Hi!

Now I understand your idea much better. Anyway, Thomas already formulated what I tried to explain - the _article_ is MUCH better in such case compare to thread. MORE, take a look to fox.wikis.com WEB site. There are a LOT of fundamental discussions, where everybody can participate and improve content. And people there that change pages (mae contribution) are usually high experts and very serious about "quality". Just look there. I often reference Wiki pages here at UT when answering questions - Wiki site is very good addition for FoxPro community - it does organize exactly what you asked for here ;-))

See also a few comments below...

>Hi Vlad,
>
>I've done a lot of [snips] in this message, as it was becoming a bit confusing.
>

NP. Does it mean our discussion becomes not of "high quality"? ;-))

I also skept a few of paragraphs...

>***************
>>I read your and other's messages well. Just creating new category is not sufficient. It is required to make special rules for it, have person for very strict moderating of it or something like that etc.
>
>The idea of a moderator is not mine. I think it's possible without a moderator. Simply creating the new category could be enough, IMO. If, after a while, it's evident that it's not enough, then we could think of a moderator.
>The idea of special rules/etiquette is mine indeed. However, I think that it's enough to have a short etiquette statement that's once or weekly publicized. People who don't stick to the etiquette are told about the statement. That'll do in 99 percent of the cases, I hope.
>

The idea of higher moderating comes from my experience related to similar forums/ categories/ chats/ WEB sites dedicated to "high-quality" discussions. They're usually very well moderated. For example, when some lamer posts a question tehre, it is moved to proper category/forum, or just deleted. There are always people that even would nto read or would not think what they do and if they're using proper tools/places for that.

>
>***************
>>When somebody have a problem, he just
>tries to search. When could not find (or search result returns ~500 messages), post a thread and somebody else point to required article. Just look to threads 2 years ago and to threads as they're current. Currently most of the time I see _pointers_ to existing answer, FAQ, download, article, link to another site etc.
>
>I wasn't here two years ago. I assume that your observation holds true. Interesting. Maybe some people now have more time to spend on fundamental discussions. Or perhaps they have had their portion of that also long time ago and are now in the phase of flying the airplane on the automatic pilot. :)
>

That's true only for answering questions : answers are better and better. But ANSWERS. High-level discussions usually tend to create/discover something new, that could never be done in auto-pilot mode. That is why it also take a lot of time to think. Finally, that is why it usually have commercial aspects.

>***************
>>I want to say that "quality" is something measurable/comparable. Even "fundamental discussion" could be very lamer. It is needed to make some effort and something else to make it have "high quality" - to make difference. Just creating new category is not enough. You require to make people _understand_ the difference - to decide what discussion is of better quality.
>
>The name of the category and a statement could be of help here.
>

No. As I said, many people even does not think about meaning of category name and do nto read description/title. They "have no time" for that - just type and click button to send.

>***************
>>>I'm not defining quality simply in terms of expertise. Rather, I think that those who participate in a fundamental discussion should feel at ease in the discussion. They'll show respect to the other participants when they react with constructive arguments. Disrespectful experts will lower the quality, whereas newbies who give prove of a high level of logical thinking will raise the quality.
>>
>>That is why I said "you probably would require to write an entire article to explain that" :-)
>
>Will a short statement do? :-)
>

No, from my experience.

>
>***************
>>BTW, take a look to following article: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
>Long piece. I've read parts of it. It's a nice introduction for people who want an answer on a question. I'm talking about developers who like fundamental discussions.
>

Well, there is somethign common between question and discussion. This article tends to explain that long discussion could be created by question if that question is stated properly. Just read it more accurately in that light, and you'll see. That article applies to messages in general. If during discussion somebody post somethin not appropriate, it would result in the same things as described in that article. I would say, this article could be a good base to write a description for new category like you proposed, if such category would be ever created.

>***************
>>I understand what you meant as "quality" of message, I hanging here every working day and it is obvious for me what message/discussion is of high quality. BUT, how you would explain this to newbies or people that are high-experts, but look here once per week or two and do not understand well what is "high quality" discussion?
>
>I prefer to speak only of 'fundamental discussions'. Everybody who wants can participate. There's no minimum quality level or exam. When people see the category 'Fundamental Discussions', then they could know that it's the place where the fundamental discussions are, that's all.
>

Well, by removing "high quality" requirement for discussions, but leaving requirement "discussions, not questions", you're making it much better.


>***************
>>Example is Russian VFP club - there is already such categroy. While there are 30-100 messages/day at that WEB site, high-expert forum there is not popular - 2-5 messages/month.
>
>Well, 2-5 messages/month is really too little. I'd say 10 messages a day is the least. If it's less, then it's not a viable category.
>

That is my point. However, there is a difference now, when you do not put "high quality" requirement (high technical level required at Russian VFP Club similar forum). Without this requirement yo can expect much more participants, though who knows...

>
>***************
>that's all :)
>***************

:-))
I do not think so - things constantly improving 8-)