Proposed text for "start your own thread, buddy"
Jason Barnabe (np)
"Only post in this thread if you started it or you intend to help the
person who started it. If you're looking for help, even if it's on the
same subject, please [start a new thread]. This will help you get help
faster."
Thoughts?
Majken Connor
wrote:
> _______________________________________________
>
I think we don't need to say any of the negative. Just let people know they
should always file a new request for their own issues, if that'll be the
policy. Though could we not do effectively the same thing by locking
"answered" threads, that is where we got confirmation that the fix worked,
or when we're confident it was the right answer and x time has passed?
It can be helpful if several people having an unanswered problem discuss it
together, they can figure out what they have in common, which can be the key
to figuring out what's going on. If I understand the real issues correctly,
it's
1. People posting in a thread about an obviously different issue
2. People posting in an answered thread when that answer didn't work for
them
3. People digging up old threads.
For 1, I think if people are doing this, they're going to ignore the warning
as well and need to be told in thread that it's a different issue and to
start a new one. Locking will prevent 2 and 3 from happening, and we can
incorporate the message into the locked thread text "If you're having this
problem and need help, please create a new thread" or whatever we end up
with.
Jason Barnabe (np)
> On Dec 10, 2007 9:06 PM, Jason Barnabe (np) <jason_barn...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> >https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398483
>
> > "Only post in this thread if you started it or you intend to help the
> > person who started it. If you're looking for help, even if it's on the
> > same subject, please [start a new thread]. This will help you get help
> > faster."
>
> > Thoughts?
> > _______________________________________________
>
> I think we don't need to say any of the negative.
There's no negative in there...
> Though could we not do effectively the same thing by locking
> "answered" threads, that is where we got confirmation that the fix worked,
> or when we're confident it was the right answer and x time has passed?
The most visible threads will be the most recent, and the most recent
are the least likely to be answered.
> 1. People posting in a thread about an obviously different issue
> 2. People posting in an answered thread when that answer didn't work for
> them
> 3. People digging up old threads.
4. People posting in an unanswered thread with "me too".
>
> For 1, I think if people are doing this, they're going to ignore the warning
> as well and need to be told in thread that it's a different issue and to
> start a new one.
Some people will go ahead and post anyway, but if we get half of them
to do the right thing without any work on our part, that's good enough
for me.
> Locking will prevent 2 and 3 from happening, and we can
> incorporate the message into the locked thread text "If you're having this
> problem and need help, please create a new thread" or whatever we end up
> with.
I'd like to wait to see if this is a problem even with the text above
before putting in more process.
David Tenser
> On Dec 11, 3:36 am, "Majken Connor" <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 2007 9:06 PM, Jason Barnabe (np) <jason_barn...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398483
>>> "Only post in this thread if you started it or you intend to help the
>>> person who started it. If you're looking for help, even if it's on the
>>> same subject, please [start a new thread]. This will help you get help
>>> faster."
>>> Thoughts?
>>> _______________________________________________
>> I think we don't need to say any of the negative.
>
> There's no negative in there...
I don't see any negative either. However, to me the "even if it's on the
same subject" part sounds to me that you should start a new thread if
you're having the same problem as the current thread. That's not what
you mean, right? :) Maybe that could be clearer, e.g.
"If you're having the same problem, <watch this thread> [assuming we
have that functionality??] instead. If you're having a similar, but
different problem, please <start a new thread>."
>
>> Though could we not do effectively the same thing by locking
>> "answered" threads, that is where we got confirmation that the fix worked,
>> or when we're confident it was the right answer and x time has passed?
>
> The most visible threads will be the most recent, and the most recent
> are the least likely to be answered.
>
>> 1. People posting in a thread about an obviously different issue
>> 2. People posting in an answered thread when that answer didn't work for
>> them
>> 3. People digging up old threads.
>
> 4. People posting in an unanswered thread with "me too".
>
>> For 1, I think if people are doing this, they're going to ignore the warning
>> as well and need to be told in thread that it's a different issue and to
>> start a new one.
>
> Some people will go ahead and post anyway, but if we get half of them
> to do the right thing without any work on our part, that's good enough
> for me.
>
Right, the aim here is to reduce noise, not apply strict, "negative"
rules. I think this looks good.
>> Locking will prevent 2 and 3 from happening, and we can
>> incorporate the message into the locked thread text "If you're having this
>> problem and need help, please create a new thread" or whatever we end up
>> with.
>
> I'd like to wait to see if this is a problem even with the text above
> before putting in more process.
We're always going to have _some_ kind of noise in the forums -- that's
what moderators are for. We should try to recude it with whatever means
seem necessary, but I agree with Jason that we should probably launch
the forums and determine the guidelines and our specific needs as we go.
