TechSpot - PC Technology News and Analysis

these two guides probably should be combined:

http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic53866.html

and

http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic113137.html

I don't think so

I believe the new guide updates the old guide, (similar to how the Virus/Spyware removal thread got updated)

I have read the old guide thoroughly, the new guide incorporates everything (even benchtesting) in simple to read format

The only thing I haven't discussed is replacing Hardware, I did mention PowerSupply (in retrospect I should have gone more thorough with replacing hardware) But that is all

I believe the new guide is simple to follow, and will help most users with getting their (originally working) computer back working.

My thoughts



Other Members thoughts also called for
.

I don't think they should be combined, mostly because they seem to both be such well written threads, it would take a painful amount of time to combine them.


Also, the format and contents are slightly different. Tedsters older one is written in a series of steps anyone who has this problem should go through in order and is directed (i think, relative to the other one) for more experienced users who need a list of possible causes and fixes.

Kimslands one is a simpler shorter one with links for more in depth reaserch on a particulare section. Its quiker to go through and is a basic list targeting less experianced people, or people who don't have as much time. Though i think Tedsters thread should be in the list of references.


Besides, just because they are on the same topic does not mean they should be combined. Thats why there is a "hardware" section...and all those other which group similar topics together.

Thanks for your comments

Strangely I agree with every word
Mine was meant to be simple, and simple to read

For what my opinion is worth, both Guides have merit in their method of delivery. Tedsters' is aimed at people with a good general knowledge, Kimslands' is a bit more lenient in the audience area.

I would say leave them both 'as is'.

If anything needs doing, it is to have someone in authority rename many of the Guides and Solved Issues so they make some kind of alphabetical sense for searchers. But that is just me. I like the alphabet and orderly files!

I agree with CCT - on both matters - leave both guides and organize into order

If I were to make any suggestion, it would be these.

(OK, here I mixed the singular and plurals together to confuse everyone, why I have no idea).

Sometimes people understand one explanation, and if they don't, perhaps another approach will do the job.

I don't see why we couldn't have both guides for the same reason.

I would like to suggest a couple of changes to each of them.

I think kimsland's guide needs an in guide explanation and caution regarding anti-static precautions rather than a link. In bold letters; "before you stick your hands inside your computer, read this!

Trying to give advice to beginner always scares me because of static issues, and retyping about it every time is a pain. On the other hand if you tell them and they already know, you're talking down to them, (or so they think), or you don't and they don't know, begets another losing proposition.

I think Tedster's guide needs to be retitled, due to the fact that POST is an alien term to a rank beginner. Maybe, "so your computer won't start" or "won't boot", would be appropriate.
it also might help to delete most or all of the thread following the guide, as most of that seems superfluous, particularly the nonsense with Howard.

This discussion sort of leads back to the idea of making newcomers fill out a questionaire. What I believe would be more helpfull than that, would be a better title and area for self help. I know we have "guides and solved issues", but I don't think it grabs you the way it should. We could kick this around a bit, maybe it's just in need of a tweak in the wording, or maybe it's not doable at all, I'm not sure.

That said, I firmly believe that personal contact is what newcomers crave as much as a solution for their problems, which sort of mitigates any bureaucratic approach.

Shows that you are far from senility !

that's why i think they should be combined. People can choose which one they think is more relevant. Having more than 1 with the same general topic gets confusing for general viewers.

CAUTION: The following complicates a simple remedy (post #1 in this thread). Continue at your peril.

Three parts to this response: content, politics, legal.

1. Content - updated version
1a. I find the content pertinent & supplemented with helpful information via hyperlinks
1b. Some of the hyperlinks may face legal challenge - a matter for Julio.
1c. The prose style of the original version clearly expresses how to "peal" the tower "onion".
1d. Combine both versions as suggested by post #1 here.
1e. If seeking candidate replacement title for one of these posts, I suggest "NO VA". Here is the related urban legend: http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

2. Politics of this Board
2a. I believe that it should be a policy that all threads in "Guides & Solved Issues" be closed from accepting extraneous posts.
2b. Create a standard note that begins or ends each post in "Guides & Solved Issues" with a link to "Site Feedback & Suggestions" specific to the post in "Guides & Solved Issues". All comments & suggestions go this route.
2c. I would use (2b) to clear out the extraneous posts in the original version.
2d. Guess what? This policy follows the lead from Tedster/Kimsland.
2e. Another sort mechanism (other than pinned or date of latest post) is worth considering.
2f. Some changes only require that we agree to some simple rules for constructing "titles" related to format elements appearing in the title. "Tutorial" is already the principal element.
2g. Implementation is another matter - we could yak on these side issues in separate threads.

3. Legal - a matter for Julio
"Guides & Solved Issues" appears to be fully endorsed by this Board. For hyperlinks to content belonging to others, I leave it to Julio to sort through copyright (ownership) and securing permissions that this entails. It is possible that all parts of any bulletin board are fully exempt from restrictions using content owned by another without source attribution.

TS has been full of politics- ever since I have been a member, but people shouldn't let it bother them- heck - it really doesn't bother me. I've seen flaming, wars, and quite a few boots in the three years I've been on here. I don't think the guides are political hot spot here though.

Creating a difference. Is any of this controllable by the authors or moderator?

Titles Present View:
Kimsland: Tutorial: No POST (Power On System Test)
Tipster: Tutorial: No POST / Power General troubleshooting

Titles - revisions:
No POST (Power On Self Test) - Quick Reference
No POST / No POWER - General Troubleshooting

Substance of changes:
POST - source of definition = Wikipedia
Differentiate content by one of the elements of style

Kimsland's post already contains linkage to Tipster's post.
Edit Tipster's post to insert complementary change.

Damn.

Good point

Now I do feel my guide is limited in life here (let alone the many others, ie I'm the guinee pig ofcourse )

I hadn't thought of that exactly
By the way is their a legal team/member that checks these types of things on TechSpot?
Do remember that the Internet is all about sharing information.
The tight restrictions are becoming less and less each day

But you raise a good point, that can affect many support replies, not just related to Guides.

Dang it, anyway! My former corporate life always complicate things.

I should have......... expanded my viewpoint to consider the "fair use" concept (at least from the U.S. perspective).

The forums on bulletin boards are used by subscribers to communicate among themselves and share visual material intended to inform or educate recipients. This sentiment easily complies with the Fair Use Doctrine [citing point #1: "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is ..........for nonprofit educational purposes"].

I was over-reaching by recalling a single, anecdotal horror story about lawsuits against web sites linking to other web sites.

Kimsland, your view is certainly more reflective of our present environment that has never raised the ire of Microsoft [ Q: ...use of article from MS Web site] and other majors cited herein.

It certainly helps to sound things out. Other perspectives help balance things. Letting things fly, as I just did, causes extra replies that distract from the intended focus of this thread - user input concerning consolidation of tutorials.

I'm going by this: (ref: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)
I must now refer back to Tedster's comment (above)
And agree to not reply regarding legal copyrights, or the political aspect of this, on this thread It is leading away from the real issue.

But you have made me change the way I will post in future, thanks for that.