Why does your comments section rely on reputation?

[mlaurencg4]

I submitted this comment: "Given the arrival of iOS 12, with its many enhancements for accessibility, I believe it is time to revise/update your Accessibility blogs / articles.

The result was a window that reported to me: "You don't have enough reputation to post comments on older content"

 

[Spencerdl]

Welcome to iMore. Thanks for joining. I think you have to have at least 10 posts to post in that section. It's set up that way to minimize spam. Feel free to join in on the many threads throughout iMore. Enjoy.

 

[Annie_M]

Yes, welcome to iMore. With all the new accessibility features in iOS 12, I think your suggestion is a good one!

 

[Lee_Bo]

Welcome to iMore. Thanks for joining. I think you have to have at least 10 posts to post in that section. It's set up that way to minimize spam. Feel free to join in on the many threads throughout iMore. Enjoy.

Exactly right.

Welcome to iMore @mlaurencg4. This is really a great question. It's more a way of preventing brand new members from making their first post as a spam post.

Thanks.

 

[Quis89]

Spencer said it best. We would encourage you to become an active participant on the website. Then you won't receive such messages.

 

[deejerydoo]

Why does your forum system tell you that you cannot post the comment only after you have spent all that time writing the comment? If your profile doesn't meet the criteria for making the comment, tell us up front. There is quite literally no reason you cannot do this and the only reason your forum system does it this way is down to poor design or implementation. Please address this.

 

[deejerydoo]

PS: I'm glad my profile allowed that one! ;-P

 

[kataran]

Why does your forum system tell you that you cannot post the comment only after you have spent all that time writing the comment? If your profile doesn't meet the criteria for making the comment, tell us up front. There is quite literally no reason you cannot do this and the only reason your forum system does it this way is down to poor design or implementation. Please address this.

Welcome to iMore

Sorry to hear about your frustration but the system has no way to know what your comment is until you try to post it.

 

[deejerydoo]

Hi Katran, Thank you for your input to my post. Would you like me to point out why your point makes no sense? I'm not having a go, just wanted to clarify if you're OK with me pointing it out, before doing so or if you'd like me to PM you to explain? Cheers, David.

 

[Rob Phillips]

Hi Katran, Thank you for your input to my post. Would you like me to point out why your point makes no sense? I'm not having a go, just wanted to clarify if you're OK with me pointing it out, before doing so or if you'd like me to PM you to explain? Cheers, David.

There is no reason to turn this into a debate. Just like most forums out there, iMore didn’t write the software used to run it. Is there a way so make it detect the user profile prior to him/her typing out their post? No clue, but I’ll forward your concern to our technical staff.
Thank you for your feedback.

 

[deejerydoo]

Thank you for clarifying that point, Rob. My apologies, I didn't realise iMore didn't encourage or allow debates on its forum.

This has now, obviously, as you stated, become some feedback for the forum product developer. As users of the forum we should not be discouraged from or be chastised for pointing out any potential, functional improvements, via imore, to the developer. Unless, of course, you are going to take such feedback as some kind of personal attack.

In this instance, I am simply pointing out a clause that appears to have been put into the end of the code rather than at the start, where it would make more sense. If it checks the user's profile against their rights to post at the end of typing a post, then there is quite literally no reason why that same check couldn't be put into the start of the reply, when the user hits the reply button. You generally don't need to understand the underlying code with functional testing. When your members actually create content on your forum, the last thing you should want to do is slap them in the face, for their efforts. The more user friendly your forum is, the more we both stand to benefit from its use.

 

[Grabber5.0]

You've got me curious... can you post a link to the item you were trying to leave a comment on? It sounds like you are on the right track to me.

 

[pkcable]

I think @deejerydoo has a valid point. It's a balancing act that must be done in order to help prevent spam (a seeming never ending task!) while still being open and welcoming to newcomers. Hence these autochecks and post moderation of new members. I agree 100% it would be better if the system could alert you AS you start typing that there is a potential issue. However the programming required to make that happen may require resources that make it impractical. BUT I'm with ya dee!

 

[Golfdriver97]

Another thing to point out is that often making what seems like a minor change in programming can cause a cascade of problems later on in the same program.

 

[deejerydoo]

This is the article I was trying to respond to. I'd written, a fairly lengthy post only to be told "You don't have enough reputation to post comments on older content."
https://www.imore.com/how-to-back-up-icloud-photo-library

The current process goes:
1. User clicks on reply to a thread.
2. User types reply.
3. Forum checks user's rights to post reply, based on various criteria.
4. The user's right to reply is allowed or disallowed.

If the user is a spammer, then may they rot in a very nasty place for eternity. However, if they are a valuable and valid forum member they may well have just wasted a substantial amount of time only to be turned away because they are new to the forum! A significant number of users would simply walk away and nobody would benefit.

