Jump to content

Error messages


Farelf

Recommended Posts

The equanimity of the reporter with an incidence of "your reporting privileges have been suspended" (over in the recent Help forum) may not have been helped by the difficulty in finding any reference to the phrase (in particular, not in "relevant" FAQ nor in default search "SpamCop and FAQ"). I think this would have started the guy off in the wrong frame of mind right from the start. I can scarcely believe the FAQ *doesn't* have all standard "problem" or error messages referenced. This is so basic (and surely there are so few left that have been missed) that it should be rectified immediately, surely? Guess it comes from the divided nature of the enterprise. This shouldn't be the users' problem though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The equanimity of the reporter with an incidence of "your reporting privileges have been suspended" (over in the recent Help forum) may not have been helped by the difficulty in finding any reference to the phrase (in particular, not in "relevant" FAQ nor in default search "SpamCop and FAQ").  I think this would have started the guy off in the wrong frame of mind right from the start.  I can scarcely believe the FAQ *doesn't* have all standard "problem" or error messages referenced.  This is so basic (and surely there are so few left that have been missed) that it should be rectified immediately, surely?  Guess it comes from the divided nature of the enterprise.  This shouldn't be the users' problem though.

...Huh? When I use the link at the top of the page labeled "Search" and enter "reporting privileges" in the "Search by Keywords" area and change Search Where to "> All Forums" and Search Options: Search posts from... to "Any date" I get the following hits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OIC - thanks Steve, I was trying the full phrase and the defaults (changing nothing). I do recall the first set of postings you've linked now I see them again. Still a trifle tough to expect a frustrated and fraught Newbie to find their way there, IMO (full Professor or not ;-) Needs to be in the FAQ (along with all the rest).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OIC - thanks Steve, I was trying the full phrase and the defaults (changing nothing).  I do recall the first set of postings you've linked now I see them again.  Still a trifle tough to expect a frustrated and fraught Newbie to find their way there, IMO (full Professor or not ;-)  Needs to be in the FAQ (along with all the rest).

...Seems to me the full phrase should also find these (or, at least, the ones that actually do contain the full phrase).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Seems to me the full phrase should also find these (or, at least, the ones that actually do contain the full phrase).

Yeah, you'd think so wouldn't you? Only place I get hits with the full phrase is news.spamcop.net, 30-something of them. No hits at all on forum.spamcop.net or www.spamcop.net, none on the initial default Google (spamCop and FAQ). Maybe I'm doing something wrong (not for nothing am I known to my friends & colleagues as "old conception fingers").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OIC - thanks Steve, I was trying the full phrase and the defaults (changing nothing).  I do recall the first set of postings you've linked now I see them again.  Still a trifle tough to expect a frustrated and fraught Newbie to find their way there, IMO (full Professor or not ;-)  Needs to be in the FAQ (along with all the rest).

Here's a few thoughts, questions, and ..???

I've asked elsewhere but don't recall getting an answer. How can one sign up for a filtered e-mail account without ever having gone to www.spamcop.net?

Possibly too old for the default of "show the last 30 days", but there was much conversation at the start (and ever since) about the FAQ situation. JT's big push was for e-mail support to be handled via this web thing. E-mail is the side of SpamCop that JT runs/owns. As seen, there's a lot more happening here than just the e-mail side of using SpamCop. JT was "working on the FAQ thing" .. originally was looking to add it right into the "Help" button at the top of the Forum page, but that didn't turn out to be plausible. So there was another thing that he was going to look at. In the interim, I'll take the heat, as it was I that suggested to JeffG to do the Pinning thing. That's how we got to the issues of today.

"We've" been asking for JT to add more "sections" so some of the stuff could be split out a bit better. I may get shot for this, but the most recent suggestion was to have "us" do work at re-writing, adding, updating the FAQ as found on the www.spamcop.net pages, rather than continuing in the Pinned item vien.

