Closing a Question
Please refer to my post in Help Center Categories/Family History Centers
A Question (not mine) in Family History Centers closed. In my view unhelpful.
I think a procedure should be introduced so that a question such as this cannot be closed. As it was, I thought the reply was unhelpful, but even if it had been satisfactorily answered, someone else may have wanted to make some additional comment, now or In in the future.
I totally agree.
I just sent a (polite) "Private" 'Message' to a "Moderator" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ] who had "Closed" a 'Question', in the "Q and A" Section, in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, that was NOT "Escalated" to 'FamilySearch' "Support"; where theirs was the one and only 'Answer'/'Comment'; and, they had not even left time for OTHERS to 'Answer'/'Comment'.
[ I has 'seen' the 'Question' last night; but, was busy with some others; so, left it, to get back to today ... ]
To make matters worse I have also noticed that that same "Moderator" has "Closed", quite a number of 'Questions', that were NOT "Escalated" to 'FamilySearch' "Support", giving no time for other 'Answers'/'Comments'.
I do not know if a "Moderator" can; but, I did ask them to REOPEN, the 'Questions' that they summarily and arbitrarily "Closed"; being, those NOT "Escalated" into the workings of 'FamilySearch' "Support".
Just my thoughts.
ps: And, of course, a vote of support0
How odd ...
I just gave a much MORE appropriate (and, actionable process) 'Answer'/'Comment', than a "Moderator", to a (Then) PUBLICLY accessible 'Question'; and, THEN, 'all of a sudden', within Minutes of my posting my 'Answer'/'Comment', that WHOLE 'Question' was "Moved" (and, "Closed"); and, NOW, ... Permission Problem ... You don't have permission to do that ...
"Q and A" Section
Category = Family Tree
Home > Help Center Categories > Family Tree
I want to merge confidential people in my tree.
Perhaps, I 'hit a raw nerve' ...
And, the 'Question' was reconsidered, in light of my 'Answer'/'Comment'; and, (Finally) TAKEN into the inner workings of 'FamilySearch' "Support" - which I alluded would need to be dome at some stage in the process.
I will never know ...
I had the same thing happen to me this week, @Brett . I spent 25 minutes composing a thoughtful message and providing examples on a thread titled Slave Children. The poster suggested that the problem was due to a "well-meaning family historian or indexer". I worked on the project and the instructions were very clear on the way to index the father and slave owner's names. Although the project was completed long ago, I still had the instructions available and was able to paste them into the response for clarification.
Sadly, I went back a little later and the post had been moved, the comments were reduced from 2 to 0, and clicking on it took me to the off-putting "You don't have permission to do that" screen. I also will never know why that post was moved to a secret space for further discussion, or a place where questions are buried, or why my comment was deleted.
BTW - That permission screen needs a huge redo - the emoji attempt is ugly and it makes one think they have done something seriously wrong.
Closing a thread is not a solution. Oftentimes, the first answer is not the correct answer. Secondly, discussion promotes ideas and solutions, especially in the areas of indexing and family history questions. In a community, people need to be able to communicate and share their experiences for the good of the whole. So, @MaureenE123 , you have my support as well!2
Many of the 'Old Hands' (ie. those prior to the INCLUSION of 'FamilySearch' "Support") from this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, are extremely (lets say) "Disappointed", in the way that those 'FamilySearch' "Support" have TAKEN OVER; and, the way that they are 'handlings' things; plus, the way this NEW Platform is working, in that regard.
There has been MANY posts, like this of 'Maureen'.
And, I have been asking in posts (and, via "Private" 'Messaging') the individual "Moderators" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ] to please cease and desist (and, REOPEN certain posts).
Probably just get me ... 'persona non grata' ... again ...
Another five "Questions" closed yesterday (16 July) in the "Q and A - Family Tree" section. Four had the "Permission Problem" page added, but one - despite being "Closed" and saying "This discussed has been moved", was still there - with comments still able to be read and with no change of section title shown at the top of the page.
