-wise) "you" (the IP address you were using at the time) were and where you were going - a search that does not result in an onward click within the knowledge base or the forum has probably not helped the searcher and probably means that the "the curated and distilled wisdom of the members" is not being accessed.

If it is a big issue we can then possibly look to see if the search phrases in abandoned search have any patterns. (I say "we"!)

Does the FHUG "setup" have web-log analysis functionality that can easily answer that question, or if it does, do we "not have a baseline" from before the KB overhaul against which to make comparisons? Downloading that sort of data into Excel and doing a DIY analysis is almost certainly a deep time vacuum and would probably be an inefficient use of time.

Qualitative Assessment

Qualitatively have we seen a reduction in the sort of mailing list queries or forum questions which have an answer in the knowledge base there and available (if not as easily accessible as might be hoped).

Are there things that we can do to make the process (Query to workable solution) more effective and ultimately less time consuming - even less of a grind/graft - for those who contribute time and goodwill to answering questions (one "Megastar" comes to mind!)?

Will "closing the loop" help to do this? And is doing so (an effort now), long term, worth while (less future effort)?

Closing the Loop

What do I mean by "closing the loop"? It is almost a quality management concept. Can we use the result of a user query to improve the process so that next time someone has a similar query they can get to an answer more effectively.

We don't have the resources to do this for every user query (and review is clearly inapplicable for some queries) - in this instance I am thinking "we" should include the heavy regulars - the "minor megastars" (500+ Posts?) and probably other self-selected regulars. And we might initially chose to review only topics in a sample area or only topics that run to 4 pages plus - we need to constrain the scope to something that is manageable yet which will indicate whether the effort is sufficiently worth while to be extended.

Query Review: Outline

What might be in that review? Someone may have a ready made check-list, but in the absence of one I might propose (as review prompts amplifying the main headings rather than a "must complete"), in approximately time line order:

1. Initial Query. Was it:
   • In the sub-forum that we expected?
   • Was it clear enough to attract replies?
   • Any mention of attempting to find the answer in the Knowledge Base or Help file?
2. Problems statement/ clarification
   • Did the problem need clarification?
   • Did respondents manage to get sufficient clarification?
3. Initial Disposition; After clarification was
   • The problem "solved" by the clarification (i.e. an issue of knowledge?)
   • The problem "explained away" (i.e. was no longer a problem - an issue of understanding)
   • The problem solvable (to the OP's apparent satisfaction) by reference to a KB article or possibly another forum post
   • The problem was "addressable" by further discussion and problem solving
4. Problem Solving: Did the process of problem solving:
   • Solve the problem to the original poster's apparent satisfaction?
   • Subjectively was the issue one adequately covered in the Knowledge Base (i.e. is the required content "in there")?
   • Subjectively was the problem one of a non-knowledge-base specialist being able to access the information?
   • Was the issue one outside the current support system (Help file, Knowledge base etc.)
5. Follow up
   • Does the knowledge base need revision? Now or a note captured for a later wider review of the article?
   • Was the issue a new one whose solution could/should be captured as new content or a revision of content in the Knowledge base?
   • If the issue was one of accessing information
     • Poster unaware of the Knowledge Base
     • Poster choosing not to use the Knowledge Base
     • Difficulty in defining the problem into a searchable phrase
     • Difficulty in defining the problem into a topic - sub topic hierarchy
   • Was the issue a program bug? Has a ticket been raised with CP?
   • Was the issue in the help file? Has a ticket been raised with CP?
   • Was the issue a program shortcoming solvable by:
     • A documented "work-around"?
     • A new plug-in?
     • A wish list request?

In a commercial environment this might be systematised as part of a quality management system.

In our environment issues of practicality and resources and other factors (confidentiality, disagreement etc.) arise.

Breaking here to enable digestion. Practicalities to follow?

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2022 15:10

davidf wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2022 15:01

2. The time cost of running this set up is also probably more than we understand and is shouldered by the moderators with Jane and Helen I think taking the lions' ... share of the IT support. We probably don't understand enough to thank them sufficiently.

It mustn't be overlooked that Colin (Valkrider) is part of the technical team for the KB!

And you had recently mentioned his contribution to me! Sorry Colin!

On another post we have discussed "Closing the Loop" as part of the Knowledge Curation process/activity.

See: Re: FHUG Searching and the post that follows, and then the discussion that follows that.

(I'm not sure if the Mods will want to disentangle what I initially thought would be an aside on the other topic and transfer it to this threat - or may decide not to touch it with a barge=pole!)

"transfer it to this threat" Freudian slip?

I fear it's too entangled to disentangle easily.. probably better uses of my time!