Capital Gains FAQ entry

[Alen Siljak]

   Thanks, David. I'm refraining from deleting any text unless it is
   glaringly obvious that it is wrong.
   What I'm trying to do is to link various related pieces of information
   together. As you say, sometimes it can be contradictory because one
   side is quite outdated. I believe that, with having links, this would
   become easier to navigate and eventually correct.
   Sometimes I run into a page describing some concept and I can not find
   it afterwards.
   Multiple entry points to documentation are also extremely confusing to
   me - faq, wiki, user docs, doxygen, txt files, descriptions in the
   repo, etc. So, I guess, the ability to clean up is equally important as
   adding new text. :)

   The Lots Concept guide page, which I linked to the Concept of Lots wiki
   page, contains the most complete explanation of the lots concept and
   the *implementation*, which is currently in GnuCash. From that point it
   is very valuable although it may be outdated. And I never saw any link
   to that page elsewhere.
   It is a bit difficult (for me, at least) to distinguish between user
   and developer documentation. Because, as a user, I had terrible
   problems working with Lots - transactions would appear duplicate out of
   the blue, transactions would be split automatically, etc. None of
   what's happening was obvious until I read the mentioned description.
   So, once a few details were known, I had no issues with the Lots any
   longer. Not able to reproduce the issues I was experiencing before and
   report as bugs because now I don't remember the way I tried to do it
   instinctively.

   In addition, it would be handy to have useful links on the home page.
   For example, Uservoice is missing and I think this is quite handy for
   end users to have input into the desired features. While it does not
   guarantee the implementation, at least it shows where the demand is.

   Hope what I wrote here makes sense. These are mostly observations from
   my short recent experience and not a direct reference to what you wrote
   earlier.
   Thank you for making the changes you just did. This just proves that
   adding the links between related topics helps to clean up the things a
   bit. For example, someone who only reads the FAQ would have a different
   understanding of capital gains process than someone who happened to
   search for Lots and read a different page. Now, at least, they should
   be a bit more aligned.

   Cheers

   Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 6:35 PM
   From: "David T." <sunfish62 at yahoo.com>
   To: cicko <alen.siljak at gmx.com>
   Cc: gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
   Subject: Capital Gains FAQ entry
   Cicko,
   I see that you have gotten involved in working on the wiki; fabulous!
   I recently received a notice that you had edited the FAQ on handling
   capital gains, by adding a reference to the wiki page “Concept of
   Lots”.
   Naturally, having received the announcement of the page change, I took
   a look at both the FAQ section and the Concept of Lots page, and found
   a number of problems.
   First, the FAQ itself is quite dated, mentioning the status of gains as
   of version 1.8. Since the Tutorial & Concept Guide represents the most
   complete and up-to-date version of the documentation, I have added
   these references and removed the original paragraph.
   Next, it goes into quite a bit of detail on how to enter gains—topics
   that are now covered in quite some detail in the Tutorial & Concepts
   Guide. SInce "9.7. Selling Shares” is so thorough, the examples given
   in the FAQ are both incomplete and redundant. Consequently, I am
   removing the example in the FAQ, and pointing to the Tutorial a second
   time, since it has so many detailed examples.
   Finally, I wonder whether it is wise to link to the “Concept of Lots”
   page, as it appears to be a description of how the implementer of the
   Lots feature went about it. Some of this information does appear to be
   unique, however, so I didn’t touch your reference to it. Long term, I
   think the information on this page should be separated so that the
   technical, development, information was placed on a technical page, and
   the user-focused information placed in the documentation set.
   Anyhow, I just wanted to let you know why I went into this section and
   changed it just after you had.
   David