David
Jason Barnabe (np)
> However, to me the "even if it's on the
> same subject" part sounds to me that you should start a new thread if
> you're having the same problem as the current thread. That's not what
> you mean, right? :)
That is what I mean. Users can't tell whether whether their problem is
the same, just their symptoms. User A and User B may have both lost
their bookmarks, but it may be for completely separate reasons. If
User B starts asking for help in User A's thread, that's detrimental
to both of them because now the contributors might be trying to solve
two problems at once.
David Tenser
Then I can only assume you are talking about _resolved_ threads with a
solution that worked for User A, but for some reason isn't the solution
for User B. If that is indeed what you mean, then the rule could just be
enforced by locking the thread once the "I got my answer" option is
checked. I see now that was what Lucy suggested. However, that would
hinder people from providing better solutions to a solved problem. Maybe
the first response was "Reinstall Firefox", and then the original poster
or an admin marks the thread as resolved. Then, another one has a better
suggestion, e.g. "Start in Safe Mode and remove foo." No can do, as the
thread is already locked.
So, here's my proposal:
For resolved threads, the text should say e.g. "Are you having the same
problem and the solution above didn't help you? If so, <create a new
thread>. Don't comment in this thread as it is already resolved."
For open/unresolved threads, "Me too" posts should be discouraged in the
text. The text should then be "Are you having the same problem? If so,
<watch this thread>. Posting 'me too' is unnecessary and will not
resolve the issue faster."
The info should be where the user would look, which is right next to the
Reply box.
Jason Barnabe (np)
> Then I can only assume you are talking about _resolved_ threads
No, I'm talking all threads.
Majken Connor
same as "don't post here unless." The positive is "start your own thread to
get help faster." See what I mean? negative is telling users what they
shouldn't do, positive is telling users what they should do.
I think in most cases the people who would be locking the threads will know
that a solution provided isn't the best way of doing something. If the user
already got help anyway, then we should be putting the better solution in
the kb anyway, or someone could start a new thread "better way to solve
problem x" which makes it more likely that other helps will see it anyway.
The original user isn't going to need the better solution, and what are the
odds that helpers will read a "solved" thread that has a new post? The real
drawback would be needing a mechanism for someone to request reopening a
thread, in this case if someone has a better solution and really want to put
it in *that* thread, they could request it be reopened.
What's the real problem with "me too" posts? It lets us know that other
people are having the same problem, and not finding the solution in the kb
either. I agree there's a problem with people posting different issues in
one thread, but if someone wants us to *know* that they're having the
problem, telling them that we don't want to hear it isn't going to make them
feel like we care about finding them a solution.
The other problem I have with this is that it's incredibly difficult to
moderate successfully. Are we going to delete posts of people who say "me
too?"
Jason Barnabe (np)
> The negative is the "only post in this thread if..." which is basically the
> same as "don't post here unless." The positive is "start your own thread to
> get help faster." See what I mean? negative is telling users what they
> shouldn't do, positive is telling users what they should do.
The problem with dropping the "only" sentence is that then we'd be
telling the original poster to start a new thread.
> I think in most cases the people who would be locking the threads will know
> that a solution provided isn't the best way of doing something. If the user
> already got help anyway, then we should be putting the better solution in
> the kb anyway, or someone could start a new thread "better way to solve
> problem x" which makes it more likely that other helps will see it anyway.
> The original user isn't going to need the better solution, and what are the
> odds that helpers will read a "solved" thread that has a new post? The real
> drawback would be needing a mechanism for someone to request reopening a
> thread, in this case if someone has a better solution and really want to put
> it in *that* thread, they could request it be reopened.
The primary purpose of the forum is give users help, and the secondary
purpose is to improve the KB. If we find a better solution, I don't
see the point of including it in a resolved thread. The user's already
got a fix that satisfied them. Put it in the KB if it's not already
there.
> What's the real problem with "me too" posts?
Just saying "me too" isn't too distracting, but users will say "I have
the same problem, except..." and describe a completely different
problem, then contributors will help both users, which will distract
attention from the OP and confuse the users because some advice may be
meant for only one of them.
> It lets us know that other
> people are having the same problem, and not finding the solution in the kb
> either. I agree there's a problem with people posting different issues in
> one thread, but if someone wants us to *know* that they're having the
> problem, telling them that we don't want to hear it isn't going to make them
> feel like we care about finding them a solution.
We're not telling them we don't want to hear it. We're telling them we
want to hear it *in a new thread* so we can help them individually.
> The other problem I have with this is that it's incredibly difficult to
> moderate successfully. Are we going to delete posts of people who say "me
> too?"
