Feature removal proposals

45 views
Skip to first unread message

Graeme Porteous

unread,
Feb 21, 2025, 7:55:22 AMFeb 21
to alavet...@googlegroups.com
Hello all,

We're looking to make some changes to Alaveteli to remove and limit
some current features. We thought we should ask the community for
feedback before going ahead.

*Proposal 1: "Someone has updated the status of your request"
classification emails*
We're finding requesters who haven't used WDTK in many years will
often contact us after someone classifies their request (normally
while playing the classification game). This causes user support,
which we are actively trying to limit. We're proposing removing this
email completely as it doesn't really serve any purpose, especially
for older requests.

*Proposal 2: Commenting on requests*
When looking at commenting between two different users on WDTK, we've
found it very often not focused on the original request and can
descend into arguments, which again requires user support. We're
proposing limiting it so only requesters can comment on their own
requests, but we will also retain the ability for admins to comment on
any request.

*Proposal 3: User-to-user messaging*
We don't really have any visibility of usage and content being sent
via this feature. With the new UK's Online Safety Act, this feature is
a concern for us, so we're proposing removing this feature completely.

Please let us know if you have thoughts on these proposals. Thanks!

--
Graeme Porteous
gra...@mysociety.org

Oliver Lineham

unread,
Mar 2, 2025, 8:03:36 PMMar 2
to alavet...@googlegroups.com
Hi Graeme,

Thanks for the warning.

1: Status update emails. I agree, these emails annoy some people.

2: Commenting. This change I oppose. Not allowing comments will hugely diminish our purpose. Users help each other to exercise their information rights. We have users who regularly assist others by explaining where else they can get information, how a response has broken our laws, precisely how to tell agencies what FOI obligations they haven't met, or what to put into an Ombudsman complaint.

I would rather offer better safety tools such as to put requesters in control of the commenting default on their own requests, be able to hide comments themselves, or maybe block specific users. I think this would reduce how often arguments escalate to needing user support.

Or we could also just use a configurable "comments allowed" site-wide default to let each site owner decide if this is a problem or not.

3: I've always been uncomfortable with this user-to-user messaging feature due to our lack of visibility and any safety tools.

I do think there should be some way for users to establish contact outside of the site, but we'd have to think about ways to make it safe and put the user in control. I think we'll see a side effect of increase in support emails asking to be put in touch with a user (we already get these occasionally), especially if commenting is removed too.

Oliver

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Alaveteli Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to alaveteli-de...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/alaveteli-dev/CAD%3D4AyhhSMzmXH-Pu_7udh39tKMdO6FPk5GLjebkXBZtsfgm%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

Ben Fairless

unread,
Mar 2, 2025, 8:04:12 PMMar 2
to alavet...@googlegroups.com
Hi there,

I am currently out of the office until 11 March 2025.

For immediate assistance before my return, please email con...@oaf.org.au. Otherwise I look forward to responding on my return.

Best regards,

--
Ben Fairless

Laurent Savaëte

unread,
Mar 5, 2025, 11:58:09 AMMar 5
to alavet...@googlegroups.com

Hi Graeme,

Thanks for reaching out with these questions.

1. I don't really have a strong view either way. I don't think that these emails have a strong value added.

2. I'd vote against removing comments as well. We do have a number of very useful comments between non-admin users, eg. users pointing to where the data requested is already published, others archiving attachments sent through an expiring link, or suggesting how to reply to reluctant public bodies, etc... I have not seen a single case of negative comments or arguments, but maybe that's to blame on our smaller size. I'd be in favour of a site-wide config switch as well.

3. We seem to have very few of those, and French laws would actually probably require us to keep a copy of the data that was sent, so I think it can go from our perspective.

I hope this helps!

Laurent

Ben Fairless

unread,
Mar 5, 2025, 11:58:27 AMMar 5
to alavet...@googlegroups.com
Hi there,

I am currently out of the office until 11 March 2025.

For immediate assistance before my return, please email con...@oaf.org.au. Otherwise I look forward to responding on my return.

Best regards,

--
Ben Fairless

Ben Fairless

unread,
Mar 25, 2025, 12:47:54 AMMar 25
to alavet...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,

Sorry if I'm a bit late to the party here. Here are my thoughts:
1 (Status Update Emails): I think the email adds value if the request is recent, but agree it doesn't add any value if it's an old request. Maybe a happy middle ground where the email is sent for more recent requests but not for older ones?

2 (Commenting): We've not had the issues you've come across with bad commenters either. I think a site switch would be the best option here for those sites who are having issues.

3 (User-to-user messaging): We are very, very concerned that this feature is available, and we have no visibility of the messages being sent. Due to the lack of visibility I can't say for sure how often this feature is used by people on the site.

Hope that helps!

Thanks,
Ben

Roke Beedell (RokeJulianLockhart)

unread,
May 1, 2025, 12:12:04 PMMay 1
to Alaveteli Dev
​

We’re finding requesters who haven’t used WDTK in many years will
often contact us after someone classifies their request (normally
while playing the classification game). This causes user support,
which we are actively trying to limit. We’re proposing removing this
email completely as it doesn’t really serve any purpose, especially
for older requests.

Informing users of their requests being modified is generally the correct thing to do. Why not merely disable it by default, if it’s problematic?

When looking at commenting between two different users on WDTK, we’ve
found it very often not focused on the original request and can
descend into arguments, which again requires user support. We’re
proposing limiting it so only requesters can comment on their own
requests, but we will also retain the ability for admins to comment on
any request.

Is this the “annotations” feature? If so, almost all useful content I’ve seen submitted has been in the form of an annotation. Usually, the FOI filer is misguided, and an annotation provides them with the information that the FOI was unable to.

We don’t really have any visibility of usage and content being sent
via this feature. With the new UK’s Online Safety Act, this feature is
a concern for us, so we’re proposing removing this feature completely.

I didn’t know that this existed until now. However, a large banner at the top of a DM warning the users involved that there is no expectation of privacy from moderators would surely improve it? I understand this feature being removed regardless, but in its stead, mandating that users display an e-mail address, or similar, would be useful.

​
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages