Re: [libreoffice-website] choice of forum software

On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 17:00 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote: 
> Hi Drew, *,
<snip>

> > > > [bumping - set delay when it is possible to bump]
> > >
> > > Hmm - as there is no special "bump" feature, a topic is "bumped" by
> > > sending a reply. 


> I don't want to limit people from providing
> > > additional information that they found out about. And I don't want to
> > > hinder people from posting a solution they found out themselves just
> > > after hitting "send". (Often enough when explaining your problem to
> > > others, you see "openings" for a solution). So I cannot think of a
> > > sensible way to prevent this/make it useful.
> >
> > No on is limited from doing anything by this. Sorry I just don't follow
> > your line of thought here at all.
>
> bumping happens when someone replies to a topic, doesn't it? So when
> you don't want users to bump their own topics, you don't allow users
> to reply to their own posts.
>
> If people are not allowed to reply to their own topic until
> <bumptimelimit> passes, they are not allowed to post a solution they
> found by themselves. They are not allowed to provide further details
> to an answer they can answer now, but could not after they did receive
> a reply when still in the <bumptimelimit>. Bother are
> counter-productive.

Ah - yes, I have failed to communicate - nothing in this alters other
normal behavior, the user can reply to their own posts at any time -
this is a very specific use case - the user (but more likely a
moderator) sees a post with no answer - they (the moderator) has no real
answer to give, [and feels it looks complete enough for someone to
answer]. so they can bump back to the head of the list - that is all
this is. It doesn't hinder anyone from doing anything they could of done
otherwise.


> > > If the time is short - it is likely in the new posts anyway, if much
> > > time has passed, then bumping the topic is legitimate. Also I wouldn't
> > > limit it to posts with no reply, there are enough forum posts with a
> > > reply, but no answer. So it is not really feasible.
> >
> > Yes - a way to designate whether a question is actually [solved] would
> > be a definite desire and if that is in place then extending the 'bump'
> > to include zero reply OR not solved would make sense.
>
> See above, I still cannot think of an algorithm that would actually
> work and not hinder users.
>
> > > [....]
> > > If a user didn't get a reply/answer for two weeks, and doesn't provide
> > > more info, asks for more details - what makes you think a bump will
> > > change the situation?
> >
> > Well, IMO a group will form of responders, people that actively come
> > looking to answer questions - they tend to do things like 'list
> > un-answered questions' and then work their way down the list - most
> > people tend to read from top to bottom and cherry pick if you will
> > things of interest - as the original post slides down the list it's
> > chances of getting an answer diminish.
>
> OK, so it is only a matter of what jumps in your face will be
> answered, everything else goes down the curb. If this is what the
> OOo-Forums worked like?

Well, that is kind of human nature - what you don't see you don't act
on.


> JForum does lack a "show posts with no replies" (at least from the
> current theme).

Should be easy enough to fix.

> So probably habits would have to change then/users should be
> encouraged to provide more details when they did not receive an answer
> in <arbitrarily chosen # of days>

Right - and that happens all the time.

anyway - 'a bump' is a nice to have feature not a must have for sure so
let's just drop it.

> > > Honestly, instead of auto-bumping it should be
> > > auto-moved-to-trashcan/the category for unanswered posts.
> >
> > Well, you can do that, I'm sure no one will mind if you delete their
> > posts.
>
> No, not delete, but move. To keep search powerful. Nothing is more
> annoying than to only dig up unanswered posts asking the same thing,
> but having no answer. (or only "solved, can be closed" without stating
> how it was solved.

alright - will come back to this last point in a later email.

//drew


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/website/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted