Is there a place to send comments on the ArcGIS documentation?

[KDeVogelaere]

Is there a QC team reviewing the documentation before it's made public?  Sorry to say but I am constantly finding outdated online documents supporting functionality that does not work as expected, syntax that is incorrect, screenshots that do not match the product being referenced, and essential setup instructions omitted at version 10.3.1.  Is there a GeoNet space for users to record problems found in the documentation and report discrepancies?

[HannahDeindorfer]

Hi Joshua,

Thank you for your documentation-related suggestion.

"I think it would benefit Esri customers if there was a "community addition" section for the online documentation.  Microsoft's Developer Network has long had this feature, and I have come across other IT-related companies that do the same thing.  The reality is, there are limits to the resources devoted to documentation, and it makes sense to create more avenues for users/customers to share their knowledge about Esri products.  The best place for additional comments or examples from the user community isn't in some forum like GeoNet but directly in the documentation."

There is always a need for knowledge-sharing within the GIS community, at Esri, and beyond. Events like the Esri User Conference and the Esri Developer Summit​ also create opportunities for users to share knowledge and experience.

Providing more connective opportunities for users who cannot attend these events is important to us, so your suggestion is appreciated. I hope that you and others continue to share your feedback and ideas with us through documentation topic feedback links, GeoNet, the GIS-wiki that Andrew Wilson​ mentioned, and the ArcGIS Blogs.

Best,

Hannah Deindorfer  |  Documentation Product Engineer

Esri | 380 New York Street | Redlands, CA 92373 | USA

T 909-793-2853, ext. 1702 | hdeindorfer@esri.com | esri.com

[JasonTipton]

Hannah Deindorfer,

Not sure "the wiki" qualifies as an answer to the question. The question was about product documentation. "The wiki" which I am assuming is http://wiki.gis.com/ . I didn't even know this was hosted by ESRI. The wiki seems to be what you would think of a gis wiki and reads more like an encyclopedia about gis in general rather than product documentation of a specific product/tool/api. There is 1 page devoted to python... not 1 page for every arcpy tool. There's not even 1 page on the ArcServer Rest API . .  There's a link, but it's to the 9.3 documentation.

If this is an acceptable place for product product documentation and examples, I would suggest putting a link somewhere at the bottom of every page in  ESRI's documentation that would say "See community content". That would bring you to a page... say http://wiki.gis.com/wiki/index.php/ArcGIS_Server/10.3/Add User . If the page was empty, you could create a page and add content. Otherwise, you would see any community content that has already been added.

But... I'm not sure that the wiki is the best place for detailed product documentation/examples.

[AndrewWilson99]

Jason Tipton, I think you misconstrued Hannah Deindorfer and my comments regarding the wiki at wiki.gis.com.  Reading closely, my mention of that wiki wasn't as a REPLACEMENT for up-to-date, accurate documentation but rather an administrative example where Esri has given users permission to contribute to the body of knowledge.  

While that wiki is a bit of an "encyclopedia" and *could* be used as a form of documentation with a bit of bailing wire, it isn't and it probably shouldn't ever be considered 'the product technical documentation".   It currently DOES provide strategic documentation, including the classic "system design strategies" documentation.

As far as "not recognizing the gis.com domain as an Esri product", I am not sure if that says more to

• recognizing design cues,
• that Esri has such a labyrinth of web-space or
• readers just being too young (or too old) to remember the era when Esri bought the "GIS.COM" domain and users had to remember the difference between AP Select, AE Select and INFO SELECT.

Apologies, nothing above really gets at why Esri doesn't take advantage of the knowledge of dedicated product users to help improve the actual help documentation in a more timely manner.   To alleviate that and to actually go along with the thread:

While I can "submit feedback" from personal experience I know that a niche event that is important for me may not be important for the vendor's documentation filter mechanisms and/or it may take months or years for the information to actually be put into the documentation.   Often, knowing the ROI from experience, I just shrug my shoulders and move on rather than spend the time to ship it off into the opaque hole.  Sure, I'll ping the big ones, but not the small ones anymore.

