Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Attention Mod
CodeTRUCKER:
I can see someone like f0dder getting a lot of these SOS thingies.... :)
-nosh (January 26, 2008, 08:00 AM)
--- End quote ---
Right, let's add this to the mix then...
Service Queues
-=o=- The thought I have is to take the personal aspect out altogether. What if the call was made to a "Service Queue" rather than an individual member? This would eliminate the need to even respond, and would not produce any privacy issues. The "call" would be directed to the queues. Let me offer a simple example...
Say a call went to an Emergence BASIC queue. Myself, mrainey, etc. would have "attributes" in our profile that identifies us to the server that we are available to help if a call comes in for assistance with EBASIC. If a call comes in from the queue as a simple alert stating that "iluveb" (or whatever member) needs assistance with a short comment "Hey, EBer's I'm having trouble with the @STATIC , can you help me?" Both mrainey and myself would receive the alert and neither of us would be required to respond in any way (although the whole idea is to match issues to solutions ;) ). Yet, either or both of us could respond if we chose to.
This almost looks like a pointer to the idea of "We already have this in the ability to post a new thread asking for help, don't we?"
Sort of... the ability to post a new thread is an option, but it has some problems...
(1) Because it is a new thread, it would break the continuity of the thread where the original need presented itself.
(2) It doesn't really "call" for assistance. It would depend on chance for an issue to be addressed.
(3) Again, because no "call" was issued, members that are able and willing to help would also have to depend on chance.
[Disclaimer - the use of "mrainey" is only for example due to his involvement and does not suggest that he should be involved.]
<edit> added quote </edit>
tinjaw:
I think the service queues idea waters it down to what we have now. Namely forums with topics and people who are interested in helping read the threads in those forums. f0dder already reads the threads where he can help and I read threads where I can help.
Here is one example that supports your origional idea of signaling somebody. I have been ultra busy the past week and have let several pages of new threads pile up. However, you sent me a PM and asked me to respond to a thread. I did have time to go to a specific thread and answer a specific topic, so the PM served its purpose.
I think the fact that you *can* PM anybody, but that it does take more than a single click to do so, provides the proper barrier to abuse. If you want somebody to join in on a thread enough that you are willing to take the time to PM them, it sort of acts as a filter.
CodeTRUCKER:
i like the idea of modifying the "Send This Topic" page to allow you to send a topic to a user on the forum not just to an email address.
this way we don't have to add any new "buttons" and i think the "Send this Topic" idea captures the same idea that has been suggested here -- and why should the "send this topic" only work with emails -- seems natural to extend it to work with forum names and send it as a message through the forum.
-mouser (January 26, 2008, 03:50 AM)
--- End quote ---
I agree that it requires little work to make happen, which is beneficial and it would fulfill the requirements to an extent.
If the "Send Topic" were modified to blank email addresses, make the comment field more user friendly, it still leaves the recipient "Guru" with somewhat of a chore to do, i.e., get to the location of the post where assistance was requested.
My thinking is to make things as easy on the "Guru" as possible, but not too easy, (as tinjaw has alluded to). The less obstacles that have to be overcome by the "Guru" and the more specific the target post, the more likely the "Guru" would respond, IMO. Given this, is it possible to somehow mark the specific post within the "Send Topic" dialog to capture the specific address? BTW - I did test using the right-click >> copy post link >> open "Send Topic" >> paste in Comment box scenario, but due to the current text limitation, after pasting the whole "https://www.donationcoder.com/...rmsg98591#msg98591" post link URL, there is exactly enough room left for " - We need help with a".
f0dder has said that the PMs are wasted on him because he misses them, somehow, but he stated that he does receive email. He is not alone, because that is how I find my PMs (ok, I'm not a guru, but maybe someday? :) ) Including email addresses may need to be considered as an option, but only in a "black-boxed" method.
Mouser, (??), etc., since you are one close to the Tech Team, what are your views on these points?
FMI - would modifying the "Comment" box on the "Send Topic" dialog be just a matter of making "130px x 20px" into "130px x 100px" in the software, or is it more involved?
mouser:
it still leaves the recipient "Guru" with somewhat of a chore to do, i.e., get to the location of the post where assistance was requested.
--- End quote ---
do you mean beause it only sends the thread url not a specific post url?
CodeTRUCKER:
it still leaves the recipient "Guru" with somewhat of a chore to do, i.e., get to the location of the post where assistance was requested.
--- End quote ---
do you mean because it only sends the thread url not a specific post url?
-mouser (January 26, 2008, 03:23 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes
Did you come to this post via the PM, or was it just happenstance?
The reason I ask is if it was the PM, then there is an avenue to gain specific assistance, if the requester is familiar with the "tricks." The other reason I ask is there have been over 340 views of this thread and only a handful of participants. Maybe it is early yet, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in this project. I wonder if it is time to shelve it and move on? :)
Edit - forgot the smiley and other comment
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version