Help: Provide Link to User's Site in Forum Post #52979
Conversation
|
Oh my goodness! Thank you! A few questions on the no-site form:
And if you really want to feel like a genie in a bottle for us, my only other ask is an option to let the site link be hidden, since people sometimes don't want to share their site address because of privacy reasons. Lately I've been telling them if they'll type it like this |
|
Quick suggestion on the language for the one-site option, or checkmark for the multi-site option:
could be
|
|
Hi Velda, thank you very much!
From my understanding, those sites shouldn't see this form as they should be offered the ability to email or chat with support. I suppose the exception might be if a user with an Atomic site has lost access to their account, but I can't imagine that happens much or enough to justify a specific case here. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding though!
Yes, definitely. I think that we can do better by querying the site too and checking if it's a WordPress.com one so that users receive a tailored message - for example.
Will definitely implement this! I'll probably update this PR with all the changes this weekend (or maybe a little earlier). |
|
@supernovia This should all be covered now! I've been looking into your question about Jetpack and Atomic sites. Although we shouldn't need to worry about Atomic sites since they can't see this form, there is a decision to be made about how to handle Jetpack sites. Below are two notices which will appear based on the URL entered by the user. Currently, the "your site is not hosted on our services" notice won't be displayed if the site is connected to WordPress.com (ie. a Jetpack one). I felt that some people might have genuine issues with the plugin that can only be resolved in the forum, whereas that probably isn't likely if the user's site isn't a Jetpack one. Do we want to display this notice for Jetpack sites?
We could hide the notice, but add something like "My site is X. It is a self-hosted site connected by Jetpack." to the end of the Forums message. That might save volunteers a lot of time who have to manually check each URL. Let me know what you'd prefer. :) |
|
This feature is amazing! I was just thinking about something similar. Great work on this!! |
|
Thank you for tackling this again, @Aurorum!
We can help with some Jetpack-related issues in the WordPress.com forums - stats issues, follower migration, issues involving the WordPress.com account specifically like disconnecting Jetpack sites - but not all, and most of the time it's better if folks contact Jetpack support directly. So I'd err on the side of showing the notice to Jetpack users. But I'd also change the copy: the majority of issues aren't hosting related, and most hosts don't provide WordPress support, so exclusively referring people to their hosts might not be the best call. Something like:
Followed by the rest. It's more wordy (our editorial team can review the final copy once the rest of the PR is sorted out - you can add the |
|
Thanks @KokkieH! I've ensured that this notice displays for Jetpack users, and if they choose to submit a forum thread, people will be able to easily see if it's a Jetpack site as one of these messages will appear:
I should note that it's not possible to check if the URL is a WordPress site - it might not be, so the copy needs to reflect that, which is why I avoided using "your version of WordPress" in the notice. Screenshot of the notice: Text in it that would be great to get a review on:
This PR should be ready now (unless anyone has other recommendations) but unfortunately, I don't have the ability to add labels to request an editorial review. It'd definitely be worth it though, especially for that phrase since it's trying to convey a lot in a single notice. @sixhours - Hi! Since you've worked on Help a lot recently, would you know who's best suited to review this (I appreciate it's slightly larger!) or could you please add a label requesting an editorial review? |
|
Hi there, had to publicly praise you for this @Aurorum |
|
Heyyyyy! I'd be happy to give this a look, and I'm flagging it for review by other folks in Serenity. I should be able to test it this Thursday. :) |
| blogHelpMessage = translate( 'The site I need help with is %(siteUrl)s.', { | ||
| args: { | ||
| siteUrl: userRequestsHidingUrl | ||
| ? translate( '[visible only to staff]' ) + ' help@' + siteUrl |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How does this work? When the forum message text contains an email address prefixed with [visible only to staff], then it's hidden from public and visible to forum admins?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nevermind, I see this question answered in existing comments on this PR 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The [visible only to staff] technically could be removed! I mainly just included it to ensure volunteers who aren't staff on the Forums don't get confused, but happy to exclude it instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How does this work? When the forum message text contains an email address prefixed with [visible only to staff], then it's hidden from public and visible to forum admins?
Not commenting on the code, but I can confirm email addresses posted in the forums are not visible to non-a8c staff. Pinging @jmdodd as well on this, as she's the expert on how things work in the forums themselves in this regard.
|
|
||
| this.setState( { isSubmitting: true } ); | ||
| this.recordCompactSubmit( 'forums' ); | ||
|
|
||
| let blogHelpMessage = translate( "I don't have a site linked to this WordPress.com account" ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we really translate these messages to the user's selected language? Or should all forum posts be English?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll check this again to be certain, but I think that depending on the user's selected language, the question will be posted in a Forum for their language, so this should be translated. For example, the French forum contains numerous threads sent from this form: https://wordpress.com/fr/forums/topic-tag/wpcomhelp/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If a user's account language matches a language for which we have a support forum, their requests are automatically sent to the appropriate language forum, afaik.
Public list of our non-English forums can be found at https://wordpress.com/forums/topic/forums-in-other-languages-not-english/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if I submit a question in a language that doesn't have a dedicated forum? In Czech, for example, the Help form would be localized. But will there be anyone to undestand my question? Does it happen in practice?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For languages that we don't have a forum in, it would go to the English forum, and there we'll use Google Translate to help the user.
This is consistent with paid support as well - in the languages we do offer localized support, people get routed to the support queue for their specific language, otherwise their request goes into the English queue.
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const forumMessage = message + '\n\n' + blogHelpMessage; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In other support channels, e.g., when submitting a ticked with submitKayakoTicket, we add the "meta info" at the beginning of the message, not at the end. Let's make the message formats adhere to some convention.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm happy to update that, but my initial reasoning was that the "meta info" already appears at the end for threads created directly in the Forums. For example, you can see that on this thread: https://wordpress.com/forums/topic/home-page-not-displaying-menu/
Because of that, I feel like changing it around might be more inconsistent or slightly jarring for volunteers. Let me know if you still think it's worth switching around though! :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just wanted to point out that other support methods format the message differently. I don't really know what's right for this situation. Maybe @KokkieH and @supernovia will have more qualified opinions about this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is for the "The blog I need help with is..." section, correct?
In the forums that has always been appended at the end of the first message, both for threads created directly in the forums, and for threads created via the contact form before it stopped happening without any apparent explanation two years ago, as reported in #38280
| this.props.requestSite( query, false, true ).then( ( siteData ) => | ||
| this.setState( { | ||
| siteData, | ||
| } ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In case of success, the siteData will be undefined. The promise returned from requestSite doesn't provide the site data.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll check this out again today, but from what I remember, I don't believe that there should be successful cases because that would require the user having capabilities on that site. In order for this to be called, the user needs to select a box that declares they need help with a site which they don't have capabilities on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh I see, in this case, we're pretty much guaranteed to see a site that is not managed by us, and get the SITE_REQUEST_FAILURE action returned in this case.
I tried to make requestSite returned promises more reasonable in #53187. If that gets landed, the HelpContactForm can install .then( site => ... ) and .catch( error => ... ) and set its local state accordingly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In order for this to be called, the user needs to select a box that declares they need help with a site which they don't have capabilities on.
This is over my head so I'm not sure I understand the implications, but I do want to point out people will frequently ask for help with a site they're not connected to (like if they are logged into the wrong account, or are struggling with account recovery).
Ultimately I hope folks can share a site link even if they are in the wrong account, and even if it's .org (or wix for that matter), but that they'll have a heads up.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ultimately I hope folks can share a site link even if they are in the wrong account, and even if it's .org (or wix for that matter), but that they'll have a heads up.
Just to be clear, both of these should happen, and the site link will still be included! :)
client/state/sites/actions.js
Outdated
| errorCode: error.error, | ||
| statusCode: error.status, | ||
| } ); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be much better if requestSite returned a reasonable promise. I.e., resolve with site info on success, and reject with the error on failure. That would require checking all usages of dispatch( requestSite( siteId ) ).then( ... ) and making them work with rejected promises, too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that'd make sense, but I feel it might be a little outside the scope of this PR, especially since it's only really dealing with failures in a specific scenario and there's a risk of causing issues elsewhere by changing that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel it might be a little outside the scope of this PR
That's true, it's complex enough to deserve its own PR. I just created #53187 for that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Testing this again, and I think there's a couple more tweaks needed to make this work with #53187 too. I'll try and fix those and then fix up the whitespace at the same time. :)
matticbot
added
the
[Status] Needs Review
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👋 Hey hey @Aurorum ! Thanks so much for tackling this! It looks great to me; I tested with all account types and got the expected results.
