Re: BFG -- purpose, pros, and cons

I just read the BFG version of "How to install SMF" and the regular version (as linked here on page 5), and I must actually admit I find the BFG version to lack tremendous amounts of required detail that, for me, seems to be absolutely mandatory that it must contain it.

It does not seem to deal with any of the "what can go wrong" aspects at all (nor does it even (properly, or sometimes: at all) link to the articles that *do* describe what to do in such a scenario), but rather refers back to the host or says nothing at all.

To me, it seems all but user friendly that you have to start communicating with your hosting provider "when you're unsure" or when, as the user won't know some extra action is required, "something doesn't work". Or you have to start searching yourself for an article that does explain it.

Especially when we *do* have articles ourselves that explain everything!

When a noob looks at this article when something goes wrong following a step from that article: it does not offer them *any* solution at all! That's *not* friendly.

In the thread I noticed that this is intended to be written for noobs... No?

A true noob will really not be able to anticipate what it means when they, for example, get an error in install.php demanding them for FTP login details because CHMOD is setup in a wrong way. "Wtf, doc doesn't say anything about this?" As the guide is "the easy guide": that might only make 'em feel stupid or wary of asking about it and perhaps even ditch their efforts as it does not seem to be so easy after all. It might make 'em think "to hell with this sh-!". ... Quite the opposite of what you wish to achieve.

The BFG does not seem to handle any of those aspects at all, and that, in my humble opinion, makes it very *unfriendly* instead of friendly. The normal article seems to be... More friendly :X At least, to me. (And yes, I know I'm probably more of an "advanced" user: but I do think I'm voicing a legitimate concern here even, or especially, when looking at it from a noob point of view.)

Surely the "normal" version is more stuff to read, but at least it deals with everything the user can possibly hope for, and fundamentally: it is not that much different, just more detailed. o0

(On top of that I never really seen anyone complain about the documentation being hard to read, but as I hardly roam in the support boards that is probably not something I can make an educated statement about; I'll leave that up to support lol.)

In all honesty, the normal documentation seems to be very user friendly but *also* deals with the "what can happen" aspect and also offers information both for more advanced users as explaining to noobs in a good way how a user can fix certain problems without having to go moan with their hosting provider for help. I don't quite understand what is unfriendly about the normal documentation.

(On top of that there appear to be quite some spelling mistakes in the friendly guide to me, but as English is not my "normal" language I'll leave that up to the people who *do* have it as their native language, lol.)

No offense by the way and I applaud your enthusiasm, but this is just what I noticed after reading through those pages.

Simply put, what I was seeing there seems (imho) to cause division in the docs (and making it overly redundant) and does not make me an enthusiast for the BFG idea as it seems to be working... Quite adversely.

It seems to be written from the idea that nothing will go wrong or no errors will present themselves. I think I'm safe when I say that is as far from reality as you can get. And again, I mean no offense. I understand you put quite some work in to this.

Of course that could be fixed by properly linking to the articles that do describe it. But that makes me wonder... Then why write the stripped down version in the first place? If they have to read the expanded version anyway, it seems to serve no point *unless* everything goes fine and dandy in one go. But I would prefer the docs to foresee in all user scenarios/problems, *especially* when claiming the noob friendly aspect... Take 'em by the hand and show 'em everything. (Might learn 'em a thing or two.)

I do understand a short "straight to the point" doc might be easier for some but... I hope you can see that it can *raise* much bigger hurdles for others who thought they were going to get an easy solution to their question.

Hence: the normal docs seem to be a better "all-round" solution and deal with every problem possible, as a documentation should be doing.

That's just my two cents and observations though.

- Liroy