"Community" has become a very disconcerting place to visit.3
Totally agree on this subject!!!!
why do people think they have to close a question.0
I agree with MaureenE123 - there should be a streamlined 'Closed' process. I have the perception - from the limited time I have been participating in the Community - that some feel there question/concern is not appropriately addressed or status changed appropriately.
I suggest the following: Disclaimer: The process probably is similar already - but I don't see some of these options I am suggesting - and there needs to be process changes to route level of question to the more appropriate group/category. I hope some of these suggestions will be helpful - if not I apologize.
- Some Questions/topics from members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints may not need to be visible by the entire Community - such a separation would need to retain access through a church member account. A requirement to post under member account message/alert could be generated if category/sub-topic was a requirement to select during posting.
- Have the option for the original poster to mark the question closed - currently I do not see this option - the current option to mark 'Accepted Answer' could be a functional equivalent - this indicates their question has been satisfied. Have the notice/checkbox contextual help next to the option informing the original poster what Closed will do to the post. Choosing Yes to Accept Answer currently only tags/badged 'Accepted Answer' - I am unaware but would not like to see moderators mark their own response Accepted - unless there is some 'timing' setting - after such time that the original responder has not accepted an answer that may be allowable. But this is tricky - maybe alert/private message the original poster asking them if they received satisfactory response - if not start the timer over.
This marking should remove the visible post to 'somewhere' for a moderator to glean/post/create a Help Center document or decide whether current documentation is sufficient for the topic. That way posts whether invisible could still be attached to the appropriate Help Center document(s) that addresses the question(s) - thus building the Help Center documentation. The strategy in this case being to hope that 'guests' begin to use the Help Center because they expect to find a helpful article. I am aware most 'guests' probably do not use the Help Center - but if their question is 'resolved' and a document created from that - then hopefully all answers would come from documents in Help Center - of course allowing modification by responders when appropriate. Whether a new Help Center document was created or it was marked 'sufficient documents' an alert/private message to the original poster could allow them to consent/oppose the action.
Otherwise, if the original poster does not mark the question closed - after a sufficient period to believe that the discussion is closed - a moderator should have the ability to Close the question - which would have the same effect as above. The moderator or FS representative could create a lengthy document or a short document for sub-topics addressed during the interaction which could be attached in a sequence when addressing questions of a similar nature. Responses to common questions would become links to a sequence of documents. Grouping documents by Help Center Categories should build the document base within each category - true some Categories would share/duplicate the same document when addressing the same question - but having the document within each Category should help responders efficiently respond.
3. Badge/Level access could determine whether any Community user or only FS representatives are allowed to respond. Badge-level could be dependent upon users reading specific documents and 'coaching' on those documents from moderators. If certain topic categories were required to be selected when the 'guest' creates the question and an option to select 'requires response from FamilySearch' OR 'allow Community response' - this would hopefully help the 'guest' get an appropriate level of response - rather than their issue being visible to inappropriate badge level Community members. Community responders could be 'required' to attach a Help Center document in their response - a standardizing of responses. Not selecting appropriate topic/category responses could lead to 'coaching' from moderators.
4. There also needs to be a way to allow a question/issue to be 'forked' to another topic - hopefully the option would allow a responder to move sub-questions/ideas to another Category or subcategory. Such action might generate an automatic private message to the person that their sub-concern has been moved to another Category. The responder would need to select the text identifying the sub-topic/idea. These actions could be tricky if the original poster has allowed their question to be open for Community response. Perhaps if this is the option selected/defaulted to by the original poster - an automatic Disclaimer private message/alert could be sent to them informing them FamilySearch takes no responsibility for posting/following responses from Community or this could be a general disclaimer where original poster selects 'require FS representative response' or 'allow Community response'.
The possibilities go on and on ... dependent on the capabilities of the platform FS is using.0