PGTips91 Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 The first line of rusty's posts includes all kinds of words about a SpamCOp e-mail account, setting filters, usng BLs, whitelists, SpammAssassin scores .... yet not a single word about reporting "any" spam and/or e-mail. Seconding Miss Betsy's observation, this Topic is being moved from SpamCop Reporting Help A forum to help users with reporting spam using the SpamCop Parsing and Reporting Service to SpamCop Email System & Accounts A forum for questions and discussion about the SpamCop Email System and spamcop.net email accounts with the usual questions ... why are the "self-explanatory titles with an expanded description" so ineffective? 35662[/snapback] I have been reading in these forums quite a bit lately and it is very tedious to have to read through vast quantities of "You did", "You didn't", "You did", "You didn't" type 'discussions' that contribute nothing of value to other readers of the posts. In this case, maybe if someone had taken note that this was the first post of this new member of the forums and had contacted him privately, moved the post to the right forum and then started to deal with the real issues, the forum need not fill up with a lot of necessary but unenlightening correspondence. I looked at another thread that was 90% to and fro over unimportant misunderstandings. More heat than light was generated. Is there no way to resolve procedural issues without them cluttering the message board for everyone and forever? Paul
Wazoo Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 In this case, maybe if someone had taken note that this was the first post of this new member of the forums and had contacted him privately, moved the post to the right forum and then started to deal with the real issues, the forum need not fill up with a lot of necessary but unenlightening correspondence. I looked at another thread that was 90% to and fro over unimportant misunderstandings. More heat than light was generated. Is there no way to resolve procedural issues without them cluttering the message board for everyone and forever? 35674[/snapback] As in "all" cases .. to include this one ... how about helping out and answring my last question .... why are the "self-explanatory titles with an expanded description" so ineffective? I've even tried to factor in language barriers, yet a "comcast user in Virginia" would tend to suggest that the use of English shouldn't have been a stumbling block. For that matter, one could ask why this post was placed into another user's query, offering no "help" ..... as compared to starting a bit of a rant over in the Lounge area, for instance? In this case, I see several questions already asked that also "could" have been provided in the original post .. heck, even the "sample header" isn't close to a set of "headers" ....????
turetzsr Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 I have been reading in these forums quite a bit lately and it is very tedious to have to read through vast quantities of "You did", "You didn't", "You did", "You didn't" type 'discussions' that contribute nothing of value to other readers of the posts. <snip> 35674[/snapback] Hi, Paul, ...While I understand your point, I guess I'd respond that there's this argument for what Wazoo is doing: hoping that "new" contributors might first look through some of the threads, "mistakes" have to be pointed out everywhere they happen so that they are identified at each point they occur. This maximizes the chance that new contributors see and avoid these "mistakes." And since these replies of Wazoo's (and sometimes mine) are readily identifiable by reading the first sentence or so, you (and others who feel they are a waste of time to read) can simply skip over them. Be aware, though, that often Wazoo mixes in some very useful guidance in these replies. <g>
Wazoo Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 This "new" Topic is based on postings extracted from http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5324 ... and as I suggested above, placed into the Lounge area. PGTips91 PM'd about this action. Let me start by pointing out that I had talked myself into doing some more work on populating the KnowledgeBase view of the SpamCop FAQ http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=faq ... once again, dealing with the frustrations of trying to convert the data found on the "official" FAQ into form and content compatible with this 'different' version. For example, I pull up one FAQ entry, see that is contains references to other FAQ entries .. do I have those in place yet? .. no? ... then let's go to those referenced items and get them positioned so that I can change the pointers in the first entry to then point to the newly placed entries in this app .... dang, one of those referenced entries contains pointers to yet another FAQ entry ... have to place that third item if haven't got it in place yet, make some notes, copy the URL if I have ... eventually, I might make it back to the original FAQ entry I was working on .... In the middle of that, I see that new posts have been made on the Forum ... go read those and hit some that have me beating my head on the wall ... why am I blowing so much time on building yet another FAQ version for folks that skip over all the work done thus far ... that excuse "I don't have time" doesn't fly to one that's been sitting at