{"rowid": 24, "title": "Kill It With Fire! What To Do With Those Dreaded FAQs", "contents": "In the mid-1640s, a man named Matthew Hopkins attempted to rid England of the devil\u2019s influence, primarily by demanding payment for the service of tying women to chairs and tossing them into lakes.\n\nUnsurprisingly, his methods garnered criticism. Hopkins defended himself\u00a0in The Discovery of Witches\u00a0in 1647, subtitled \u201cCertaine Queries answered, which have been and are likely to be objected against MATTHEW HOPKINS, in his way of finding out Witches.\u201d\n\nEach \u201cquerie\u201d was written in the voice of an imagined detractor, and answered in the voice of an imagined defender (always referring to himself as \u201cthe discoverer,\u201d or \u201chim\u201d):\n\n\n\tQuer. 14.\n\n\tAll that the witch-finder doth is to fleece the country of their money, and therefore rides and goes to townes to have imployment, and promiseth them faire promises, and it may be doth nothing for it, and possesseth many men that they have so many wizzards and so many witches in their towne, and so hartens them on to entertaine him.\n\n\tAns.\n\n\tYou doe him a great deale of wrong in every of these particulars.\n\n\nHopkins\u2019 self-defense was an early modern English FAQ.\n\nDigital beginnings\n\nQuestion and answer formatting certainly isn\u2019t new, and stretches back much further than witch-hunt days. But its most modern, most notorious, most reviled incarnation is the internet\u2019s frequently asked questions page.\n\nFAQs began showing up on pre-internet mailing lists\u00a0as a way for list members to answer and pre-empt newcomers\u2019 repetitive questions:\n\n\n\tThe presumption was that new users would download archived past messages through ftp. In practice, this rarely happened and the users tended to post questions to the mailing list instead of searching its archives. Repeating the \u201cright\u201d answers becomes tedious\u2026\n\n\nWhen all the users of a system can hear all the other users, FAQs make a lot of sense: the conversation needs to be managed and manageable. FAQs were a stopgap for the technological limitations of the time.\n\nBut the internet moved past mailing lists. Online information can be stored, searched, filtered, and muted; we choose and control our conversations. New users no longer rely on the established community to answer their questions for them.\n\nAnd yet, FAQs are still around. They\u2019re a content anti-pattern, replicated from site to site to solve a problem we no longer have.\n\nWhat we hate when we hate FAQs\n\nAs someone who creates and structures online content \u2013 always with the goal of making that content as useful as possible to people \u2013 FAQs drive me absolutely batty. Almost universally, FAQs represent the opposite of useful. A brief list of their sins:\n\n\nDouble trouble\nDuplicated content is practically a given with FAQs. They\u2019re written as though they\u2019ll be accessed in a vacuum \u2013 but search results, navigation patterns, and curiosity ensure that users will seek answers throughout the site. Is our goal to split their focus? To make them uncertain of where to look? To divert them to an isolated microcosm of the website? Duplicated content means user confusion (to say nothing of the duplicated workload for maintaining content).\nLeaving the job unfinished\nMany FAQs fail before they\u2019re even out of the gate, presenting a list of questions that\u2019s incomplete (too short and careless to be helpful) or irrelevant (avoiding users\u2019 real concerns in favor of soundbites). Alternately, if the right questions are there, the answers may be convoluted, jargon-heavy, or otherwise difficult to understand.\nLong lists of not-my-question\nGetting a single answer often means sifting through a haystack of questions. For each potential question, the user must read, comprehend, assess, move on, rinse, repeat. That\u2019s a lot of legwork for little reward \u2013 and a lot of opportunity for mistakes. Users may miss their question, or they may fail to recognize a differently worded version of their question, or they may not notice when their sought-after answer appears somewhere they didn\u2019t expect.\nThe ventriloquist act\nFAQs shift the point of view. While websites speak on behalf of the organization (\u201cour products,\u201d \u201cour services,\u201d \u201cyou can call us for assistance,\u201d etc.), FAQs speak as the user \u2013 \u201cI can\u2019t find my password\u201d or \u201cHow do I sign up?\u201d Both voices are written from the first-person perspective, but speak for different entities, which is disorienting: it breaks the tone and messaging across the website. It\u2019s also presumptuous: why do you get to speak for the user?\n\n\nThese all underscore FAQs\u2019 fatal flaw: they are content without context, delivered without regard for the larger experience of the website. You can hear the absurdity in the name itself: if users are asking the same questions so frequently, then there is an obvious gulf between their needs and the site content. (And if not, then we have a labeling problem.)\n\nInstead of sending users to a jumble of maybe-it\u2019s-here-maybe-it\u2019s-not questions, the answers to FAQs should be found naturally throughout a website. They are not separated, not isolated, not other. They are\u00a0the content.