How it should work:
The current process goes:
1. User clicks on reply to a thread.
2. Forum checks user's rights to post reply, based on user profile status criteria.
3. User is given a suitably positive, reinforcing and enlightening response.
4. User types reply.
5. Forum checks user's rights to post reply, based on acceptable use (anti-spam, bad language, etc) criteria.
6. User is given a suitably positive, reinforcing and enlightening response.
7. The user's right to reply is allowed or disallowed.

Now the opportunities for your valued new members to be poked in the virtual eye, because they are newbies is greatly reduced.

It's been a while since I cut code but the clauses and functional change, given above shouldn't be too much of a challenge for a suitably proficient programmer. In my experience the most likely things to prevent these kinds of improvements are organisational (budgetary or mismanagement).

PS: This post is based on 25+ years of working in many areas of this industry.

 

[Just_Me_D]

This is the article I was trying to respond to. I'd written, a fairly lengthy post only to be told "You don't have enough reputation to post comments on older content."
https://www.imore.com/how-to-back-up-icloud-photo-library

The current process goes:
1. User clicks on reply to a thread.
2. User types reply.
3. Forum checks user's rights to post reply, based on various criteria.
4. The user's right to reply is allowed or disallowed.

If the user is a spammer, then may they rot in a very nasty place for eternity. However, if they are a valuable and valid forum member they may well have just wasted a substantial amount of time only to be turned away because they are new to the forum! A significant number of users would simply walk away and nobody would benefit.

How it should work:
The current process goes:
1. User clicks on reply to a thread.
2. Forum checks user's rights to post reply, based on user profile status criteria.
3. User is given a suitably positive, reinforcing and enlightening response.
4. User types reply.
5. Forum checks user's rights to post reply, based on acceptable use (anti-spam, bad language, etc) criteria.
6. User is given a suitably positive, reinforcing and enlightening response.
7. The user's right to reply is allowed or disallowed.

Now the opportunities for your valued new members to be poked in the virtual eye, because they are newbies is greatly reduced.

It's been a while since I cut code but the clauses and functional change, given above shouldn't be too much of a challenge for a suitably proficient programmer. In my experience the most likely things to prevent these kinds of improvements are organisational (budgetary or mismanagement).

PS: This post is based on 25+ years of working in many areas of this industry.

You joined the iMore Forums a couple of months ago. A majority of us here are unfamiliar with you and therefore your reputation has not yet been established here at iMore. It doesn’t matter if you have 100 years of working in many areas of this industry, we don’t know you. Period. This forum did not join you. You joined it.

Our rules and security mechanisms, albeit not perfect, are in place for a reason and there are occasions when things do not go the way they were intended. That’s life. You’ve had the opportunity to state your grievance and it will be taken under advisement.

In the meantime, establish a good reputation by assisting members with issues they may be having with their Apple products and services or by taking the time to shoot the breeze with fellow forum members. In the meantime, enjoy your time here at iMore.

 

[Wotchered]

I agree completely with deejerydoo, when I first joined iMore I had the same experience, which appeared to me to be just plain rude. Every other site I had been on lets you know what the score is when you call for a keyboard, they don’t let you go through the business of writing your post out first! just plain aggravating !!

 

[Just_Me_D]

I agree completely with deejerydoo, when I first joined iMore I had the same experience, which appeared to me to be just plain rude. Every other site I had been on lets you know what the score is when you call for a keyboard, they don’t let you go through the business of writing your post out first! just plain aggravating !!

Yet, you hung in there, established your reputation and you’ve since been able to go about your business of participating in the forums and we love having you here....

 

[deejerydoo]

Just tried posting to another thread and got the "You don't have enough reputation to post comments on older content".

How much "reputation" do I have to get?
How do I go about getting it?
Where can I see how my accumulation of it is going?
What can I do with my reply now!? It is still valid and I'd still like to post it.
Does this process involve chickens and dancing about in sheepskin chaps at the next full moon? :-D

Just_Me_D, I am getting the impression, from your replies, that you are not seeing any problem or room for improvement, either in the giving information or process, here!? Or is this all a part of the iMore initiation/filtering process?

 

[pkcable]

Just tried posting to another thread and got the "You don't have enough reputation to post comments on older content".

How much "reputation" do I have to get?
How do I go about getting it?
Where can I see how my accumulation of it is going?
What can I do with my reply now!? It is still valid and I'd still like to post it.
Does this process involve chickens and dancing about in sheepskin chaps at the next full moon? :-D

Just_Me_D, I am getting the impression, from your replies, that you are not seeing any problem or room for improvement, either in the giving information or process, here!? Or is this all a part of the iMore initiation/filtering process?

I personally mentioned this to iMore administrators. I believe they are looking in to the issue. As I said earlier it’s related to spam prevention. Certainly you are not being singled out, and you have done nothing wrong.

Best bet is to just keep posting in the forums and eventually this will no longer be a problem. I’m not sure if this is the answer BUT some stuff in the forums (example the ability to send PMs to regular membership) opens up at 10 posts.