As of now, we're encouraging users to start new threads, not enforcing
a rule. If the encouragement is not enough to get the job done, then
we'll start to think about how to enforce it.
Majken Connor
wrote:
> On Dec 11, 8:07 pm, "Majken Connor" <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The negative is the "only post in this thread if..." which is basically
> the
> > same as "don't post here unless." The positive is "start your own
> thread to
> > get help faster." See what I mean? negative is telling users what they
> > shouldn't do, positive is telling users what they should do.
>
> The problem with dropping the "only" sentence is that then we'd be
> telling the original poster to start a new thread.
>
>
As per IRC, I disagree. It can be worded to make it clear that it's
addressing people who are having issues similar to the original poster, ie.
not the original poster.
>
> > What's the real problem with "me too" posts?
>
> Just saying "me too" isn't too distracting, but users will say "I have
> the same problem, except..." and describe a completely different
> problem, then contributors will help both users, which will distract
> attention from the OP and confuse the users because some advice may be
> meant for only one of them.
>
We need to split those threads off, let contributors know that that's our
policy.
>
> > It lets us know that other
> > people are having the same problem, and not finding the solution in the
> kb
> > either. I agree there's a problem with people posting different issues
> in
> > one thread, but if someone wants us to *know* that they're having the
> > problem, telling them that we don't want to hear it isn't going to make
> them
> > feel like we care about finding them a solution.
>
> We're not telling them we don't want to hear it. We're telling them we
> want to hear it *in a new thread* so we can help them individually.
Keep in mind that users in need of help are going to be sensitive, and that
was in response to the "me too" comments, not the "me too, except" where you
were saying the solution is to tell people to watch the thread.
>
>
> > The other problem I have with this is that it's incredibly difficult to
> > moderate successfully. Are we going to delete posts of people who say
> "me
> > too?"
>
> As of now, we're encouraging users to start new threads, not enforcing
> a rule. If the encouragement is not enough to get the job done, then
> we'll start to think about how to enforce it.
>
>
If it's not a rule worth enforcing then it's not a rule worth having. This
is one of the things that makes mozillazine a negative place for many of the
people that have issues there. Some times you get told to start a new
thread, sometimes it's after 2 or 3 people jumped in with "me too."
Sometimes you get told to try searching the forums "because if you had,
you'd have found this thread here, here and here." Consistency is
absolutely necessary, especially in a large community. If some exceptions
are ok, then define those exceptions, make it part of the rule, and exempt
them from whatever enforcement there will be. If not, then the mods will be
inconsistent, the users will have problems following the rules, and it will
make the forums hard to use.
David Tenser
Any thoughts about the suggestion?
Jason Barnabe (np)
> For resolved threads, the text should say e.g. "Are you having the same problem and the solution above didn't help you? If so, <create a new thread>. Don't comment in this thread as it is already resolved."
Check.
> For open/unresolved threads, "Me too" posts should be discouraged in the text. The text should then be "Are you having the same problem? If so, <watch this thread>. Posting 'me too' is unnecessary and will not resolve the issue faster."
I'm not confident that watching the thread would help the user. All of
the following would need to be true:
-The potential watcher is logged in and so can actually watch threads
-The thread gets more posts (it may be a thread from 3 months ago)
-The OP gets a solution
-The OP gets a solution the watcher hasn't already tried
-The OP gets a solution that helps the watcher
If the potential watcher instead starts a new thread, they have a much
better chance of getting their answer. There's also nothing saying the
potential watcher couldn't watch the thread even without the text
instructing them to do it.
> The info should be where the user would look, which is right next to the Reply box.
Check.
David Tenser
> On Dec 12, 6:27 am, David Tenser <djst.mozi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For open/unresolved threads, "Me too" posts should be discouraged in the text. The text should then be "Are you having the same problem? If so, <watch this thread>. Posting 'me too' is unnecessary and will not resolve the issue faster."
>
> I'm not confident that watching the thread would help the user. All of
> the following would need to be true:
>
> -The potential watcher is logged in and so can actually watch threads
> -The thread gets more posts (it may be a thread from 3 months ago)
> -The OP gets a solution
> -The OP gets a solution the watcher hasn't already tried
> -The OP gets a solution that helps the watcher
I'm not sure if I understand exactly what "watch this thread" is
supposed to do, but what I had in mind seems to be something different:
When watching a thread (or whatever I should call this to differentiate
it), you would get an e-mail notification when that thread is marked as
resolved, e.g.:
---
The thread "Can't log on to my bank" on support.mozilla.com has been
resolved. To read the solution to the problem, visit:
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/53002
---
>
> If the potential watcher instead starts a new thread, they have a much
> better chance of getting their answer. There's also nothing saying the
> potential watcher couldn't watch the thread even without the text
> instructing them to do it.
