# Improving Discourse documentation

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/improving-discourse-documentation/261781>\
**Category:** Site feedback\
**Created:** [April 7, 2023, 10:32am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/improving-discourse-documentation/261781 "2023-04-07T10:32:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MikeNolan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/mikenolan/32/297597_2.png) [@MikeNolan](https://meta.discourse.org/u/MikeNolan)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2023, 6:47pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/improving-discourse-documentation/261781/3 "2023-04-07T18:47:34Z")

</div>

As developer/user communities go, discourse is well above average. Errors seem to be corrected quickly, feature requests aren’t just ignored, especially if there’s a reasonable use-case for them, and the online staff (paid or volunteers, I’m not sure how you tell who’s what) are pretty good and fairly patient at coaching us newbies along.

Yeah, the documentation needs work, but writing good documentation is expensive and time-consuming. Moreover, developers often don’t write good documentation because they’re just too close to the product, they don’t see it as users see it. Being too close to the code is also a product testing issue, though in many open source projects the user community does a good job testing things.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/improving-discourse-documentation/261781)._