I get the Command and Control perspective of the documentation writers and the fear of lambic fermentation when it comes to that Command & Control, I am just saying there are costs to that too.

[JasonTipton]

One thing was that I wanted to clarify "the wiki" as there was never a link to it and I wasn't sure what we were talking about.

I believe I was agreeing with you and I never mentioned a replacement. Joshua Bixby​ proposed "community edition"  to be part of the official documentation. I'm not exactly sure what Hannah Deindorfer was getting at, but it sounded like the community editions are Geonet, Users Conference, ArcGIS Blog (which I didn't know we could contribute to...) and "the wiki". All of this is spread out across the internet, and if you wanted an official place for that content, why not create a link from the page to a community page that others could follow the same path instead of random geonet posts.

There seems to be 2 types of community content that we are talking about

1)     Incorrect Documentation

2)     Additional Examples/Concepts

When there is incorrect documenation, it needs to be corrected in a timely manner at the official documentation, not some wiki. Even the smallest error should be fixed, not just the big ones, because the small ones that are easy for someone to figure out are big errors that could be impossible for someone else that is just learning the ESRI dance.  Additionaly Examples/Concepts probably could go in a wiki/geonet post, but probably not wiki.gis.com.

As for not knowing esri was behind wiki.gis.com, it's probably because that site has never been the end of a google search for the answer to a problem. I know I have ran across the site a few times before, but it has never answered a problem that I was running into so I just haven't paid it much mind.

[DanPatterson_Retired]

Jason, I agree completely with the ideas put forward.  It would be nice to have a link at the bottom of some/most/all pages that link to further examples.  I can definitely see an in-help wiki for arctoolbox geoprocessing tools.  There are a number of classic answers that many have given on geonet that could be cleaned up by moderators, volunteers (and dare I say... esri staff or interns) to provide concrete examples to demonstrate a tool's use in more than the current 'simple' case examples.  A good example would be some of the snippets in python snippets​ that deal with many field calculator examples.  the wiki.gis.com is new to me and I hate to say it, but there wasn't much there

[AndrewWilson99]

Esri does allow the user community  to update the Esri-run GIS-wiki after signing in with their global id.

Typically I assume there is some vetting process to keep out riff-raff though I have contributed so it may not be entirely effective ; ). 

Yes this is not "online documentation" that the OP talks to that is directly linked from ArcGIS for Goodness-knows-what  but it does show that trust can be built, even within the Redlands hive, to allow non-blue participants along the lines of what Joshua Bixby​ pines for.  

[KDeVogelaere]

The reality is the documentation for ESRI products is not always reliable. Joshua's suggestion for including user feedback into the online documentation would alleviate the need for ESRI staff to constantly review the documents for completeness. Please consider a few examples,

ArcGIS Server GeoEvent Extension 10.3.1 - Missing proxy configuration steps and information on global settings Ref link​

Business Analyst Address Coder Data Items Tab 10.2.2 - Shows Block level Geocode accuracy but the tool only supports 12-digits accuracy at the Block Group level Ref link​

These problems were eventually solved with help from ESRI Support after making several check-ins with product experts. This leads me to Andrew's observation that trust can be built, and ESRI users are a great resource to help fill-in the missing holes. For example, on a single page of PHP documentation, users have provided 83 additional insights and community members will moderate the feedback by up-voting, down-voting, or flagging the inappropriate comments, PHP: HTTP authentication with PHP - Manual

It doesn't make sense for the users to give feedback on the documentation page to alert staff to then go back to the documentation page and find the issue and put in the appropriate changes (eventually). Please take careful review and consideration on this.

[curtvprice]

> It doesn't make sense for the users to give feedback on the documentation page to alert staff to then go back to the documentation page and find the issue and put in the appropriate changes (eventually).

I guess I don't agree. I am a happy user of Esri's help.

Most help topics have an assigned curator and I have seen that there is a review process. I encourage users to put suggestions in the feedback, as I have found Esri help authors very responsive when I point out an error in a code sample or a statement in the help that I find confusing or misleading.