I have some minor UI/UX feedback, but I don't want to hold this up or add unnecessary complexity, just food for thought.
It feels odd to me to have the URL privacy option split from the URL selection options, but I can see why having two checkboxes in a row would look weird/confusing. I also found it a little awkward that I can't "select" my site when I only have one; it feels like the copy is asking me to choose, but there's no way to actually select my single site.
Which got me thinking, what if the site picker was a dropdown with an option at the end "I need help with a different site", which when selected would let the text input appear. Beware, expert-level mockup coming at ya:
Again, food for thought, not a blocker. Happiness may also have thoughts. :)
Noticed a potential color annotations issue that is maybe not specific to this PR; the selected menu item has a white gradient:
|
Ah, I forgot about those! That issue will be fixed automatically when the next Jetpack release is out (the fix relies on Automattic/jetpack#19917), but I don't really think there's a solution until then. |
|
Thank you @Aurorum ! |
|
This new feature is amazing! So helpful! Thank you. Hats off to everyone involved. I am still gathering more input to provide some feedback :) |
|
Thank you @csabarakasz! |
|
Just so you've got a heads up on what I'm hearing, it sounds like people would like to streamline what's added to the post. I need more team feedback and might not get it til Tuesday, but perhaps something like this would work? Site: will either show as [redacted] or as a link If we say unknown that should make any false negatives a non-issue. Also, I've had some feedback about allowing people to hide their site. IMO what we're seeing with hidden sites is still nowhere near the cases we previously had where people didn't provide a site link at all, but we have seen a handful of cases so far where the user "hides" their site link while also providing a link in their post. IDK, users will use, but it's something we can keep an eye on and think about for iteration. |
|
That would work! A couple of questions to think about though:
My personal feelings currently lean to "Unknown" being best in cases when it's genuinely not known (for example, currently we just assume 403 errors are private WP.com sites, but I've seen two cases where they're actually Jetpack ones) - but I'm still happy to have that for all cases instead of a "No" case. The difficulty is the odd cases which you've mentioned, such as when a domain has expired! I guess that a lot of people are just checking the hidden site option for the sake of it. One option might be inverting the checkbox so that it's to enable displaying the site and having the default stage as automatically checked (under the assumption that people lean more towards checking boxes rather than leaving them empty). |
|
Hi! Re: the checkbox, let's leave it unchecked. I think a few people will still check it anyway because they're not paying attention, but I'd think most folks will leave it be. We already warn them of a longer response time. Maybe say "This option may delay help." in bold, then leaving the rest about staff being able to see it. Re: unknown, I'd rather have "unknown" than false negatives 🤔 -- if we leave all of the logic as is, then change just the word to "no" once that Jetpack PR goes live, would that work? If we leave it as unknown for a while, but pretend as staff that it means "no" , then at will help us spot any other cases that might show up as false negatives. Regarding the list words, here's what my team agreed on today: Site: [redacted] OR http://theirsite.wordpress.com <-- they do want this to link if possible We were going to bold these labels, too, but I think that'd be suboptimal for SEO, so we'll leave them as is.
|
|
Hi! That should all be fine to implement - I'll probably have it done tomorrow or Friday. :) |
|
Translation for this Pull Request has now been finished. |
Thank you so much! 🏆 |
|
PR for those changes in #54052. :)
I should note that this is possible except for when the user has requested to hide the URL, unfortunately it won't link then. |
|
We understand it won't work for hidden addresses, yes, that's fine :) As long as the visible ones are hyperlinked, that would already make our lives a lot easier, thank you! |
|
I'm not seeing this as having been raised anywhere yet, but there appears to be an error in the translation/language settings. Example: https://wordpress.com/forums/topic/website-not-updated-after-edition/ The staff note is displaying as:
Unsurprisingly, the user has their language set to Chinese.
|
|
Hi @rootjosh, is there issue here with the actual translation itself or the fact that it's not in English? If the latter, whenever the User's Language settings is set to a different language, the support message will currently be in that language too because it could be sent to a non-English forum (that didn't happen in this case because there isn't a Chinese Forums). That does make it a little awkward when the user types their issue in English like with the thread you linked, but my understanding is that this is intentional. However, is the issue here that the message should be in English when it's sent to the English forums? |
|
No issue with the translation itself that I'm aware of (though I'm the wrong person to ask). My comment was more around the language not matching the forum. I think ideally the message would be in English for the English forum. Actually, it should probably match whatever language a forum was set to use. Having the message be in French because a French speaker posted in the Italian forum would be weird as well. As the message isn't really FOR the user making the post, it both looks odd and is unhelpful for anyone (staff or volunteers) who might be trying to assist the user in to see the message in the user's chosen language rather than the forum's "native" language. |
That makes sense, I'll work on that. :) |
|
I've included that change in #54052! That would prevent the issue in the thread which you linked. |
|
Awesome! Thank you. |
|
#HUGETHANKS! |
|
Hi there, I wanted to check in with the website hosting check feature.
Generally I love it! My question: Is it still true, that basically when we see "Unknown" at the WP.com, for the majority of the cases it means the site is not WordPress.com hosted? The reason why I ask because as a volunteer, when members choose to hide the website URL, I often find myself being hesitant to answer to the OP, because I am not sure whether it is really unknown or it is a no, but we are saying unknown. As a result, I, as a volunteer, become less efficient in helping. When we used the sentence version for this, it was a little bit more clear to me, even if someone chose to hide their website URL.
I guess if this is still true then I can just follow the pretend the "unknown" is a basically a no method. Thanks for the confirmation. |
|
Hi @csabarakasz, from a code perspective, nothing has changed regarding the checks which determine whether a site is self-hosted or not. In almost cases, "Unknown" should be equivalent to "No". However, there might be a really small proportion of cases where it is actually hosted by WordPress.com. I've fixed all of the ones reported here where that happens, except #52979 (comment), which I don't think there's a good solution to. But that should still only be a tiny minority of cases. |
|
Thanks for the reply @Aurorum! What would be the best place to report misdiagnosed sites. Yesterday I saw one where it was recognized as a WordPress.com site even-though it wasn't. I ended up not responding to the OP because of that. In this case, the URL was visible for me. I can imagine it is possible for this to happen when the URL is hidden for us. |
|
It's probably best to just ping me here! I'll be sure to take a look at that example tomorrow since that's definitely not working correctly - thanks for letting me know. :) |
|
I think that I've figured out what was causing the issue with that particular site - it should be fixed by #54954! :) |
|
@Aurorum this change has been amazing. Thank you so much for your work on this. I have a tiny request - at the moment the site URL line is appended with a full-stop, left over from the first version where the info was indicated as sentences rather than a list. Would it be possible to get rid of that? It will just simplify things in cases where we need to highlight>copy the URL in stead of clicking it, for example when it's hidden by converting it into an email address. |
|
Thank you! And sure thing, I've included removing that full stop as part of #54954. |
|
Brilliant! Thank you! |
Changes proposed in this Pull Request
Testing instructions
The way this is supposed to work is based on the number of sites which the user owns. You can compare the flows below:
When a user enters the URL, it also performs some quick checks:
Depending on the options, one of the following messages will be included at the end of the Forums post:
Note: If the site is self-hosted, a message either saying "It is not hosted by WordPress.com, but it is connected with Jetpack" or "It is not hosted by WordPress.com or connected with Jetpack" will be included too. This should save volunteers from having to manually check each blog, which can quickly become tiresome.
This also introduces an option to hide the URL in the Forums by setting it as an email; it'll automatically be hidden in the Forums due to this. You can see these changes in action below: https://wordpress.com/forums/topic/testing-please-ignore-apologies/
@supernovia @KokkieH I'd be really grateful for any feedback which you could provide about this. :)
cc @jsnajdr
Fixes #38280
Fixes #16015
Fixes #16016