When a post is responded to don't call it answered
This is a roll over issue that started back in SalesForce. An answered question should only be a question (or discussion, etc.) that has really received an approved answer. I love the "Accepted Answer" field. Until the patron is satisfied with the answers and marks an Accepted Answer then the question really hasn't been answered.
When someone first responds to the post/question/discussion it should be marked "Responded to" not "Answered." This way a moderator could differentiate between posts that are not responded to vs those that someone has at least made a response. Then once you see Responded To you would be able to help distinguish those that truly provided an answer.
The progression for marking discussions/questions, etc. should be:
- Blank (not responded to) 2. Responded to 3. Accepted Answer
To me until a question is marked Accepted Answer it probably hasn't been fully answered.
Comments
-
Robert
As you must know, it isn't the person who raised the original post who marks the response as an "Accepted Answer" - it is the moderator. Hopefully, if the moderator views it that way so will the poster. However, patrons often don't seem to return here after posting their queries - or at least they don't always acknowledge the response / answer is acceptable to them!
(See https://community.familysearch.org/en/categories/family-tree/p2. Your "colleague" ME Doran appears to have marked many of these responses as "Accepted Answer" - well, several of mine that appear in "Q and A"!)
So I'm afraid I am inclined to disagree with your view, "To me until a question is marked Accepted Answer it probably hasn't been fully answered". Neither "Answered" or "Accepted Answer" necessarily reflect the feelings of the original poster on the issue.
0 -
So this is actually a very valid point brought up by many people. Often, when people respond to a question the comment is a clarifying question, or an @ mention to someone else, doesn't effectively answer the question or just is a comment of agreement. If the label changes to "Answered" it deters other people from responding to it.
0 -
Your response here today led me to find where I had made my original comments on the related issue of an "Accepted Answer".
Just a few hours ago I posted at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/84980/moderators-would-you-please-stop-marking-my-responses-as-accepted-answer#latest on the latter issue, as moderators are still taking it upon themselves to decide what only the original poster should be allowed to do: to mark whether they feel a response to their post is, to them, an "Accepted Answer".
Perhaps you could have a chat with your fellow administrators and moderators in an attempt to resolve the current way responses are being labelled.
0 -
Paul
FYI
Like many, of late, I have been 'Receiving', a number of "Accepted Answers", from my responses to various 'Questions'.
All, but a "Very" SMALL number, of those "Accepted Answers", were from the 'Posters', of the original 'Questions'.
The bulk/majority of those "Accepted Answers" were obviously from, 'FamilySearch' Personnel, the likes of, either, "Support" Missionaries; and/or, Group Leaders; but, certainly NOT an "Administrator" of the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum - as, they did not have that [ Admin ] 'Box' indicator next to their "Contact Name"; and, they ONLY had ONE "Star" next to their "Contact Name", indicating a new or NOT so active participant.
Due to my recent 'status' in the Forum, I have been reluctant to respond in previous 'Posts' in the Forum, regarding the matter of what, is; and, should be an, "Accepted Answer", to 'Questions.
But ...
That said ...
Most recently, in two cases, of "Accepted Answers", for 'Questions' in which I responded, I felt compelled to send a 'Message' directly to the 'FamilySearch' Personnel who "Marked" responses/answers as "Accepted Answers".
In one instance ('Question'), I made a very 'quick' response that MAY have somewhat addressed the 'Question'; but, was certainly nowhere near a full or complete answer; yet, my response was "Marked" as an "Accepted Answer", OTHER THAN, by the 'Poster' of the 'Question'. In fact, such was "Marked" as an "Accepted Answer" by a User/Patron (ie. Participant of this Forum), who DID NOT have that [ Admin ] 'Box' indicator (nor, such like 'Group Leader') next to their "Contact Name"; and, they ONLY had ONE "Star" next to their "Contact Name".
In another instance ('Question'), I noticed that a User/Patron (ie. Participant of this Forum), who DID NOT have that [ Admin ] 'Box' indicator (nor, such like 'Group Leader') next to their "Contact Name"; and, they ONLY had ONE "Star" next to their "Contact Name", responded to a 'Question' (in fact, was at that stage, the FIRST and ONLY response); and, THEN, promptly "Marked" their response as an "Accepted Answer". A short while later while I was in the process of preparing a response to the 'Question', the original 'Poster' of the 'Question', responded to the, so marked "Accepted Answer"; and, CLEALY, the original 'Poster' of the 'Question', DID NOT consider the so marked "Accepted Answer", was such an acceptable answer.
In, BOTH, those aforementioned instances, I sent a, polite and apologetic, 'Message' directly to the Users/Patrons (ie. Participants of this Forum), who DID NOT have that [ Admin ] 'Box' indicator (nor, such like 'Group Leader') next to their "Contact Names"; and, they ONLY had ONE "Star" next to their "Contact Names", who "Marked" the "Accepted Answers", requesting the REMOVAL of the 'status' of "Accepted Answer", in the first instance, from MY response; and, in the second instance, from the PARTICULAR response of the User/Patron (ie. Participants of this Forum).
My response in BOTH 'Messages' was the same ...
==========
"Contact Name"
REQUEST
As, you were NOT, the ORIGINAL User/Patron, who posted the 'Question' ...
------------------
[ Instance One ... ]
Could you please REMOVE, the "Accepted Answer", from MY response, that you applied to the following 'Question':
...
------------------
[ Instance Two ... ]
Could you please REMOVE, the "Accepted Answer", from YOUR response, that you applied to the following 'Question':
...
------------------
'Thank You in advance.
Brett
.
APPLOGY
I humbly apologise, for this 'Message'; and, my request.
I am certain that you were doing as you have been directed/trained.
But ...
That said ...
'FamilySearch' Personnel (ie. including: "Support" Missionaries; and, Group Leaders), should NOT "Accept" an "Answer", on behalf of the ORIGINAL poster of a 'Question' - the EXCEPTION being, that unless, so (personally) requested/advised, by the ORIGINAL poster.
IF, the ORIGINAL poster of a 'Question', DOES NOT, "Accept" ANY "Answer", for whatever reason, for a 'Question', that they posted; THEN, so be it - that is the way it should be; and, remain.
'Questions', DO NOT, require an "Accepted Answer"; as, NOW, there is an 'Indicator', that a 'Question' has been "Answered".
The main reason 'FamilySearch' Personnel, should NOT, "Accept" an "Answer", on behalf of the ORIGINAL poster of a 'Question', being that there can CERATINLY be MORE than ONE "Acceptable Answer" to a 'Question'; and, the ORIGINAL poster MAY have a TOTALLY different perspective, on what is an acceptable answer.
ONLY the ORIGINAL poster of a 'Question' SHOULD be the one to "Accept" an "Answer".
ONLY the ORIGINAL poster of a 'Question' should have the ABILITY to "Accept" an "Answer".
I am certain that is CONTRARY to what the "Administration" of the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum have/has decided/directed.
But, this matter of, "Accepted Answers" being applied to 'Questions', other than by the ORIGINAL poster of the 'Question'; as, being UNACCEPTABLE, has ALREADY been raised, of late, by a number of OTHER Users/Patrons in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
This policy/direction, of "Accepted Answers" being applied to 'Questions', other than by the ORIGINAL poster of the 'Question', NEEDS to be "Changed" ( ie. Stop).
'Thank You' in advance'.
Brett
ps: I am very well aware that you will need to refer this matter, up the line, to the "Administration" of the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
==========
I would like to reaffirm my suggestion in the comments above, as an example of the 'Messages' I sent.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0
