FaqMe? FaqYou
faqme.com
faqme.com
UPDATE: Ok so I walked over to their FAQ page[1] and don't see anything that would make me want to offload my content to a site I have no idea how long it will be in service.
Don't mean to crap on the team, but much like almightygod said, I don't see the value proposition here.
It seems like it's just an extra point of failure that's also jarring to a user of your website, not to mention that the URL could be interpreted incorrectly. 'FAQ' on it's own is just another TLA (three letter acronym), but coupled with 'Me' makes it feel a little too close to "fuck me" which seems pretty unprofessional.
I built FaqMe because I wanted a simple content management system to manage all my FAQs for my various projects. Then I decided to go insane with the UI and stats n stuff & make it more awesome than I would have if I were just banging out an FAQ.
Yes, you could code a FAQ yourself, just like you could code a blog yourself without Wordpress. But hopefully this makes it easier for some folks (much like Wordpress makes it easier to blog).
(also it does more than just FAQs -- there's also a 'contact us' thing that routes customer service emails through a FaqMe inbox in a deceptively simple way, and supports replying & threads n stuff. i know this description doesn't make sense. i should make a faq about it;)
Ps- I never know whether to write "a FAQ" or "an FAQ" ('fack' vs 'eff aye cue')
On the other hand if I start with nothing, then the wordpress option would be considerably easier then writing my own blog.
It seems that the itch your scratching is multiple sites with multiple FAQs. You may want to focus on that niche and tout this as a core feature on your homepage.
While others point to how "easy" it is to code up a faq, there are plenty of websites that are easily able to code up a faq, and still cannot, and plenty of websites filled with great stuff, that serve a group that cannot and do not, code anything.
I actually think this is a pretty nice service to offer.
Skeptical of the demand for something like this.
The web design community has spent years campaigning against separate FAQ pages and this will be seen as a step in the wrong direction.
Providing a way for users to seek or offer help is great but that's what support apps like GetSatisfaction or TenderSupport are for.
I find the domain name clever and funny but a joke is not a business and there's no way any of the brands we work with would want to associate themselves with it.
Tips: change the name, drop all references to "FAQ" and ensure it's obvious how your app can be used by web professionals with content strategy experience (e.g. to provide user support or collect questions that need to be answered within the content of a website or an app).
You know, the one that makes them look great on OS X but terrible on Windows. And I'm not talking about font rendering in general, but specifically whatever trend this and other pages have been doing.
OSX, on the other hand, anti-aliases fonts perfectly, and thus has no need of hinting at all. It's a philosophical difference as to which looks better.
BUT, the recent trend is in starting to use non-system fonts in web design, now that the Google Fonts project has taken off (together with widespread browser support for custom fonts).
The problem is that freely available fonts generally either have no hinting, or "automated" hinting -- because well-done hinting is incredibly time-consuming and, in the age of "retina displays", slowly losing its usefulness.
So, all these web fonts that render beautifully on OSX look like crap in Internet Explorer, since they have no hinting. (It actually bothers me so much that I run GDI++ on my Windows computer at work -- it renders all fonts Mac-style without hinting, instead of Windows-style.)
OS X: http://i.imgur.com/UKeZv.png
If yours looks like mine in Win7, I wouldn't call that fine...
1. build an faq scaffold with drag and drop 2. have a simple html page and be bothered everytime the business/product team wants to make a change to the faq
neither is difficult, but faqme seems easier then both options
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/25/faqd
Linking there is probably best in terms of attribution, and it answers some of the questions others might have, including who is responsible for FaqMe?
Which is not me, I have no involvement whatsoever, I just liked the name...
TechCrunch says:
Blippy and FuckedCompany.com founder Philip “Pud” Kaplan is at it again with his whimsical and sometimes useful ADHD Labs experiments, this time launching FaqMe, a FAQing free service that helps people build snazzier FAQ and Contact Us pages. “Many websites have sucky (or non-existent) help pages and customer service,” says Kaplan, who aim to make the whole FAQing experience more FAQing frictionless.
I think the MOST obvious use is for Mobile App designers that don't want to deal with web hosting in the short term.
I really like the simple prettiness of the stats page. Isn't recognising AtomicWeb or Safari from the Ipad though.
I've been trying it out: (warning shameless promotion) http://faqme.com/howto http://faqme.com/earthshout
Thanks for putting the site out there Pud and I am happy to write your FAQME FAQ's...
PS: "an FAQ". You write it like you would say it out loud. Also, first post.... not sure about this news editor....
1. The signup form has a checkbox that is opt-out and after the submit button. As someone who "tabs" through forms I don't want to go through a few extra steps so that I don't get unsolicited email (since it is opt-out)
2. faqme.com/faqme, the FAQ page doesn't work with JS disabled. I really don't see a need for JS (although I admit I'm in probably a terrible minority to disable JS by default on all pages). At least it must gracefully degrade if JS is disabled.
Pud, my dev team did a backflip when I crossed this off the todo list. Link at the bottom of our page and done. I look forward to using FaqMe.
The approach is different though. Well, FAQ it, I think I'll keep on working on it.
Anyway, I wish you both the best!