New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A new issue should auto-start a discussion #43

Closed
mvl22 opened this Issue Aug 12, 2012 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@mvl22
Member

mvl22 commented Aug 12, 2012

There is currently a 'friction' in starting a discussion on a fresh issue that has come to mind.

If, for instance, cycle parking at a location is need, the process is

  1. Click New issue
  2. Add the issue description
  3. Click New thread
  4. Start the thread with its first message.

This does not compare well with an e-mail list:

  1. Compose the e-mail and press send.

There is also the problem that we end up with issues that have no discussions attached to them.

A suggested solution is that creation of a new issue should also start a new thread with the description being the first e-mail.

The only problem here is that the issue description should be relatively dispassionate (as a short, to-the-point description), whereas a thread is a more subjective discussion. Perhaps the solution is to have a sixth box on the new issue page which forms the message box for a new thread. Labelling would be needed to make clear what the difference between boxes 5 and 6 are, but that would probably avoid the current problem of occasional long descriptions. Box 5 could be made smaller to emphasise the need for short descriptions.

@gravitystorm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gravitystorm

gravitystorm Oct 8, 2012

Member

I think this is a fundamentally bad idea. The separation of problems and discussions is a fundamental principle of Cyclescape.

Also, autogenerating messages with content from issues is going to utterly confuse people.

Member

gravitystorm commented Oct 8, 2012

I think this is a fundamentally bad idea. The separation of problems and discussions is a fundamental principle of Cyclescape.

Also, autogenerating messages with content from issues is going to utterly confuse people.

@mvl22

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mvl22

mvl22 Nov 1, 2012

Member

I can certainly see problems with it, but the current setup is very frictionful. We also have cases where an issue is created but there is no discussion thread, which is decidedly unfriendly and breaks most people's experience of a forum system (which is our nearest equivalent technology).

This definitely needs further consideration, though as I say I can see auto-creation does create problems, such as what group ownership, etc.

There may be something we can do like a tickbox to auto-create a thread, perhaps. Probably best discussed in person to brainstorm potential solutions.

Member

mvl22 commented Nov 1, 2012

I can certainly see problems with it, but the current setup is very frictionful. We also have cases where an issue is created but there is no discussion thread, which is decidedly unfriendly and breaks most people's experience of a forum system (which is our nearest equivalent technology).

This definitely needs further consideration, though as I say I can see auto-creation does create problems, such as what group ownership, etc.

There may be something we can do like a tickbox to auto-create a thread, perhaps. Probably best discussed in person to brainstorm potential solutions.

@mvl22

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mvl22

mvl22 Nov 7, 2012

Member

At the very least, something (a flash perhaps?) needs to be added to make clear that a discussion has not been started, e.g.:

"To start a discussion on this, use the DISCUSS button on the right."
or
"Start a discussion now on this?"

i.e. there is a much clearer flow to get discussion going.

Member

mvl22 commented Nov 7, 2012

At the very least, something (a flash perhaps?) needs to be added to make clear that a discussion has not been started, e.g.:

"To start a discussion on this, use the DISCUSS button on the right."
or
"Start a discussion now on this?"

i.e. there is a much clearer flow to get discussion going.

@davidearl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidearl

davidearl Jun 3, 2013

One of the original 'promises' of cyclescape was that it would be usable by email, and the inability to start a discussion by email is one of the major failings IMO. It is simply too hard to get going, and the less incentivised people, the majority simply won't bother and we'll lose the participation we've built up. This is especially true because you generally have to create not only a thread (as you would in a forum) but also a topic to get a discussion going - and that is once you've got as far as remembering where the web site is (as most users will only be intermittent or occasional) and forgetting passwords and all the rest. It's not like Facebook where devotees treat it as if it were the internet and are always there and familiar with how it works.

I think this issue is the major barrier to use for less committed users who we want to encourage to get more involved.

I think this needs a degree of management from group organisers for it to work: basically taking some of the overhead and thinking process away from the participants.

I think a email (from a registered user, of course) that isn't replying to another should start a new issue and a new thread. Then two admin functions are needed:

1 it should be possible to transfer the thread (all of it, as people may have replied by that time) to another topic (and delete empty topics) where there is already a suitable topic - indeed that is useful independent of how it was created.
2. add (AND AMEND) the geography to a topic after initial creation (again, useful to do that later even on web site created topics).

You can determine which group the thread should be created for by the email address to which it is sent, e.g. camcycle@cyclescape.org or maybe issues@camcycle.cyclescape.org, or maybe even (not exclusively) ISSUENUMBER@camcycle.cyclescape.org to target a new thread in a particular issue.

I think there's also scope for some geography in the subject line, at least to give an initial clue, e.g. @panton Street, Cambridge, though I appreciate that's quite a lot more work, and it only works properly if you can edit the location later in case of error.

By the way: GitHub has the same problem. It would be much easier for me to send an email to cyclestreets@github.com maybe with @toolkit in the subject line to create a new issue than do it here; and it is simpler with Github than Cyclescape.

davidearl commented Jun 3, 2013

One of the original 'promises' of cyclescape was that it would be usable by email, and the inability to start a discussion by email is one of the major failings IMO. It is simply too hard to get going, and the less incentivised people, the majority simply won't bother and we'll lose the participation we've built up. This is especially true because you generally have to create not only a thread (as you would in a forum) but also a topic to get a discussion going - and that is once you've got as far as remembering where the web site is (as most users will only be intermittent or occasional) and forgetting passwords and all the rest. It's not like Facebook where devotees treat it as if it were the internet and are always there and familiar with how it works.

I think this issue is the major barrier to use for less committed users who we want to encourage to get more involved.

I think this needs a degree of management from group organisers for it to work: basically taking some of the overhead and thinking process away from the participants.

I think a email (from a registered user, of course) that isn't replying to another should start a new issue and a new thread. Then two admin functions are needed:

1 it should be possible to transfer the thread (all of it, as people may have replied by that time) to another topic (and delete empty topics) where there is already a suitable topic - indeed that is useful independent of how it was created.
2. add (AND AMEND) the geography to a topic after initial creation (again, useful to do that later even on web site created topics).

You can determine which group the thread should be created for by the email address to which it is sent, e.g. camcycle@cyclescape.org or maybe issues@camcycle.cyclescape.org, or maybe even (not exclusively) ISSUENUMBER@camcycle.cyclescape.org to target a new thread in a particular issue.

I think there's also scope for some geography in the subject line, at least to give an initial clue, e.g. @panton Street, Cambridge, though I appreciate that's quite a lot more work, and it only works properly if you can edit the location later in case of error.

By the way: GitHub has the same problem. It would be much easier for me to send an email to cyclestreets@github.com maybe with @toolkit in the subject line to create a new issue than do it here; and it is simpler with Github than Cyclescape.

@mvl22

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mvl22

mvl22 Mar 4, 2015

Member

Continuing the discussion at: cd3f4a9

Can you clarify exactly what the above commit does? Does it merely display the first message at the head of the thread (which as Andy says is not needed, since the issue extract is already shown), or does it actually clone the issue as the first message automatically?

The underlying issue we are trying to solve is described at:
#43
namely that users create an issue and assume that the job is done, when they also have to create a thread. I think you (Nikolai) suggested that one way to do this is to add the 'Start thread for: ...' & 'With privacy: ...' as two extra fields that get populated dynamically when an issue has been created, or something to prompt this.

I'll copy this message to the issue page, so we can discuss it properly there:
#43

Member

mvl22 commented Mar 4, 2015

Continuing the discussion at: cd3f4a9

Can you clarify exactly what the above commit does? Does it merely display the first message at the head of the thread (which as Andy says is not needed, since the issue extract is already shown), or does it actually clone the issue as the first message automatically?

The underlying issue we are trying to solve is described at:
#43
namely that users create an issue and assume that the job is done, when they also have to create a thread. I think you (Nikolai) suggested that one way to do this is to add the 'Start thread for: ...' & 'With privacy: ...' as two extra fields that get populated dynamically when an issue has been created, or something to prompt this.

I'll copy this message to the issue page, so we can discuss it properly there:
#43

@nikolai-b

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nikolai-b

nikolai-b Mar 4, 2015

Contributor

The one line @gravitystorm is concerned about sets the message body equal to the issue description for the first thread created on an issue. If this is not needed I can remove and merge.

Contributor

nikolai-b commented Mar 4, 2015

The one line @gravitystorm is concerned about sets the message body equal to the issue description for the first thread created on an issue. If this is not needed I can remove and merge.

@mvl22

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mvl22

mvl22 Mar 4, 2015

Member

sets the message body equal to the issue description for the first thread created on an issue

I think this is fine and should go live. It makes a lot more sense this way for e-mail -based users, and for web users it will mean a thread with a proper starting point to which people can actually reply.

I accept it will probably need more iteration in future.

The main thing is that users are prompted to create a thread, which is non-obvious at the moment, given the number of threadless issues.

Member

mvl22 commented Mar 4, 2015

sets the message body equal to the issue description for the first thread created on an issue

I think this is fine and should go live. It makes a lot more sense this way for e-mail -based users, and for web users it will mean a thread with a proper starting point to which people can actually reply.

I accept it will probably need more iteration in future.

The main thing is that users are prompted to create a thread, which is non-obvious at the moment, given the number of threadless issues.

@nikolai-b

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nikolai-b

nikolai-b Apr 1, 2015

Contributor

so for better or worse this is committed in master, closing

Contributor

nikolai-b commented Apr 1, 2015

so for better or worse this is committed in master, closing

@nikolai-b nikolai-b closed this Apr 1, 2015

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment