-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -------- Original Message -------- From: James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu 24 Jan 2008 09:29:38 EST
| M. Fioretti wrote: |> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 15:18:18 PM -0500, James Knott |> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: |> |> |>>>>>> Why is it that the web site cannot insist on a subject and then |>>>>>> include it? |>>>>>> |> ... |> |>> Since your comment was intended to be sarcasm, then my comment is |>> directed at the site admin and not you. It just seems strange that |>> they expect a problem, caused by the web site design, to be |>> corrected by everyone who replies to all such messages. |>> |> This, too, had been already explained in full detail in the threads |> that you didn't read. |> |> If the website were modified to not accept empty subject it would be a |> very good thing, I'm all for it, but it wouldn't really solve anything |> by itself. We are talking a lot of subjects consisting only of |> "[users][moderated]", but they are only the way in which the real |> problem manifests itself *today*. |> |> I said "meaningful", not empty subjects. |> |> Considering the average competence level of unsubscribed posters to |> this list, if the website forced them to not leave the subject empty, |> at least half of those messages would still have meaningless subjects |> like "help", "openoffice", "it doesn't work" or detailed subjects which |> actually have no relationship whatever with the actual problem. |> There's no way that a web form can handle all such cases. |> |> If they change the website tomorrow but you keep not following the |> official guidelines when you reply, you'll just move all the |> subscribers and the list archives from finding 20 "[user][moderated]" |> replies from you every morning to finding 15/16 "[user][moderated] |> Help!" replies from you every morning. Add to that the fact that |> meaningless subjects can come from subscribed users too, or from |> Gmane, completely bypassing the ooo website, and you'll see why I |> didn't bother too much with the website. |> |> Marco |> | Well, if it's too much bother to fix the web site, it's too much bother | for me to fix the subjects. Having been subscribed to this list almost from it's inception, I have seen this this argument/issue raised ad-nauseam, so I have avoided buying into the recent exchanges. Now I would like to put forward a proposal for consideration, similar to one I have submitted previously. While absent or meaningless subject lines do not distress me to same degree as they do Marco, I understand his motivation, even if I do not agree with his off-list admonishments ;). However, I do agree that the current arrangements for providing support to users who do not know how, or do not elect, to subscribe are less than satisfactory and IMNSHO should be revised. The current simplistic "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] YOU MUST GIVE A SUMMARY HERE" tag on the "Contact Us" page, has no mechanism by which user input can be controlled, because all input from that point is made through the mail client and beyond the control of the site server. The General Outline Of My proposal: * Create an "Contact On-Line Support" (COLS) Page, with a link clearly displayed on the OOo home page. Maybe the same option on support.openoffice.org * The (COLS) Page could provide the necessary preamble about, "Volunteer support", "Posts publicly accessible", etc. etc. and have a big fat "OK Now I Want To Contact On-Line Support" (or something similar) button. * Clicking the button would take the visitor to a PHP driven web form, where they enter all the necessary details (eg. Reply Email Address, Subject, Message, etc.). Then, as far as reasonably possible, the PHP script checks the validity of the data in the form fields. * The visitor clicks a "Send" button at the end of the form and the PHP script generates two emails. One to the original poster, confirming the post, plus any additional guff we want to include. The other to the list, complete with subject line, cc address, etc. * When the above is tested and proven, this list could then be turned over to the de-facto mailing list standard of non-subscribed = no post. Although non-subscribed posters could be sent a "bounce" message, advising them to use the (COLS) Page. The form could be further refined to include other options, such as a drop down list with options to let the visitor choose the type of question (eg. "General Comments" (ie. Observations about OOo, not requests for assistance) which sends the post to the "Discuss" list). PROS: * No more missing subject lines. A reduction in meaningless or overloaded subject lines. * No need to search/filter headers for non-subscribed users. * A simple "reply to all" puts the OP and the list in the recipient address fields. * The (COLS) Page should provide the poster with a better/clearer understanding of who they are contacting and what to expect in response to their submissions. * Reduces spam and the list moderators workload. * Improved list archive search outcomes. CONS: * Some people don't like using web forms. This can be overcome to some degree, by making the form attractive and easy to use. * Non-subscribed newsgroup posters will not be able post directly to the list, as appears to be the case now. Sorry guys, but this *IS* a mailing list. Maybe something could be done to accommodate these posters, but as I see it this would defeat the object of my proposal and return us to the current situation, albeit on a reduced scale. No doubt there are other aspects that I have overlooked, but keep in mind that this is just a rough proposal. No Marco, it is not going to happen tomorrow, but since it not rocket science, it could be done in few short weeks. The questions now are, should it be done, can it be done and if so, who is going to do it. If it can and should be done, then I will do it. I am prepared to build the necessary pages and scripts, then put up a test site on one of my servers to prove functionality. If proven and accepted, the code and scripts could be handed over to the maintainers for incorporation into the OOo web site. Before doing anything, I would first like some feedback (off-list if you wish to reduce list noise) from list subscribers as to how many of you would like to see this proposal (or something similar) implemented. If I consider the response to be sufficiently positive, I will try to approach the powers that be, to determine if my proposal is possible and acceptable. Please feel free to offer "constructive" criticism and suggestions, but it would be appreciated if comments were meaningful and not just nit-picking at the semantics of my post. I have CC'd the discuss list, because this same issue applies to that list, albeit to a lesser degree. Dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHl/jJ7asJm/pW/p8RAgExAJ9rn50uky3GT331NSm3iFGhIHGfBQCbB8o2 XfBrP3YlXns4Qsfd/HVDwg0= =RyP/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
