"Incognito" mode for forum posts - feature suggestion

Service: Hoop.la

"Incognito" mode for forum posts - feature suggestion

Service: Hoop.la

It would be great if we could allow members of a specific permission circle to post a forum topic that would be visible to the masses, but that would reveal the posting member's identity only to admins (or admins and support reps). 

Given the nature of our community (firms in a highly regulated industry), members often post questions privately via QuestionShark that would be helpful to the entire group.  Currently I am manually taking some of those to the forums and posting them myself, with no mention of who asked the original question. 

If the member could select an "incognito" setting when posting in a forum, I believe many of these questions would be posted that way instead, benefiting our members and, selfishly, ME! 

This would be different from the "mark as private" mode in QS, which we have marked by default, and which keeps the whole question private. For reasons I won't bore you with, simply removing that default setting in QS would not be the ideal solution for us.

Thanks!

Mary

Original Post

Activity Stream

Hi, Mary:

I might have a way that you could make this work now:

What if you made a single forum or category, specifically for this purpose. You would create a recipe that moderated ALL new topics (and responses, if you want, but that might not be necessary). You could be very clear in your category and forum intro that the posts are moderated in order to anonymize them, so that a user can post with confidence. 

Your members could post their question to the forum, and the post would go to the moderation queue.

When you see it in the queue, you would edit the post (link on the right side of the popup), and use the "Change Author" option to change to a single user (like your Molly Member, maybe, or a new one, called "Anonymous" or whatever you like). Then you'd approve the post, and it would go out without any other changes required.

It does still require your touch...but minimally.

What do you think?

Lori

Ooo! Even better! Yes, you can do that (with a topic--you can't move a reply to a different category.)

So now you have a single forum where they can post their stuff that they want to keep anonymous. That forum is moderated, and you can move it to the proper category or forum when you approve it! Good thinking!

A note for you, since I just tested this: this is two steps: 1) change the author and the category/forum. 2) approve the content. But, it's still pretty quick.

Having just been the source of human error on this, I would like to renew the original suggestion.

I have been using the workaround noted above (having members post to an Incognito category, then changing the author, etc,) but yesterday I screwed up and answered someone, by name, within the Incognito forum without changing the author on the post.  I thought, incorrectly, that her post was in reply to another thread on a similar topic, and I approved it and responded -- so that is now in everyone's daily digest with her name attached.

Any further suggestions about how I can idiot-proof this process further so I don't screw it up again would be welcome.  I have already heard from a long-time client who says she won't use the Incognito forum because clearly it can't be trusted, and I have to say she's right.

Update - I have deleted the Incognito forum entirely, and created a new Service within the Support Center (QuestionShark) titled Incognito Questions. I have already set it up so that all QS posts are private by default. This way I cannot accidentally post something to a forum under a member's name - I have to manually move the question and set the author.  This workaround should solve the issue for now, but it would be really really really great if the member could just check a box that would suppress their identity from everyone but admins. 

In the meantime, is there a way that I can grab a specific URL for a post to this Service, so I can provide a direct link?

Thanks!!

Add Reply

×
×
×
×