I don't understand why they have a much better chance of getting their
answer if they post another thread with the same question. It just
requires more work for us?
David
Jason Barnabe (np)
> I'm not sure if I understand exactly what "watch this thread" is
> supposed to do, but what I had in mind seems to be something different:
>
> When watching a thread (or whatever I should call this to differentiate
> it), you would get an e-mail notification when that thread is marked as
> resolved, e.g.:
>
> ---
> The thread "Can't log on to my bank" on support.mozilla.com has been
> resolved. To read the solution to the problem, visit:http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/53002
> ---
Barring any changes we make, "watch this thread" sends them a
notification if the article gets a reply.
> I don't understand why they have a much better chance of getting their
> answer if they post another thread with the same question. It just
> requires more work for us?
I think you're assuming that two users with the same question will get
the same answer. They won't. Why User A can't log into their bank may
be completely different than why User B can't log into their bank. Or,
it may be the same reason, but User B needs more hand-holding than
User A needs. If User B doesn't get their information from watching
User A's thread, at best it's a waste of time for them, at worst they
give up.
Also keep in mind that User B has searched the KB and the forums at
this point. So User B couldn't find anything in the KB or in resolved
threads, what are the odds that this in progress thread will give them
the solution?
David Tenser
> On Dec 12, 11:00 am, David Tenser <djst.mozi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure if I understand exactly what "watch this thread" is
>> supposed to do, but what I had in mind seems to be something different:
>>
>> When watching a thread (or whatever I should call this to differentiate
>> it), you would get an e-mail notification when that thread is marked as
>> resolved, e.g.:
>>
>> ---
>> The thread "Can't log on to my bank" on support.mozilla.com has been
>> resolved. To read the solution to the problem, visit:http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/53002
>> ---
>
> Barring any changes we make, "watch this thread" sends them a
> notification if the article gets a reply.
Yes, that's how I interpreted it too, but if I had a problem, I'd rather
get an e-mail when the problem is solved. Of course, I might be the only
person that can determine when the problem is solved, so it probably
makes more sense to use it as it is.
>
>> I don't understand why they have a much better chance of getting their
>> answer if they post another thread with the same question. It just
>> requires more work for us?
>
> I think you're assuming that two users with the same question will get
> the same answer. They won't. Why User A can't log into their bank may
> be completely different than why User B can't log into their bank. Or,
> it may be the same reason, but User B needs more hand-holding than
> User A needs. If User B doesn't get their information from watching
> User A's thread, at best it's a waste of time for them, at worst they
> give up.
>
> Also keep in mind that User B has searched the KB and the forums at
> this point. So User B couldn't find anything in the KB or in resolved
> threads, what are the odds that this in progress thread will give them
> the solution?
If User B is having the same problem as User A, I'd say the odds are
very high and I just don't see the point of asking them to post another
thread with the same problem. But it's your call -- I'm happy to
evaluate whatever you suggest. We should have a clearer picture once
we've up and running.
David Tenser
> Jason Barnabe (np) wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 11:00 am, David Tenser <djst.mozi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure if I understand exactly what "watch this thread" is
>>> supposed to do, but what I had in mind seems to be something different:
>>>
>>> When watching a thread (or whatever I should call this to differentiate
>>> it), you would get an e-mail notification when that thread is marked as
>>> resolved, e.g.:
>>>
>>> ---
>>> The thread "Can't log on to my bank" on support.mozilla.com has been
>>> resolved. To read the solution to the problem,
>>> visit:http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/53002
>>> ---
>>
>> Barring any changes we make, "watch this thread" sends them a
>> notification if the article gets a reply.
>
> Yes, that's how I interpreted it too, but if I had a problem, I'd rather
> get an e-mail when the problem is solved. Of course, I might be the only
> person that can determine when the problem is solved, so it probably
> makes more sense to use it as it is.
Since I like brainstorming, here's one feature for the future:
Watch this thread: Alert me when
( ) someone replies to this thread.
(*) the problem is solved.
The options would only be visible if you are not the original poster,
otherwise it would always use option #1.
Jason Barnabe (np)
> Since I like brainstorming, here's one feature for the future:
>
> Watch this thread: Alert me when
> ( ) someone replies to this thread.
> (*) the problem is solved.
>
> The options would only be visible if you are not the original poster,
> otherwise it would always use option #1.
Majken Connor
different problem, and that they should start a new thread. It might be a
lose to let users who need help opt out, although it would make sense for
contributors who just need to know when there's a solution so they can pass
it on/add it to the kb.