On 03/12/2015 09:45 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at
03:27:58PM -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2015 3:01 PM, "Paul W. Frields"
<stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 06:28:05PM +0000, Ankur Sinha
wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 11:58 -0400, Paul W.
Frields wrote:
>>>>
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4187
>>>
>>> That's fine, but how does someone not familiar with
ask.fp.o know to
>>> do that? Why not change the link and investigate the
problem in the
>>> background?
>>>
>> We should definitely fix this, and probably add more
signal to the
>> feedback/help section. Many site moderators (as defined
by contribution
>> karma) don't idle in #fedora-ask - mostly just admins
like myself or Ankur
>> and a few others. I would rate this a lower priority
than the askbot
>> upgrade, though.
>
> Probably -- after the upgrade, if the link isn't magically
fixed, :-)
> I recommend changing it.
>
>>>> The moderation queue in the version we're using
is quite badly designed
>>>> - it's an upstream issue - that's how askbot is.
All those posts aren't
>>>> actually waiting for moderation - even if a mod
approves a post, it
>>>> still seems to show up in another mod's
moderation queue :(
>>>
>>> OK, I understand. What should I do about the 10,000+
items in my
>>> queue?
>>
>> Skim over the most recent ones for obvious dupes and
offensive or harmful
>> posts. Once you hit one that's already been approved or
deleted (this is
>> where I check the fedmsg links), it's fairly safe to
assume all subsequent
>> posts have been moderated. Askbot moderation means that
each post must be
>> moderated by each moderator; there is no shared
moderation queue. However,
>> anything you do to an already moderated post has no
additional affect.
>> Bonus, askbot defines new users as "watched users" and
the can be
>> administratively changed to "approved users" - which has
no noticeable
>> effect. We're really hoping the new version works
better.
>
> Is there a way for me to clear from the queue the 9900+ items
I'm
> unlikely to skim? Or is it likely the upstream update will
remove the
> problem?
I'll make time to update askbot in staging this weekend and let you
know.
(side note, if FAS hasn't been synced to staging in the last week or
so, could someone please do that?)
>
>>>> We informed upstream about this and they've
apparently rewritten the
>>>> moderation part and made a new release. None of
us have managed to find
>>>> the cycles to update the package and test it out
in staging so that we
>>>> can update the production instance. It's high
time I looked into it,
>>>> though - it's been on my todo list for quite a
while.
>>>
>>> I'm happy you are looking into it, and I see from
your other post
>>> there is an updated package.
>>>
>>> However, this raises a potential issue about future
maintenance. It
>>> appears the site gets quite a bit of visitors and
use. What's the
>>> plan to find cycles for the maintenance required for
such a service?
>>
>> I found cycles to update the package and test locally,
but haven't found
>> time to test in staging yet. maybe this weekend, if I
can work it in with
>> the other Fedora commitments I've made. As for a plan...
well, I keep
>> adding to my reading list when you drop quotes, Paul, the
secret has to be
>> in there somewhere :) Joking aside, when the work
required exceeds the
>> available volunteer manhours, the plan is a best-effort
endeavor and good
>> communication. We can probably improve on the second
part.
>
> This is an issue with any community-supported service, and
that's a
> reasonable response. However, to avoid the "kick the can
down the
> road" syndrome, I suggest setting some sort of review date
for
> assessing whether that improvement has happened.
>
> One additional item of interest, but this may go OT for the
> infrastructure list: AIUI there is recent Docs team interest
in how to
> better focus on audience. Unless our project is radically
different
> from the rest of the Internet, I surmise users are looking
for more
> succinct help and answers in general. This means there might
be a way
> to build a sort of positive feedback loop into how we use
ask.fp.o(*)
> to (1) engage Docs team members, especially new people who
pop up to
> help; (2) deliver better answers to users; and (3) create
content that
> can be effectively reused elsewhere.
>
> (*) or something like it, depending on how its maintenance
goes
>
>
I think there are probably enough interested parties that more
organized communication will help. A review date would be good, or
a reference for who is doing what, or what needs to still be done,
whatever. I just opened
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4686 for this.
I do monitor ask.fp.o for 'common issues' to identify potential
priorities for the docs team. The idea of using askbot as a formal
feedback source or even a starting place for new writers is a good
one - a few contributors have come over from being ask users to
casual docs members already, so it works both ways. You're always
welcome on the docs list, Paul, keep 'em coming!
--
-- Pete