a keyboard for hours typing all that crap in so that the question asked needn't have been .... If you want, limit your complaint to just me (as most do) .... after years of complaints, I did something about the "official" FAQ and made the single-page version found here. I took it upon myself to start a Glossary here. I took it upon myself to make many modifications to this application, splitting out / creating distinct Forum sections, adding in search engine tools, changing some defaults, adding in features, built a Portal Page page to answer the "can't find anything" complaints, on and on .... and all the while, also taking the time to research some folks' issues, try to answer those that I can, steer those that I can't to a point where someone can, again, on and on .... And this is just the time I spend on volunteering on dealing with SpamCop.net issues. There are other places I "spread my cheer" around, Microsoft peer-to-peer newsgroups, the IPB support Forum, several ISP support Forums for web-pages I maintain for other folks to name just a few .. and this is on top of the computer support I provide for folks around here locally. Having to perform such rudimentary tasks as moving a "Help, It's broke" post out of a "How to use ..." Forum section into a Forum 'devoted' to the exact subject matter in that post is simply a waste of everyone's time ... making the move, deciding whether to leave a marker so the original poster can "find" it again or doing up a PM to advise of the move .. then somewhere down the road (normally after I see the original poster making another post in the same Topic in its 'new' location) going back and removing the pointer so as to 'clean-up' that original Forum section .... You think you're tired of "reading" all this tripe ....???? As I keep asking, why the he** does it all need to be generated in the first place? And the folks that jump on the "rudeness" issue are just another distraction, as far as I'm concerned. Had half of the effort expended in the post been directed to a search engine query (again, I added this function at the top of each and every page of this thing) ... not only would the "rude" answers have been avoided, you wouldn't be complaining about all the "un-needed" posts. Check the original "FAQ under Development" discussion, the original "Glossary" Topic and discussion, numerous Topics on and about Forum changes and additions ... note that there are a lot of folks involved in trying to make information available, improve access, etc., etc., etc. .... Once again, how about you explaining why all this extra time has to be wasted on such simple matters ....???? Noting that no FAQ development occurred while this was being composed.
PGTips91 Posted November 9, 2005 Author Posted November 9, 2005 As in "all" cases .. to include this one ... how about helping out and answering my last question .... why are the "self-explanatory titles with an expanded description" so ineffective? The problem, as I see it, is a simple one, that of the amount of detail confronting the newcomer to these forums. Where to start, what to read... As I sit here in front of my computer I only have one screen-full at a time to look at and digest. I have no internal map to guide me. I am probably not alone in feeling inundated and overwhelmed at times. Still, I have to start somewhere. Another factor is, that when confronted with a lot of unfamiliar data, it is difficult to differentiate. Unfamiliar things all tend to look very much the same. To the practiced eye there is no difficultly at all in separating things into their right categories and knowing where things should go. Those familiar with the whole forum will more easily know that a certain posting will go better in another forum than the one they are now reading. The novice will take some time to learn and make 'mistakes' in the process. As the old saying is, "To err is human ...". If we can't make mistakes then we will never learn. So, to a solution. Perhaps there should be a gradation of privilege and responsibility with newcomers being required to earn the right to use the forums fully. There could be an introductory forum where newbies can ask dumb questions and be steered in the right direction. When they demonstrate that they have some basic understanding of how the rest of the forums are intended to be used they can be let loose there, to post as well as to read what others have posted. Perhaps some coaching done in the background would help more than posting responses in public that could be taken as a put down, inhibiting some people from asking questions that may be rather basic but which they need to ask in order to engage in the learning process. Most people learn by doing at least as much as by simply reading and taking in information by eye-gate. By and large the ideal of keeping things in distinct categories is necessary. Aiding the newcomer to learn the ropes without too much jumping on them when they make mistakes, as make them they will, is also an ideal to aspire to. My original post had in view reducing the amount of clutter that the teaching/learning process leaves behind in the forums for everyone else to step over in the search for answers. I hope that this provides another perspective on the problem and helps lead to a solution for better use all round of these forums. Paul PS I have just been reading at http://www.boutell.com/usenet.html where a very similar problem is discussed. Solutions provided there include: -- Introductory email for new members. Self-moderating of initial postings, and OpenFAQ Software
Miss Betsy Posted November 9, 2005 Posted November 9, 2005 Another factor is, that when confronted with a lot of unfamiliar data, it is difficult to differentiate. Unfamiliar things all tend to look very much the same. I have been looking at the FAQ to see if I could find the answer to the first question I had when I came to spamcop. I don't think I would have found it. "Configure your email application to forward as attachment" sounds like something one does in advanced preferences to me. Someone still would have had to point me to the correct menu in OE, I believe. It wouldn't hurt to have the instructions for how to do that in OE and point out that Outlook and others have special instructions so that people know what question to ask next. I started in the newsgroup (which was much more daunting to a newbie than the forum). I asked all the 'dumb' questions, but found that people were very happy to help explain even very basic questions (like how do I make my posts say nobody <at> devnull.spamcop.net?) Although I believe that many people do find the FAQ and find their answers and do not have to post, part of the reason for having the FAQ is to be able to point people to a well thought out answer instead of retyping everything and maybe leaving something out. There should, perhaps, be a template for moving posts that, after experimentation, yields the fewest objections from the new poster. Perhaps we need to rethink the purpose of the FAQ - that it is a way to answer questions without recreating the answers - rather than just a way for people to find the answers themselves. And I don't think that reading the 'personal' commentary is all that bad for newcomers - it shows that this forum /is/ just people who are having conversations. Miss Betsy
dra007 Posted November 9, 2005 Posted November 9, 2005 Paul, you have some interesting suggestions and many good points. For a newbie, un-initiated in the jargon, getting some useful information in this forum often feels like pulling teeth. It is not surprising then that many, Wazoo included, have complained of tooth ache... Remember, these people who volunteer their help, have spend a great deal of their own time and energy to put together a guideline mainly directed at the un-initiated in hope the same answers do not require repeating over and over.. The only thing required on your part is patience, and lowering your expectations that knowledge will dawn on you in an instant.. It takes time to absorb... .....some of us, myself included have spend over a year reading this forum and are still confused
Miss Betsy Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 lowering your expectations that knowledge will dawn on you in an instant.. It takes time to absorb... Expectations is a big part of the confusion. Many newbies 'expect' spamcop reporting to be the same as hitting the 'Report spam' button in most other email systems. Others 'expect' customer service - not another user who is not concerned with whether your feelings might be hurt and who won't put up with rudeness. And almost newbies who are end users only want to know /how/ to make it work - how do I make the horn work? not why does the horn not work when I push the button? Having the 'why' is useful for those who want to take a deeper interest or are baffled by the simple explanation, but it should be a link in the simpler explanation. Having the 'why' available is also useful for those newbies who don't understand /when/ to use the horn or /why/ the horn is useful and also that the horn is /not/ the same as attaching a bulldozer scoop to scoop away the spam. That can also cause confusion. Another part of the problem is that the FAQ are probably working just fine, IMHO, for the majority of people and it is only the 'difficult' ones who tend to post. The ones whose minds work differently (like going to Options to find how to 'configure') or the ones who want to be spoon fed or the know-it-alls, etc. The newbie server admins, IMHO, don't seem to mind 'blunt' answers - and also tend to respond bluntly, but it is not a problem in finding the correct answer - although it tends to look that way to the uninitiated. In all those 'personal' responses, there is information that is communicated. Miss Betsy
PGTips91 Posted November 15, 2005 Author Posted November 15, 2005 Expectations is a big part of the confusion. [snip] Another part of the problem is that the FAQ are probably working just fine, IMHO, for the majority of people and it is only the 'difficult' ones who tend to post. The ones whose minds work differently (like going to Options to find how to 'configure') or the ones who want to be spoon fed or the know-it-alls, etc. The newbie server admins, IMHO, don't seem to mind 'blunt' answers - and also tend to respond bluntly, but it is not a problem in finding the correct answer - although it tends to look that way to the uninitiated. In all those 'personal' responses, there is information that is communicated. Miss Betsy 35798[/snapback] Having done an analysis of the SpamCop forum users, it is appears that the problem is one of a few trying to help the many, with the level of skewness being about one to a hundred. This is not strictly a peer to peer mutual support forum. e.g. Members with number of posts: -- Nil posts since joining - nearly one third Less than 8 posts since joining, 90% Less than 13 posts since joining, 95% 99% of members have contributed 31.5% of posts, leaving 1% of members to contribute 68.5% of posts That top 1% of posters [41] have averaged 564 posts each, with even this group being skewed towards the top 9 with an average of over 2000 posts with a third of these posts being by one member. The problem is therefore one of new users joining the forum seeking help with an immediate problem, often coming with very little previous expertise. This includes lack of experience in using FAQs and forums as well as in dealing with spam and Spammers. My suggested solution would be: -- [1] Make the portal to SpamCop, for initial visitors, start with an introduction and a form/survey that would classify new users according to their needs and experience and then take them to a web page designed specifically for their needs. [a] ISP supervisors wanting to get taken off the black list. Users wondering why their emails are not being delivered. [c] Users wanting to find out how to report spam. [d] Other ... They could be directed to the appropriate information for their needs depending on the results of the questionnaire. This should ensure that new users are quickly taken to the information that they are seeking, without having to wade through the forums with their 30,000 posts trying to find if someone has asked the same question before. Forum admins would also know, in advance, the needs and expertise of the person that they are dealing with. [2] Make the forum 'self-validating' for first-time postings. This takes the form of the posting being held pending, an email with full instructions on the purpose of the SpamCop service and the SpamCop forums, and ending with how to self-validate the post, being sent and the post only being made when the new user decides that, yes, they do need to post it with maybe suitable amendments. This would ensure that all the elementary information would be read, first, [with as much explanation as is required, links to fuller explanations, etc - fine tuned as it goes], before any postings are made. [3] The really difficult cases could be handled by direct communication with the person by the more experienced admins with data that will not help later readers being kept behind the scenes with only problems and solutions remaining for later viewing. With these, and similar changes I think that most of the frustration on the part of both new users and older members would disappear, the forums would become more productive, less cluttered and more helpful to visit and, with more time available to fine-tune the FAQs, postings would decline. I hope that these suggestions receive support as I believe some such changes could help considerably. Paul
Wazoo Posted November 15, 2005 Posted November 15, 2005 Having done an analysis of the SpamCop forum users, it is appears that the problem is one of a few trying to help the many, with the level of skewness being about one to a hundred. This is not strictly a peer to peer mutual support forum. Not sure what else to call it based on the fact that the people you're pointing to are not IronPort or SpamCop employees.???? e.g. Members with number of posts: -- Nil posts since joining - nearly one third Less than 8 posts since joining, 90% Less than 13 posts since joining, 95% 99% of members have contributed 31.5% of posts, leaving 1% of members to contribute 68.5% of posts That top 1% of posters [41] have averaged 564 posts each, with even this group being skewed towards the top 9 with an average of over 2000 posts with a third of these posts being by one member. Interesting that I was just doing this same research for another reason, but thanks for posting your results. The problem is therefore one of new users joining the forum seeking help with an immediate problem, often coming with very little previous expertise. This includes lack of experience in using FAQs and forums as well as in dealing with spam and Spammers. My suggested solution would be: -- [1] Make the portal to SpamCop, for initial visitors, start with an introduction and a form/survey that would classify new users according to their needs and experience and then take them to a web page designed specifically for their needs. [a] ISP supervisors wanting to get taken off the black list. Users wondering why their emails are not being delivered. [c] Users wanting to find out how to report spam. [d] Other ... They could be directed to the appropriate information for their needs depending on the results of the questionnaire. The first shot at that was the development of a "Portal" page, seen at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=home ... my request for input on just what should be included as the list of pointers for the "newly arrived" was answered by a bit of how much the code sucked, the fact that it used the word "forum" in the URL .... and the climate today is that this place is not to be considered "the official" place to get help, never mind that the "official FAQ" points to here, the IronPort web pages identify this Forum specifically, on and on .... of course, the newsgroups aren't "official" either, although ....????? Bottom line on this is that the last/recent suggestion to use data developed "here" have been outright rejected, with some special commentary added .... "fixing" this is out of my