\n\nTo present it otherwise is to create a runaround, and users know it. Jay Martel\u2019s parody, \u201cF.A.Q.s about F.A.Q.s\u201d\u00a0captures the silliness and frustration of such a system:\n\n\n\tQ: Why are you so rude?\n\n\tA: For that answer, you would have to consult an F.A.Q.s about F.A.Q.s about F.A.Q.s. But your time might be better served by simply abandoning your search for a magic answer and taking responsibility for your own profound ignorance.\n\n\nFAQs aren\u2019t magic answers. They don\u2019t resolve a content dilemma or even help users. Yet they keep cropping up, defiant, weedy, impossible to eradicate.\n\nWhere are they all coming from?\n\nBlame it on this: writing is hard. When generating content, most of us do whatever it takes to get some words on the screen. And the format of question and answer makes it easy: a reactionary first stab at content development.\n\nAfter all, the point of website content is to answer users\u2019 questions. So this \u2013 to give everyone credit \u2013 is a really good move. Content creators who think in terms of questions and answers are actually thinking of their users, particularly first-time users, trying to anticipate their needs and write towards them.\n\nIt\u2019s a good start. But it\u2019s scaffolding: writing that helps you get to the writing you\u2019re supposed to be doing. It supports you while you write your way to the heart of your content. And once you get there, you have to look back and take the scaffolding down.\n\nLeaving content in the Q&A format that helped you develop it is missing the point. You\u2019re not there to build scaffolding. You have to see your content in its naked purpose and determine the best method for communicating that purpose \u2013 and it usually won\u2019t be what got you there.\n\nThe goal (to borrow a lesson from content management systems) is to separate the content from its presentation, to let the meaning of the content inform its display.\n\nThis is, of course, a nice theory.\n\nAn occasionally necessary evil\n\nI have a lot of clients who adore FAQs. They\u2019ve developed their content over a long period of time. They\u2019ve listened to the questions their users are asking. And they\u2019ve answered them all on a page that I simply cannot get them to part with.\n\nWhich means I\u2019ve had to consider that there may be occasions where an FAQ page is appropriate.\n\nAs an example: one of my clients is a financial office in a large institution. Because this office manages several third-party systems that serve a range of niche audiences, they had developed FAQs that addressed hyper-specific instances of dysfunction within systems for different users \u2013 \u00e0 la \u201cI\u2019m a financial director and my employee submitted an expense report in such-and-such system and it returned such-and-such error. What do I do?\u201d\n\nYes, this content could be removed from the question format and rewritten. But I\u2019m not sure it would be an improvement. It won\u2019t necessarily resolve concerns about length and searchability, and the different audiences may complicate the delivery. And since the work of rewriting it didn\u2019t fit into the client workflow (small team, no writers, pressed for time), I didn\u2019t recommend the change.\n\nI\u2019ve had to make peace with not being to torch all the FAQs on the internet. Some content, like troubleshooting information or complex procedures, may be better in that format. It may be the smartest way for a particular client to handle that particular information.\n\nOf course, this has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the amount of content, the subject matter, the skill levels of the content creators, the publishing workflow, and the search habits of the users.\n\nIf you determine that an FAQ page is the only way to go, ask yourself:\n\n\n\tIs there a better label or more specific term for the page (support, troubleshooting, product concerns, etc.)?\n\tIs there way to structure the page, categorize the questions, or otherwise make it easier for users to navigate quickly to the answer they need?\n\tIs a question and answer format absolutely the best way to communicate this information?\n\n\nForm follows function\n\nJust as a question and answer format isn\u2019t necessarily required to deliver the content, neither is it an inappropriate method in and of itself. Content professionals have developed a knee-jerk reaction:\u00a0It\u2019s an FAQ page! Quick, burn it! Buuuuurn it!\n\nBut there\u2019s no inherent evil in questions and answers. Framing content in an interrogatory construct is no more a deal with the devil than subheads and paragraphs, or narrative arcs, or bullet points.\n\nYes, FAQs are riddled with communication snafus. They deserve, more often than not, to be tied to a chair and thrown into a lake. But that wouldn\u2019t fix our content problems. FAQs are a shiny and obvious target for our frustration, but they\u2019re not unique in their flaws. In any format, in any display, in any kind of page, weak content can rear its ugly, poorly written head.\n\nIt\u2019s not the Q&A that\u2019s to blame, it\u2019s bad content. Content without context will always fail users. That\u2019s the real witch in our midst.", "year": "2013", "author": "Lisa Maria Martin", "author_slug": "lisamariamartin", "published": "2013-12-08T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2013/what-to-do-with-faqs/", "topic": "content"}