Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider refactor FAQ doc #2817

Closed
wey-gu opened this issue Jun 1, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

Consider refactor FAQ doc #2817

wey-gu opened this issue Jun 1, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement Type: make the code neat or more efficient

Comments

@wey-gu
Copy link
Contributor

wey-gu commented Jun 1, 2023

Some of the chapters in FAQ are Gold and should be listed under other topics, i.e. the PORTS chapter should be under arch/system design, and the disk scale-up should be under the Ops/SRE chapter. We could keep the FAQ an index of key questions rather than a huge Bible.

Suggestion:

  • move some of the FAQ chapters to other chapters(when applicable), but keep the question part, refer to its answer in corresponding chapters
  • some content may deserve a standalone chapter, i.e. errors-and-solutions, when it's long enough yet there are no chapters to be moved to.

Benefits:

  • Users will not easy to be lost in the giant FAQ docs
  • They could see the corresponding content when reading corresponding doc chapters
  • Better doc site search result/SEO, i.e., searching "扩容" didn't show the FAQ chapters now :(

ref: #2732

@abby-cyber
Copy link
Contributor

Agreed, thank you for your advice. This is something we have been wanting to do. We are considering a redesign of our information architecture from version 5.0.
As for the site search result, yes, there seems to be an issue with the search engine.

@wey-gu wey-gu added the enhancement Type: make the code neat or more efficient label Jul 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Type: make the code neat or more efficient
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants