I'd like to give a little 'user feedback' about the PM functionality. I received a private message from Monkban which I spent 20 minutes crafting a well-organized response to. When I tried to send it I got a message saying I did not have enough posts to private message. I hit the back button to try to copy my text to get to Monkban in another way but the text had been cleared. Super! Fine, you have a minimum number of posts required to be able to PM somebody. But if a superposter PM's me, shouldn't I be able to at least reply? If your administrator logic says 'no' to that one, could we at least introduce functionality that informs the PM'er that the recipient cannot reply to him/her by PM so the PM'er could send along alternate contact information? Or that the recipient who does not have the ability to PM anyway receives that little warning message as soon as they hit the 'Post reply' button, not after they've wasted time during their annual visit back to the home country typing up a response and then have the warning message come only after they try to send it. I remember that from Programming Logic 101: the user should receive warnings or failures as early in the process as possible. At any rate, Monkban, if you send me alternate contact info in another private message I'd be happy to get you the information you requested via another channel.

The reasons for individuals with a low post count being unable to use the Private Messaging facility are already documented in this section.

The ability for individuals with a low post count to read private messages is a concession granted by the admins to avoid the frustration of having a message you cannot read. Regular users of the forum are well aware of these restrictions.

The generation of error messages in this situation is not a current feature of phpBB. However, if you wish to utilise your extensive knowledge gained from Programming Logic 101 to write the necessary modification, please feel free and once it has been thoroughly tested we will implement it and give you credit.

JF

Call me sensitive but this is the "Feedback" section so I thought it was an invitation to give honest feedback. I did not realize it was an invitation to critical & sarcastic responses from an administrator. I am a little too busy to code and test my proposed mod so I guess I will have to suffer until I can obtain "regular user" status. That is if I am not booted off the forum for my own sarcastic reply.

You got a reply in a similar tone to your original post.

If you care to glance over the other threads in this section (and others) you will see that constructive feedback is not only welcomed but often requested.

JF

JF....excuse me for butting in, and please don't bite my head off (you should be relaxed and chilled after coming back from your exotic holiday )
...but I think Burbaco made a fair point without being too sarcastic in her original post.

However, rather than writing some new modification via this programming logic 101, I think the point should be raised in the most relevant section for new users. Probably the Rules and Regulations for example. A few people have encountered similar problems and it would be only fair to point this out at the start. I can see her frustration at losing a well crafted and time consuming reply to someone who should have known she could not reply.

I wont bite your head off Gilly, in fact I wouldn't want your head anywhere near my mouth you're Scottish remember...

I didn't say it wasn't a valid point. The problem we have is achieving a balance and we thought allowing low posters to view the messages may have gone some way towards this.

We are in the process of rewriting the forums rules and policies, and it is likely that we will have a section there to give new users some guidelines. However, the problem is that no-one reads stuff like that. Have a look at the page views for the thread:

Announcement: READ ME BEFORE POSTING

It's in this section and as of just now it has has 128 page views. Now, doesn't that say something...

As to sarcasm, nice polite or amusing feedback posts get nice polite or amusing informative replies. Posts containg sarcasm get the same back.

JF

Sure understand! I read it though. At least if there were some guidelines then there would be no excuse, and people would then deserve the wrath of The Maganda Hunter!

I honestly was not being sarcastic in my original post. While writing it I re-read it & was afraid it might come off that way so I went to the length of adding a smiley face - I thought it would keep the tone light. So I do apologize if it was interpreted as sarcasm. I had read all of the posts in the Rules & Announcements section and have been reading this forum regularly since last summer. I am aware of the rules in place around private messaging and can appreciate why they are there. I was only trying to give additional feedback about the process as it stands now. I'm sure this site takes an enormous amount of time to maintain and I understand if administrators would be unwilling to consider my proposal. I will just try to post more often instead of merely enjoying what everyone else has written...that way I hope to open my own door to the alluring world of private messaging!

sorry, i guess i am a bit at fault here as well. the code base for the PM/email functionality is the largest and most intricate for the phpBB software. with over 2000 lines of code. i didn't realise that apart from somewhere along line 1200, another 'is user prevented from sending PMs' check takes place around 300 lines down as well.

i have now included the warnings and failures in the process at this point in the code, making it that they appear as early as possible ie when user wants to compose a new PM or post a reply to PM received. honestly we do listen to our members' feedback and, although not always, act on it as well if within our power to do so


the forum software definitely does *not* clear the text of your message when one hits the back - or forward button. feedback about your Internet browser should be given to the makers of said software.


i agree that this would be a nice feature to have alas this is not a current feature of phpBB. as JohnF already mentioned in his post: the admins already have made the concession of granting individuals with a low post count to read private messages to avoid the frustration of having a message you cannot read. currently we have no plans nor time to code a feature like the one you mentioned for this forum.

alternate contact info could usually quite easily be found in user's profiles when they have chosen to provide such info. Monkban could have been contacted alternatively through the email service we also provide our members with through this board.

i agree with JohnF that you received a reply in a similar tone to your original post. even though a 'Wink smiley' was used in your post it came across to me as rather condescending. i put it down to the written word not having the same intonation as when spoken. please let it not stop you or others from giving feedback.

FD

Thanks so much for making the change. I was frustrated and apologize for any unintended sarcasm or condescendation (is that a word? it sounds like a meterological by-product!)

no problem burbaco!

FD