hands. As stated so many times before, I can only do what I can with the tools and acess allowed, and that does not include the "official" web-site/pages. This should ensure that new users are quickly taken to the information that they are seeking, without having to wade through the forums with their 30,000 posts trying to find if someone has asked the same question before. Yet, I made access to Google searching available at the top of the screen, and that was to get around the limitations of the search feature of the internal search tool of this application, operating system, and system tools. Forum admins would also know, in advance, the needs and expertise of the person that they are dealing with. Yet, so many of these first-time posters don't read the many things I've thrown in their way already ..???? [2] Make the forum 'self-validating' for first-time postings. This takes the form of the posting being held pending, an email with full instructions on the purpose of the SpamCop service and the SpamCop forums, and ending with how to self-validate the post, being sent and the post only being made when the new user decides that, yes, they do need to post it with maybe suitable amendments. This would ensure that all the elementary information would be read, first, [with as much explanation as is required, links to fuller explanations, etc - fine tuned as it goes], before any postings are made. Same as above .. but then adding in the folks getting even more upset at these additional "hurdles" thrown in their way ...??? This Forum is not geared up for this, would have to see how much tinkering would be required/possible. [3] The really difficult cases could be handled by direct communication with the person by the more experienced admins with data that will not help later readers being kept behind the scenes with only problems and solutions remaining for later viewing. Appreciate that thought, but .... doing stuff in the background does not help the next person arriving with the same issue. I already have too many of these PMs showing up when I log in here from folks that didn't want to post for many reasons, yet asking questions that already exist within this Forum with answers, work-throughs, suggestions, trouble-shooting procedures, provided in those discussions. And I'll admit that I don't (yet) know everything, so the "many eyes" scenario stays in play when it's all handled "in the open" ... With these, and similar changes I think that most of the frustration on the part of both new users and older members would disappear, the forums would become more productive, less cluttered and more helpful to visit and, with more time available to fine-tune the FAQs, postings would decline. 36105[/snapback] The FAQ has been an issue for a number of years. That I chose to try to do something about it (again, using the tools and access allowed me) has yet to actually resolve much on that, especially when the work placed into that development (which actually does include a lot of other folks) gets ignored by so many others. Historically, folks called out for the (official) FAQ to be updated, brought into reality in some cases. Didn't happen. Folks called out for periodic posting of FAQ lists to show up in the newsgroups. Both Miss Betsy and I tried that ... no longer done by either one of us. Folks bitched about having to go to "this Forum" for answers, as all this data should be available in the newsgroups. I've pointed out that the newsgroup data ages off, and some folks using a "No-Archive" setting that is honored means that this data simply disappears .. whereas (thus far) the entire history of Forum Discussions is still in existence (coming up on a couple of years worth now) Folks bitched about the single-page access FAQ I created here to work around the "too-hard-to-navigate" the "official" FAQ ... but of course now bitch that they can't find anything in this one because of its size.` I did up the Portal page to answer the "new folks need quick pointers to quick answers" .... as you can see, the only pointers to that page exist within this Forum. I installed a couple of software apps to try to do another 'version' of a SpamCop FAQ ... I'm not happy with either one of those, so they are still 'hidden' away. JT offered to purchase some software to build a knowledgbase ... I asked for input on that. What little feedback came back didn't support giving JT the nod to spend the money. I found some free software to attempt the same thing, installed it, started trying to populate it, and am now in the position that the "official" FAQ is "over there" and that's that. Once again, some folks put off due to the word "forum" being seen in the URL, it's not in NNTP format, it's not listed specifically in the "official" FAQ, on and on .... Thanks for the input, most definitely appreciate the time and effort put into developing this post, will look at some possible code changes, but .. having to point out that you are talking to those "other users" here. Some things I can do, some things I can try, but .... there is a lot of stuff in the background that I have no control over .... even attitudes are getting involved lately .... For example, do the comparison on a newsgroup thread starting at http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ber/106266.html as compared to postings made at / around http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=36084 ....
dbiel Posted November 15, 2005 Posted November 15, 2005 Thank you Paul for your well thought out and presented summary complete with suggestions. They are well worth considering, though probably much more difficult to actually implement than they might seem at first glance. It definitely does provide a different point of view
Miss Betsy Posted November 15, 2005 Posted November 15, 2005 There may not be a lot of users involved, but it is definitely peer to peer - that is no one is 'officially' with SpamCop - and apparently from Wazoo's comments, TPTB still want it that way. Long ago, in the ng, there were occasionally people who would volunteer to translate SpamCop into other languages - no one in authority ever responded - even though all posters were in favor. The 'official' policy, AFAICT, is that spamcop users are on their own and if they can't figure it out, no one particularly cares - except other users who are sympathetic. Who knows what spamcop's offical reasons are? IOW the Forum and the ngs are throwbacks to wild, old internet where people were not strangers. Miss Betsy
turetzsr Posted November 15, 2005 Posted November 15, 2005 <snip> The 'official' policy, AFAICT, is that spamcop users are on their own and if they can't figure it out, no one particularly cares - except other users who are sympathetic. <snip> 36119[/snapback] ...Well, I don't know for certain but I think that might be a bit harsh. Think of it as analogous to an emergency ward at a top-rate hospital with one extremely skilled surgeon (perhaps the best in the world at what he does), a couple of extremely skilled MD generalists, a handful of extremely skilled nurses and many willing volunteers with varying degrees of expertise in patient care. You wouldn't expect the surgeon or the MD generalists to greet you, a patient, at the door! If the doctors and nurses are very busy because of an epidemic (which, in the case of spam, is the permanent condition), very few patients would get their attention readily, either. The volunteers are the ones to do triage: initial information gathering and, in many cases, final resolution of the patients' problems. Knowing that the "professionals" are busy with preventive efforts, they (the volunteers) tend to refer patients to the professionals only as a last resort, after determining that the patient has a serious problem that requires the attention of the professionals. And no one but another professional ever, ever gets the attention of the surgeon!
Farelf Posted November 16, 2005 Posted November 16, 2005 ... I hope that these suggestions receive support as I believe some such changes could help considerably. Paul 36105[/snapback] Great post! Covers the terrain mapped by Miss Betsy rather well, analysis points up the objective needs for improvement ... other have pointed out difficulties, "politics" and attitudes to be overcome. Meanwhile admin, moderators and other members cope as best they may, including a huge effort in documentation. I would love to see your "classification" idea implemented, somehow. Some sort of forms-based equivalent of a Wizard (remembering an early opt-out so as not to penalize those who have done their homework or are otherwise confident in backing themselves).
PGTips91 Posted November 16, 2005 Author Posted November 16, 2005 Thank you everyone who responded to my post. I have read them all carefully and appreciate the difficulties even more. It's a bit sad that things are just the way they are and more cross pollination between the professionals and the volunteers cannot occur. Reminds me a little of a saying in business, "There is no problem, no matter how complicated, that on closer examination does not become even more complicated". Meanwhile, keep up the good work all you volunteers! I am getting to appreciate what has been happening here a lot more as I get to know some of the background. Paul PS The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!) I agree, it is peer to peer. But as the saying goes, "All men are equal, but some are more equal than others." I'd have to say that Wazoo is without a peer! I guess I was trying to say that this forum is quite a bit different from another that I am on where there is a more even spread of knowledge and abilities. But, yes, all here are on the same footing. I concede that now.
Miss Betsy Posted November 16, 2005 Posted November 16, 2005 Yes, I agree that Wazoo is 'without peer'! And, in response to Steve T, perhaps I should have made it clear that I was not talking about the SpamCop email service. In the past, I know that 'management' was much more involved and probably still is. The Reporting part, however, is primarily for professionals and they don't need to use the forum for problems, probably. Part of the rationale for the ngs and the forum is that one gets better answers from other users than from a 'help desk' because of 'different eyes' and IMHO, that is true. If there aren't as many eyes looking at posts, it is because of the change in internet culture. Many of the ones posting do 'expect' to get a help desk and when they get their answer, they don't come back. (and I am no different - occasionally I go to the Intuit forum for an answer. When I find it, I don't go back. I notice there also that are a few people who are the ones who answer questions and very little 'discussion' though it is true that since any discussion is over my head, I don't read those threads.) But back to the problem of finding answers - the Reporting service management is not interested in non-professionals, IMHO. The reason that there is such a spread in expertise in the 'peers' is that IMHO, it is a mistake not to help end users to understand the use of blocklists so I stay around to help translate for the newbies. If you notice, most professionals who come to the Blocklist forum, do get answers and are grateful - even though sometimes the thread starts out with a lot of 'personal' remarks. Also, that the professionals will post there, but not other places (and that I rarely am involved with those threads). As with anything that covers so large a spread of people, no solution is absolutely perfect. Miss Betsy
Wazoo Posted November 19, 2005 Posted November 19, 2005 Research results thus far (or a least what I can remember right now) Situations; 1. user ticked off already, hasn't a clue, jumps right in with a rant 2. user calmly waltzes in, makes a complaint, raises a query, but offers no data to work with 3. user thinks that data provided "should" be sufficient to answer all questions 3. user "knows everything" and turns belligerent if challenged 4. user spent some time wading through the 'Original/Official' FAQ and found it lacking the answers (or simply couldn't find them) ... but, perhaps finding the link to 'here' from 'there' ... and not about to start reading the SpamCop FAQ again, not knowing that the one generated here is different and much expanded, so asks a FAQ once again here 5. user did hit the Forum version of the SpamCop FAQ, but eyes went glassy when scrolling down and seeing the quantity of issues exposed. 6. user did hit here, followed links, read some stuff, got an answer, went away self-moderation of posts - not really seen as an option. For the majority of the above scenarios, that much expended effort isn't going to happen, in my opinion. More reading required, specific actions to be taken, on and on ... again, I already receive too many PMs from folks that can't or won't even make the effort to actually post their query .... Portal page - making that "the" entry point as the "Help" link off of www.spamcop.net has been shot down, back to the Official/non-Official status of this support Forum. Even changing some code here to make it the entry point for the Forum itself was shot down. So the page exists, there's a pointer here and there, but .... basically, if one doesn't know that it's there, it won't be found .. out of my hands, though do make sure it's kept updated when I make changes elsewhere for those few that do look at it .... [1] Make the portal to SpamCop, for initial visitors, start with an introduction and a form/survey that would classify new users according to their needs and experience and then take them to a web page designed specifically for their needs. As above, that was the premise of the Portal page (without the use of a survey, once again pointing out the lack of participation in a couple of surveys that deal specifically with this Forum itself) .... and I still believe that the "jump-to" links on the single-page access form of the SpamCop FAQ here basically offers the same 'path' to specific questions/answers ...??? OpenFAQ - looked at the release/support forum for that on freshmeat .. no bugs reported, no documentation, described as a pre-Alpha, screen-shot shows nothing but a single question / reply ... not interested ... I've already installed two other FAQ packages to try out here, and both of them suck. I'm actually failing to see why/how these other Question/Answer forms would be any better than what I already put in place with the single-page thing ... the only 'interesting' change being that questions could be sorted on the most-viewed data points, in theory moving the most-asked questions to the top of the list, yet ....???? I've ran into too many of these type layouts that are just lists of the questions (sorted) as posted, and usually find it difficult to find the "applicable" entries for what I'm looking for .. especially when a Google link takes me to a page that the "found" data has been bumped down a dozen pages since the last Google-bot visit .... Current philosophy is that data is available to all at this point, so in most cases, one shouldn't have to register, log-in, etc. .... simply hit the Forum page, follow the links provided to a FAQ and (in most cases) the answers should already exist. In reality, the "need" for registering would only arrive for those situations where the "problem" hasn't been addressed yet. So, the suggestion to go the other way just seems a bit counter-productive, in that more "work" to register being seen (and called) something put in the way of "providing answers / support" .. already exemplified by those that repeat the "I don't have time" mantra .... Modifications for this application are out there, generated by folks working within different environments ... some pretty neat, some absolutely out of the question for 'here' .... Example: One can't "see" the Forum until a posting is made into the "Introduction" Forum section, such that everyone knows you're there, has something to "work with" and the initial "how to post" hurdle is passed. This fights the "data is available to all" concept, and basically, why should I/we care about any personal stuff .... like the "I'm a reporter for a major publishing company" .. why should that make a difference as to why they chose to ignore all links, pointers, and hurdles placed in their way to answer questions before they get asked? I had thoughts of changing the Profile section a bit and adding in some "required" fields, thus (in theory) forcing the data to be provided up front on OS, browser, MUA, firewall/router in use, etc., etc. .... but once again, the hurdles for the "ignorant" .. the "non-required" personal data as seen by those that already know everything, even coming up with all the possible options (to include the "don't know" option) would probably be a waste of time due to folks not wanting to answer or not having a clue ....???? seems like a waste of effort for the anticipated results ... Dean has one written up as an "auto-post" that gets started after finishing the validation process. Description says that Topic Title, and text can be modified .. but looking at the code, there's something missing ... ignoring that, the initial thought was to install this, have that first posting having a bit of a form to fill-in-the-blanks on .... but, once again, one form to handle all the possibilities would get one back to the glassy-eye mode .... so change that a bit to something like a list of links based on the issue / status of the user. Set up some different "blank form" type posts that could be "quoted" and then have the user fill in those blanks and make that as their first post, such that at least some of the data would in fact be available. Once again, what's the likelihood of all this effort being expended? (Again, looking at the results of my placing the [How to] post a question as an Announcement that shows up in each Topic view of a Forum section ... and that the user has to scroll by that item to 'see' any of the existing posts ... noting that so many seem to stop scrolling/reading when they see the "New Post" button ..??? ... should I modify the skins on this thing so that the only "New Post" icon is found at the bottom of the page, thus forcing the scroll action?) As usual, spent a lot of time researching stuff, more typing this up, and therefore not getting much of anything else done .... even guessing that this post is so massive, no one will actually read it through, but .... that's the way things work ...