Now in this specific case, I certainly can't argue with the sometimes whacked error returns in the Forum search tool (have you tried searching for FAQ yet? only three letters, won't even try <g>) But on the other hand, I'm lost at the OP's sewcond response (and even more confused at the Deputies' responses, which pretty much duplicate what was in the original FAQ link I posted) .... so to clear up the confusion, what exactly are you trying to suggest. Add more Pinned FAQs and get back into the "too many Pinned items" debate, re-write the existing FAQ on the spamcop web page and make the "your e-mail bounced" show up in big red flashing letters, or ...???? (also join in with some Topics in the lounge about the current efforts at trying to do a so-called "super-FAQ" to replace the multitude of Pinned items?)

Bottom line, JT has control of the form and layout of these Forum pages. "We've" been trying to work within the framework as it exists and there are issues being raised from many corners. Should the FAQ be here, should the FAQ be there, and now seeing that even Don has been tasked to show up here and answer questions, and as both Ellen's (and now Don's) responses generally seem to be "e-mail me at ..", is a FAQ even needed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can one sign up for a filtered e-mail account without ever having gone to www.spamcop.net?
OK, one can't (in any capacity) and that's where most will start their search for answers. So, FWIW my thoughts are as follows. I would see it as necessary for any reporter/member (particularly those who are unfamiliar with the layout) to quickly establish where to go for answers. The www.spamcop.net FAQ are a fine basis but require extension to the matters that collective experience (and changes) indicate are needed. If this can't be done on the run, the pinned FAQ are infinitely better than nothing but neither are/should they be static. Many people have put a lot of work into them for an effective result and one would trust they can be incorporated with minimal effort into the www.spamcop.net FAQ.

That's what I have been assuming was going to happen and beyond that, there's the need for continuing maintenance after integration of the pinned FAQ is achieved. The forums are excellent, but I completely agree we need some more categories, particularly a technical area where "war stories" can be swapped and information exchanged and where members can gain knowledge and perspective outside of the "first immediate action" Help post (I'm not into the news groups myself but the simple answer to that might be "NO, go to the newsgroups!") Maybe the Lounge is evolving into the tech area (nobody seems to want to talk about much apart from spam anyway). Or, failing the prospect of a reasonably rapid integration of pinned and www.spamcop.net FAQ, a complete "forum" of pinned FAQ, in one place (the "Super FAQ" idea).

It is more than excellent that Don and Ellen trawl the forums and provide a conduit for quick reaction but they need the support of the updated FAQ as a repository of the 80% of questions and answers that are repetitive (a la Pareto). Troubleshooting by inspection is great but it needs the freedom to pick the challenging cases with reasonable assurance that the rest of the member problems are going to be dealt with promptly and to a standard. That falls to the moderators and to the other members who field most of the initial queries. The documented FAQ are needed to ensure consistency and they are needed to take the pressure off both the administrators and volunteers. This helps maintain/increase both the appearance of professionalism and the actual delivery of professional service (and if you charge people money for it, that's what you have to deliver). There are evident signs of pressure, which is natural, but at no time should there be a risk that this will compromise the service. Sorting out the FAQ should help, a little.

The sectionalized layout (with extensions) is quite good IMO and what I am suggesting, which is evidently incomplete at the moment, is that all the error messages that members might see should be mentioned in their appropriate sections within the final, glorious, envisioned (unfortunately in several different forms) www.spamcop.net FAQ. This will aid people finding their answers and it will aid others who may be needed to assist them. That process would also be assisted by having an integrated table of error messages, linked to to the appropriate sections as well (since you ask). I think I would prefer that to flashing red letters.

If it was my call to make, I would say go with Miss Betsy's vision because she seems to have put the most thought into all of this and she is meticulous and sensible (even if she is younger than am I). Just adopt something and go with it - it is going to be an improvement. Apart from that, what on earth would I know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great minds and all that... :D

I like your idea of the error messages. and most of my suggestions have been "anything would be an improvement" rather a well thought out plan!

