Last week to accelerate the changes and finish this "mega-review" I emailed Verdi (because sometimes threads go below the radar and email just works) to ask him to please take a look into it as soon as he could. He looked at them and proposed an action plan for him and Michelle, to split the work, and just a suggestion to archive this article. Because the content is already present in other articles we agreed over the email that it was an small change that made sense.
Let's keep the conversation on the article discussion board.
Alyce, sorry about that.
I started reviewing the Sync content some weeks ago and asked for feedback along the process (i.e. https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/knowledge-base-articles/707058) cause the opinion of all of you matter a lot.
Last week to accelerate the changes and finish this "mega-review" I emailed Verdi (because sometimes threads go below the radar and email just works) to ask him to please take a look into it as soon as he could. He looked at them and proposed an action plan for him and Michelle, to split the work, and just a suggestion to archive this article. Because the content is already present in other articles we agreed over the email that it was an small change that made sense.
Let's keep the conversation on the article discussion board.
This is a long thread, and having looked through some of it (admittedly not reading everything fully) I wonder if the following points are still in need of discussion.
Searching the archived articles, consider adding new search category Verdi said
Remove the article from normal searches. It would still be able to be found in an advanced search.
Is that what actually happened. I did not notice any contradictory statements, but it seems the archived articles may have disappeared even from advanced searches. Maybe adding a specific additional category archived to the advanced search would sometimes be of use.
(Use the original post if you need all scoobi's correct links)
This is a long thread, and having looked through some of it (admittedly not reading everything fully) I wonder if the following points are still in need of discussion.
<u>Searching the archived articles, consider adding new search category</u><br/>
''Verdi [/forums/contributors/704981?page=2#post-30807 said]''
<blockquote>
*Remove the article from normal searches. It would still be able to be found in an advanced search.
</blockquote>
Is that what actually happened. I did not notice any contradictory statements, but it seems the archived articles may have disappeared even from advanced searches. Maybe adding a specific additional category ''archived'' to the advanced search would sometimes be of use.
* example search https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/search?w=1&a=1&tags=&language=en-US&category=10&category=20&q=longer+maintained that should pick up the text box about it being an archived article, but the search only returns one kb article. The search does not include any archived articles.
<u>Consider unarchiving</u>
* [[Firefox makes unrequested connections]] <br/> as it is linked to from elsewhere see [/forums/contributors/704981?page=2#post-36524]
* [[live bookmarks]] <br/> ''scoobidiver [/forums/contributors/704981?page=3#post-41944 said]''
<blockquote>
rss is [/forums/contributors/707147?last=41594&page=3 #61 search term]. Can we unarchive [[Live bookmarks]] and then update it?
ActiveX is [/forums/contributors/707147?last=41594&page=3 #92 search term] and "active x" is [/forums/contributors/707147?last=41594&page=3 #153 search term]. Can we unarchive [[ActiveX]] and then update it?
</blockquote>
(Use the original post if you need all scoobi's correct links)
TEST the reply links do not seem to work, they certainly do not work from the preview.
In my last post I resorted to making manual links. The post under was generated by clicking the reply option, the John99 said link at least should work correctly.
In preview it generates https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/contributors/704981/reply#post-42596 and does not even give a 404
This is a long thread, and having looked through some of it (admittedly not reading everything fully) I wonder if the following points are still in need of discussion.
Searching the archived articles, consider adding new search category Verdi said
Remove the article from normal searches. It would still be able to be found in an advanced search.
Is that what actually happened. I did not notice any contradictory statements, but it seems the archived articles may have disappeared even from advanced searches. Maybe adding a specific additional category archived to the advanced search would sometimes be of use.
(Use the original post if you need all scoobi's correct links)
TEST the reply links do not seem to work, they certainly do not work from the preview.
In my last post I resorted to making manual links. The post under was generated by clicking the reply option, the '''''John99 said''''' link at least should work correctly.
In preview it generates https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/contributors/704981/reply#post-42596 and does not even give a 404
'''Edit''' RESULT
It works fine in the final post & generates link
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/contributors/704981?page=4#post-42596
I will start another thread about this, it appears to be a change in sumo.
See now [/forums/contributors/707658#post-42598]
-------
''John99 [[#post-42596|said]]''
<blockquote>
This is a long thread, and having looked through some of it (admittedly not reading everything fully) I wonder if the following points are still in need of discussion.
<u>Searching the archived articles, consider adding new search category</u><br/>
''Verdi [/forums/contributors/704981?page=2#post-30807 said]''
<blockquote>
*Remove the article from normal searches. It would still be able to be found in an advanced search.
</blockquote>
Is that what actually happened. I did not notice any contradictory statements, but it seems the archived articles may have disappeared even from advanced searches. Maybe adding a specific additional category ''archived'' to the advanced search would sometimes be of use.
* example search https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/search?w=1&a=1&tags=&language=en-US&category=10&category=20&q=longer+maintained that should pick up the text box about it being an archived article, but the search only returns one kb article. The search does not include any archived articles.
<u>Consider unarchiving</u>
* [[Firefox makes unrequested connections]] <br/> as it is linked to from elsewhere see [/forums/contributors/704981?page=2#post-36524]
* [[live bookmarks]] <br/> ''scoobidiver [/forums/contributors/704981?page=3#post-41944 said]''
<blockquote>
rss is [/forums/contributors/707147?last=41594&page=3 #61 search term]. Can we unarchive [[Live bookmarks]] and then update it?
ActiveX is [/forums/contributors/707147?last=41594&page=3 #92 search term] and "active x" is [/forums/contributors/707147?last=41594&page=3 #153 search term]. Can we unarchive [[ActiveX]] and then update it?
</blockquote>
(Use the original post if you need all scoobi's correct links)
</blockquote>
it seems the archived articles may have disappeared even from advanced searches. Maybe adding a specific additional category archived to the advanced search would sometimes be of use.
As a user doesn't know what archived means from a SUMO point of view, there's a "Include obsolete articles?" checkbox in the advanced search form.
''John99 [[#post-42596|said]]''
<blockquote>
it seems the archived articles may have disappeared even from advanced searches. Maybe adding a specific additional category ''archived'' to the advanced search would sometimes be of use.
</blockquote>
As a user doesn't know what archived means from a SUMO point of view, there's a "Include obsolete articles?" checkbox in the advanced search form.
<blockquote>
Consider unarchiving
</blockquote>
Verdi has already answered in their respective article discussion forums except for [[Firefox makes unrequested connections]] which is linked to from [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/legal/privacy/firefox.html Firefox Privacy Policy]. For it, post a new thread in its discussion forum.
My point was that we shouldn't un-archive an outdated article that confuses people when they find it in their search results. After we determine that an article should be un-archived, we should update it first, if needed, and then un-archive it
As you can see here, you can still update archived articles before unarchiving them.
''AliceWyman [[#post-41962|said]]''
<blockquote>
My point was that we shouldn't un-archive an outdated article that confuses people when they find it in their search results. After we determine that an article should be un-archived, we should update it first, if needed, and then un-archive it
</blockquote>
As you can see [/en-US/kb/Firefox%20makes%20unrequested%20connections/history here], you can still update archived articles before unarchiving them.
As a user doesn't know what archived means from a SUMO point of view, there's a "Include obsolete articles?" checkbox in the advanced search form. <snip> except for How to stop Firefox from making automatic connections which is linked to from Firefox Privacy Policy. For it, post a new thread in its discussion forum.
Oohps! I missed that, the bottom of the search form is often scrolled off my screen.
I started a discussion thread as suggested, but of course those discussions probably are not going to be seen by many.
''scoobidiver [[#post-42599|said]]''
<blockquote>
As a user doesn't know what archived means from a SUMO point of view, there's a "Include obsolete articles?" checkbox in the advanced search form. <snip> except for [[Firefox makes unrequested connections]] which is linked to from [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/legal/privacy/firefox.html Firefox Privacy Policy]. For it, post a new thread in its discussion forum.
</blockquote>
Oohps! I missed that, the bottom of the search form is often scrolled off my screen.
I started a discussion thread as suggested, but of course those discussions probably are not going to be seen by many.
My point was that we shouldn't un-archive an outdated article that confuses people when they find it in their search results. After we determine that an article should be un-archived, we should update it first, if needed, and then un-archive it
As you can see here, you can still update archived articles before unarchiving them.
I suggested that earlier. ...So you no longer disagree?
''scoobidiver [[#post-42602|said]]''
<blockquote>
''AliceWyman [[#post-41962|said]]''
<blockquote>
My point was that we shouldn't un-archive an outdated article that confuses people when they find it in their search results. After we determine that an article should be un-archived, we should update it first, if needed, and then un-archive it
</blockquote>
As you can see [/en-US/kb/Firefox%20makes%20unrequested%20connections/history here], you can still update archived articles before unarchiving them.
</blockquote>
I suggested that [/forums/contributors/704981?page=3#post-41956 earlier]. ...So you no longer disagree?
''AliceWyman [[#post-42605|said]]''
<blockquote>
...So you no longer disagree?
</blockquote>
When I agree to unarchive an article, I update it but there mustn't be easy ways to do that (no Edit Article button, no pen in the history).
Unarchiving even in a valid case is not a priority. Do you know how many people have accessed to [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/legal/privacy/firefox.html Firefox Privacy Policy]? Probably less than those that have accessed to [[Websites look wrong]] with 22% of helpfulness.
So, if someone proposes that an article be un-archived and you (or another "reviewer") agree, that's enough? No admin approval needed, unless two or more "reviewers" disagree?
That sounds like a good policy.
So, if someone proposes that an article be un-archived and you (or another "reviewer") agree, that's enough? No admin approval needed, unless two or more "reviewers" disagree?
That sounds like a good policy.
On the process to un-archive an article: Is admin approval needed or is it enough that the issue is opened up for discussion beforehand? Should that discussion be here or in the individual article discussion forum? If there are no objections after a reasonable time period, can any reviewer un-archive an article (and then update the Support Article Tracking page if necessary)? In any case, I would suggest that the article be updated first, using the "Edit article based on this revision" link in History, so that an up-do-date version can be approved before being un-archived.
''scoobidiver [[#post-42609|said]]''
<blockquote>
Only admins can unarchive articles and that's a good policy.
</blockquote>
Where is that policy given?
P.S. [/forums/contributors/704981?page=3#post-41956 I asked this earlier] and never got an answer:
<blockquote>'''On the process to un-archive an article:''' Is admin approval needed or is it enough that the issue is opened up for discussion beforehand? Should that discussion be here or in the individual article discussion forum? If there are no objections after a reasonable time period, can any reviewer un-archive an article (and then update the [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Support/Article_Tracking Support Article Tracking] page if necessary)? In any case, I would suggest that the article be updated first, using the "Edit article based on this revision" link in History, so that an up-do-date version can be approved before being un-archived.</blockquote>
Since there has been no admin reply to the above and no one has objected to un-archiving the How to stop Firefox from making automatic connections article here or in its article discussion forum, I un-archived it and then approved the revision by scoobidiver.
Since there has been no admin reply to the above and no one has objected to un-archiving the [[Firefox makes unrequested connections]] article here or in its article discussion forum, I un-archived it and then approved the revision by scoobidiver.
Since there has been no admin reply to the above and no one has objected to un-archiving the How to stop Firefox from making automatic connections article here or in its article discussion forum, I un-archived it and then approved the revision by scoobidiver.
If you have questions about the content of the sumo site and I haven't answered in the forum, please email me (mverdi@mozilla.com), ping me on IRC (verdi in #sumo) or send me a private message to let me know.
I don't remember what the issue was with this article. I'll look into it later today.
''AliceWyman [[#post-42759|said]]''
<blockquote>
Since there has been no admin reply to the above and no one has objected to un-archiving the [[Firefox makes unrequested connections]] article here or in its article discussion forum, I un-archived it and then approved the revision by scoobidiver.
</blockquote>
If you have questions about the content of the sumo site and I haven't answered in the forum, please email me (mverdi@mozilla.com), ping me on IRC (verdi in #sumo) or send me a private message to let me know.
I don't remember what the issue was with this article. I'll look into it later today.
When you (or another admin) come up with a process for un-archiving articles that answers the questions posted here and in the article discussion forum, could you post it here?
P.S. A description of the process for un-archiving articles probably belongs in the About the Knowledge Base section on archiving articles. Related discussion: /forums/contributors/706935 Draft of knowledge base policies
Michael,
When you (or another admin) come up with a process for un-archiving articles that answers the questions posted here and in the [/en-US/kb/Firefox%20makes%20unrequested%20connections/discuss/1873 article discussion forum], could you post it here?
P.S. A description of the process for un-archiving articles probably belongs in the [[How the Knowledge Base works#w_archiving-articles]] section on archiving articles. Related discussion: [/forums/contributors/706935] Draft of knowledge base policies
If you have questions about the content of the sumo site and I haven't answered in the forum, please email me (mverdi@mozilla.com), ping me on IRC (verdi in #sumo) or send me a private message to let me know.
<openness police>
That's not to say the answer should be given privately. How about they just ping you about the question using those methods.
</openness police>
''Verdi [[#post-42765|said]]''
<blockquote>
If you have questions about the content of the sumo site and I haven't answered in the forum, please email me (mverdi@mozilla.com), ping me on IRC (verdi in #sumo) or send me a private message to let me know.
</blockquote>
<openness police>
That's not to say the answer should be given privately. How about they just ping you about the question using those methods.
</openness police>
I think that's what Michael meant. It's so easy to miss a question on one of our communication channels with the amount of stuff that is currently going on. So, a gentle reminder now and then is very welcome ;)
I think that's what Michael meant. It's so easy to miss a question on one of our communication channels with the amount of stuff that is currently going on. So, a gentle reminder now and then is very welcome ;)
Why wouldn't it work to just add Attn: Verdi or Attn: Admin (like adding [site-issue]) to the top of the thread? Admins should monitor these forums. I don't use IRC and don't have e-mail addresses handy. PM's is another option but it's easy to miss the tiny Inbox indicator at the top of the page (Hey! I see one now!) and I've missed PMs for 3-4 days before noticing it. AFAIK you can't elect to get e-mail notifications when you get a PM (like you do on MozillaZine).
Why wouldn't it work to just add '''Attn: Verdi''' or '''Attn: Admin''' (like adding '''[site-issue]''') to the top of the thread? Admins should monitor these forums. I don't use IRC and don't have e-mail addresses handy. PM's is another option but it's easy to miss the tiny Inbox indicator at the top of the page (Hey! I see one now!) and I've missed PMs for 3-4 days before noticing it. AFAIK you can't elect to get e-mail notifications when you get a PM (like you do on MozillaZine).
''AliceWyman [[#post-42798|said]]''
<blockquote>
AFAIK you can't elect to get e-mail notifications when you get a PM (like you do on MozillaZine).
</blockquote>
See [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=681375 Bug 681375 - Send out emails for new private messages] with no target milestone.
Why wouldn't it work to just add Attn: Verdi or Attn: Admin (like adding [site-issue]) to the top of the thread? Admins should monitor these forums. I don't use IRC and don't have e-mail addresses handy. PM's is another option but it's easy to miss the tiny Inbox indicator at the top of the page (Hey! I see one now!) and I've missed PMs for 3-4 days before noticing it. AFAIK you can't elect to get e-mail notifications when you get a PM (like you do on MozillaZine).
That should work too. Speaking for myself, the irc or email ping will find me faster.
<openness police>
That's not to say the answer should be given privately. How about they just ping you about the question using those methods.
</openness police>
Absolutely. Like Kadir said, I find it easy to miss stuff.
''AliceWyman [[#post-42798|said]]''
<blockquote>
Why wouldn't it work to just add '''Attn: Verdi''' or '''Attn: Admin''' (like adding '''[site-issue]''') to the top of the thread? Admins should monitor these forums. I don't use IRC and don't have e-mail addresses handy. PM's is another option but it's easy to miss the tiny Inbox indicator at the top of the page (Hey! I see one now!) and I've missed PMs for 3-4 days before noticing it. AFAIK you can't elect to get e-mail notifications when you get a PM (like you do on MozillaZine).
</blockquote>
That should work too. Speaking for myself, the irc or email ping will find me faster.
''Chris_Ilias [[#post-42783|said]]''
<blockquote>
<openness police>
That's not to say the answer should be given privately. How about they just ping you about the question using those methods.
</openness police>
</blockquote>
Absolutely. Like Kadir said, I find it easy to miss stuff.