dbiel Posted November 20, 2005 Posted November 20, 2005 even guessing that this post is so massive, no one will actually read it through Alas, even Wazoo is wrong at times. Agreed that there are no easy answers. The work done so far has helped many, and has made it easier for many more. So yes there is hope, but not for all, only for those that really want to learn.
Jeff G. Posted November 20, 2005 Posted November 20, 2005 even guessing that this post is so massive, no one will actually read it through36311[/snapback] Read it, thanks for the update!
Farelf Posted November 20, 2005 Posted November 20, 2005 ... noting that so many seem to stop scrolling/reading when they see the "New Post" button ..??? ... should I modify the skins on this thing so that the only "New Post" icon is found at the bottom of the page, thus forcing the scroll action?) As usual, spent a lot of time researching stuff, more typing this up, and therefore not getting much of anything else done .... even guessing that this post is so massive, no one will actually read it through, but .... that's the way things work ... 36311[/snapback] Working backwards - it's all about perspective and here's mine. In general: You've always done heaps more than anyone could rightfully expect or even hope. And, it seems, you will never rest on your own laurels. You drive yourself, this is hard on you, makes it easier for others. The Wazoo wear and tear factor concerns a number of us though the expanded Moderators group has permitted much progress in your attempts at "quantum improvement" (as distinct from the incremental sort which also proceeds). The "New Post" icon - the button, currently found top and bottom of the index page of each forum, IMO taking out the top one is unlikely to slow down those bent on finding it - which is all of situation 1. and chunks of 2., 3., the second 3. and many in 4. and 5. [Note to Wazoo - that button image currently does not resolve in-line when viewed by a Guest. Not sure if this is of interest or not - wouldn't imagine it is intended, there again not that critical, they see a clickable link with the image on a new page.]
Miss Betsy Posted November 20, 2005 Posted November 20, 2005 Putting the 'New Post' button at the bottom would probably raise a lot of complaints from people who, then, won't be able to find it! Like with spam, there are different approaches to how people deal with it when it is overwhelming. I can guess the PM's are even more irritating than the posts. IIWY, I would just have a stock answer that no questions are answered via PM because the Forum is designed to help others with the same question - maybe even add that to the peer to peer announcement. My approach to answering questions depends on my mood and whether I have time. It would be different if I were the Moderator/Admin on what my 'triage' strategy was. But I think it is a lost cause to find out why people by pass the FAQ because the majority of them seem to think that they are 'special' for one reason or another. And they are naturally going to get irritated when someone reminds them that they are not special. The few who did have a problem that might be corrected could be asked - after they have had their question answered - why they couldn't find it and what their suggestion is to remedy the problem. Most of those who were confused would probably say that it was their own fault (or 'if it was a snake, it would have bit them') - we all have our bad days. In dealing with people and situations like this, I have always found that 99% of the time, if one assumes the best scenario - a frustrated person who is having a bad day and will be sorry as soon as s/he gets an answer - and responds accordingly that for the small percentage it fits, one is very helpful. For the others, it may or may not diffuse their arrogance, but it doesn't give them very much to complain about (which may make them even angrier, but that's so silly, it is hard not to think it amusing rather irritating). And that's my $.02 USD until I get a chance to pretend I am a complete newbie and I still think that, at least, the Why Am I Blocked FAQ works very well. One has to remember about Bell curves. Miss Betsy
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.