I think "almost new" makes me, maybe, younger at heart than a lot of people, but you must be pretty close to /old/ to be older than me!

Miss Betsy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "almost new" makes me, maybe, younger at heart than a lot of people, but you must be pretty close to /old/ to be older than me!

Your delicacy and refinement do you great credit Miss Betsy! As I tell my kids, "Pre-atomic and proud of it. No strontium-90 in my baby bones, you wretched radioactive mutant infants." I don't think they like me very much ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and now seeing that even Don has been tasked to show up here and answer questions, and as both Ellen's (and now Don's) responses generally seem to be "e-mail me at ..", is a FAQ even needed?

Glad you asked. The short answer is I tried to put myself in the position of the good Professor in the case in point (no offense intended should you read this, Sir, the following is dramatized for helpful effect) and came up with "yes".

Consider the scenario. He goes to the submission confirmation page (during his long weekend) to check for and report "saved" spam. Instead of the anticipated problem-free process of previous experience, he encounters multiple occurrences of an unfamiliar error message at the very time its intrusion is most particularly unwelcome. He quickly finds the "relevant" .net FAQ by following the links from where he is (or from the www.spamcop.net default entry page). A speed reader, he sees at a glance none of it is completely relevant, worse the problem is implicitly his "fault", somehow. His state of mind is not improved by subsequently following a few false trails on other links looking for *his* error message. By now he is spitting chips (having partially devoured, in sheer frustration, the wooden prosthesis his unfortunate and hitherto dedicated Admin Assistant). The significant point being, there is at no stage any reference to his specific case, that is anything evidencing *his* error message. He has therefore made the reasonable assumption that his case is unique and searches no further. Breathing fire and brimstone (and wooden chips), he descends upon the Help forum in justifiable disgruntlement. I see Heath Ledger in the starring role but am momentarily stumped for the support.

My next stage, needing no convincing that this was all very undesirable, was to wonder at what point it was preventable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To that wonderful recitation, I can only answer with " Heck , I don't know" <g> ... I thought it a bit dosconcerting when pointed to the relevent first FAQ, the individual chose only to get ticked at the one item that suggested that "he/she" screwed up ... totally ignoring the second possibility offered with the suggested instruction to quickly (?) resolve the issue.

Not going to go llok now, but I do seem to recall that the first good clue was bumped up at the top of the web page, but the eye was drawn to the first items standing further down in the white space. So I can see where he started reading ... but fail to go with the flow of the title of professor, thiniing of the implications of having done "research" in the past, so failed in my thinking to come up with why the entire page contents weren't read before raising the level of ire. And that the response from two, count 'em, two deputies that basically repeated the contents of the lower section of the FAQ, although perhaps solving the immediate situation, just seemed like so much un-needed work, time, and effort expended by the lack of taking a few more seconds/minutes to read the first attempted response. And after all this, why there might not have been the small follow-up from this poster to possibly suggest why the answer was not found during the first exchange ... I know, not his/her job ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And after all this, why there might not have been the small follow-up from this poster to possibly suggest why the answer was not found during the first exchange ...
That would be a reasonable response but it was not a reasonable situation. Your initial assistance in that case was perfectly fine (he made no direct reference to having perused the FAQ) - it was just he already had up a head of steam when he arrived and was certainly not about to be mollified before blowing some of it off (far less to show any appreciation or gratitude to a hard-working, under-appreciated but never-the-less ever-helpful Moderator). Such a snub is not to be taken personally, that's just the way people are of course. Personally I'm a bit like Linus's "I *love* humanity, it's just people I can't stand!" Anyway, the optimum course for development is to try to minimize the opportunities for people to get themselves needlessly upset. Remembering they will be frustrated from the start, this is never going to be anywhere near 100% effective. All that can be done is to reduce possible causes of additional "aggravation". FAQ content/completeness, expression and layout are tools in that endeavour. And that is going to be the first "point of contact" for some, perhaps many, people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...