Alerts have no identifying info

[DaveC426913]

It's still weird that report resolutions have no identifying info. Here's two alerts based on reports I made.

I have no idea who is responding.

Since these particular threads are not ones that have been deleted, I could go find them, determine which forum they're in, then go find what mentors moderate those fora, and I'd have pretty good odds (depending on the forum) on which mentor it was. But it seems an odd place to lack metadata or a way to follow up.

Note that other alerts (such as the one telling me Drakkith replied to a thread) automatically include identifying info.

 

[berkeman]

Interesting. Both of those were handled by me, BTW Dave. I'll do a test to see what the resolution alert says...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

In general for reports, staff should be thought of as a single entity. So we should change "I'll" to "We'll".

 

[berkeman]

Yeah, you're right. No mention of which Mentor handled the Report. Is there a reason you want to be able to contact the Mentor who handled the Report?

 

[ShayanJ]

Yeah, you're right. No mention of which Mentor handled the Report. Is there a reason you want to be able to contact the Mentor who handled the Report?

I had a similar experience. The reason I wanted to know which mentor was it, was that the message showed a sense of friendliness, which made me feel strange because I didn't know who was this guy!

 

[berkeman]

I didn't know who was this guy!

Or gal...

 

[ShayanJ]

Or gal...

Actually I had a few guesses which all were males!

 

[Bandersnatch]

In general for reports, staff should be thought of as a single entity. So we should change "I'll" to "We'll".

I knew it. Mentors are the Borg.

 

[berkeman]

I knew it. Mentors are the Borg.

So then what are Science Advisors?

Congratulations!

 

[ZapperZ]

In general for reports, staff should be thought of as a single entity. So we should change "I'll" to "We'll".

Still, it would be nice to know who handled it. Until there is an identifying signature, the Mentor who handled it should sign the message.

Zz.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Still, it would be nice to know who handled it. Until there is an identifying signature, the Mentor who handled it should sign the message.

Zz.

Why is it important information to the reporter to know who handled it?

 

[mfb]

In case of follow-up questions, it is easier to ask the corresponding mentor directly.
In general, anonymous messages are a bit odd I think.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is it important information to the reporter to know who handled it?

It is weird to get a personal, obviously manually written message from an anonymous source. One should always know who is speaking to them.

Consider, sometimes the response you get can be cryptic or confusing. There's no way to request clarification.
No only do you not know who responded but sometimes you don't even know what the response is about. Sometimes the thread is deleted, and it simply says your issue is 'resolved'. I can't even return to the thread to re-report.

In the age of infinitely drillable data, it can be quite disconcerting.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

In case of follow-up questions

Perhaps, but personally I've never had follow up questions. Consider the fact that we've only had report alerts for a year. No one mentioned this as an issue before we even had alerts. I guess it is how you look at the function of reporting. For me it's nearly a one way street. A member sends in a request for us to look at something. We look at it, make a decision. Then we optionally send a note back saying it was resolved or whatever. What more needs to be communicated to the reporter? I think if we write our resolution notes less personally it will make the difference.

Never-the-less I sent in a feature request to XF.

 

[micromass]

Why is it important information to the reporter to know who handled it?

Because it makes the process more personal.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Because it makes the process more personal.

Sure and I'm suggesting that the process needs not be.

 

[berkeman]

I know of at least one case for me where getting a follow-up question to my closing a post Report was useful. In that case the person reporting the post was a retired Mentor, and when he saw my resolution alert that I'd done << I forget what, and then deleted the thread >>, because he had access to the deleted thread still, he was able to re-report it and I saw his follow-up comments that he had meant his report in a different way.

For now I'll try the suggestion of adding my nick to the Resolution Alert.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure and I'm suggesting that the process needs not be.

That would make sense if the message text itself were impersonal. Although it would still be kind of weird that it isn't a link to the thread in-question.

Anyway, it's no biggie, just a prickly-feeling-on-the-back-of-my-neck-like-I'm-being-watched-through-one-way-glass kind of feeling.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Heard back from XF

This is the designed behavior, as XenForo obscures moderator actions.